Starbucks target of new-media campaign by union

An ambitious "Stop Starbucks" offensive includes a website (StopStarbucks.com) featuring a four-minute video assailing Starbucks' treatment of workers, and a petition demanding that CEO Howard Schultz “quit following Wal-Mart’s anti-union example." By week's end, almost 12,000 had signed the petition, and nearly 40,000 had viewed the video, organizers said. || Read "Starbucks target of new-media campaign by union"

Comments

[uniondoesnotequalbetterpay]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=d5646715-5663-4937-bd2f-2bf5160a7b2f

WAL-MART WINS BIG UNION BATTLE
Terence Corcoran, Financial Post
Published: Thursday, April 09, 2009

Let's see how this news plays out: Union takes on Wal-Mart under most favourable union laws in North America, and Wal-Mart wins hands down. The union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), had forced its way, via Quebec's union-friendly card-check organizing laws, into representing workers at a lone Wal-Mart store back in 2005. Yesterday, the union emerged with the first-ever North American Wal-Mart union arbitrated contract, with nothing to show for it in terms of worker benefits.

After three years of negotiation and arbitration, the UFCW received the bad news yesterday from arbitrator Alain Corriveau. Union calls for wage and benefit increases were rejected, which means that all the union's big promises -- of bonuses and 5% annual wage gains worth up to $1.3-million a year --have turned to dust. In fact, new workers at the store, in the small community of Saint-Hyacinthe, south east of Montreal, will now find themselves paying union dues to a union that didn't get them anything.

In a bizarre twist, the arbitrator did award existing workers a small wage gain of 30¢ an hour in each of the next two years. The reason: To prevent them from being "impoverished" by dues paid to a union that failed to justify wages increases to the arbitrator. As a result, new workers hired by Wal-Mart will not receive that extra 30¢.

The arbitration ruling, however, is a major vindication of Wal-Mart. In unmistakable language, the arbitrator portrayed Wal-Mart as at least as good an employer --even a superior employer -- compared with other retailers. More importantly for the company, the arbitrator refused to disturb Wal-Mart's famous "business model."

The union wanted to bring in standard automatic-progression annual wage scales. You come to work, you get paid. The company wanted to maintain its system of paying on the basis of "performance at work evaluated each year."

Wal-Mart's compensation system, said the arbitrator, "must be retained," and "falls within the culture of the company which encourages and privileges performance at work." He added: "Putting into place ... a wage scale as proposed by the union would also drastically change an important piece of [Wal-Mart's] business model." It would force the company to exclude the 180 Saint-Hyacinthe employees from the company-wide annual performance evaluation. "I do not think that this is desirable, particularly within the scope of a first collective agreement, especially since this would be a major change and, in that sense, it is better left to the parties to re-discuss the issue during a next negotiation."

Among other findings, the arbitrator said that 80% of Wal-Mart employees are hired at rates above the minimum wage. The current wage scale runs from $9.21 an hour at the lowest level to $12.00 at higher levels and top rates of $16.20. The average wage at the store is around $11-an-hour. "The wages offered by Wal-Mart to its employees," said Mr. Courriveau, "are comparable to, sometimes even more advantageous, than those paid by Zellers to its regular full-time employees."

So Wal-Mart is a winner here, which draws even more attention to the warped process by which the union ended up where it is now. No secret-ballot vote was ever held among the 180 Saint-Hyacinthe Wal-Mart employees. Instead, the union deployed the infamous card-check method, which is the law in Quebec, the only Canadian province to still deny workers the right to a secret ballot.

The arbitration is also an imposed legal requirement. The UFCW officially won the Saint-Hyacinthe card-check vote in 2005. Under Quebec law, after it failed to negotiate a deal with Wal-Mart, a contract is imposed by arbitration.

If the UFCW can't get a favourable deal out of North America's most union-friendly jurisdiction, what hope is there elsewhere? The union has encountered failure wherever it has gone across Canada in search of a first kill. This should put a final end to the great Canadian union war on Wal-Mart. Wayne Hanley, head of the UFCW, didn't return my phone call yesterday.

In the United States, the union-friendly Obama administration is trying to push through card-check as a replacement for a secret ballot during union organizing drives. Under card-check, union organizers hold powerful upper hands. They go out to individual workers at their homes and other non-workplace locations, urging workers to sign cards that are tantamount to votes for certification. The process can be intimidating and pressure-filed.

Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart is a major lobbyist against the Ombama-led card-check move in the United States. What the Saint-Hyacinthe example may show is that even when the laws are stacked in their favour, unions have a tough time winning over workers and arbitrators.

[mikeeeee]

Interesting paragraph by uniondoesnotequalbettpay, In a bizarre twist, the arbitrator did award existing workers a small wage gain of 30¢ an hour in each of the next two years. The reason: To prevent them from being "impoverished" by dues paid to a union that failed to justify wages increases to the arbitrator. As a result, new workers hired by Wal-Mart will not receive that extra 30¢.

As some other posters mentioned it, paying that union due was such a waste of money.

[jfk]

"if you're so negative don't join and dont bash unions."

Why not? You have the right to express your opinion about how great they are. I have the right to disagree and even express a negative opinion.

The IWW is a bunch of radical socialist far lefties who are able to organize a kegger at most. Does the IWW have a health care plan? Or does it just like to cry sour grapes about Starbucks' plan?

My dues would be far better spent toward health insurance premiums, or even toward beer, than to a bunch of far left radicals.

For kicks I went to your website and read what you guys have posted. You guys are opposed to capitalism! That tells me all I need to know.

Being opposed to unions is no more wrong or offensive than being in favor of them.

[unionsucks]

Only uneducated people join unions. Take a look at white collar jobs - all educated people know that unions do not work for the private sector. As someone mentioned previously, why don't bank employees join unions, why don't accountants join unions, why don't computer techies like microsoft employees or google employees join unions... because they know they won't be ahead. They're smart.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ unionsucks

I'm basically neutral on the Starbucks union because I don't know much about that union. The reason why techies, accountants, lawyers, etc. don't join unions is simply the rule of supply & demand. Professionals in those fields are in such high demand that they don't need the one major benefit that the best of the unions offer - bargaining power. Unions can have the most influence in situations where individuals in a fragmented labor pool have to negotiate against a small number of large organizations. I don't think the comparison with accountants, computer techies & Google employees is comparable to the Starbucks situation.

I will concede, however, that unions do seem to have a very spotty record in terms of their effect on the long term viability of their members' jobs.

[Big Green Monkey]

I will never join a union. If working conditions and pay are bad, I'll find a better job, not form a union. I'd almost never accept a job where I have to belong to a union (are astronauts union?).

[jac]

For the most part, top performers regardless of industry or job almost never want a union. They don't need "protection." High performance is itself the best form of protection. Not always, but mostly.

The people most in need of a union are underperformers in large job groups. Their inability to distinguish themselves, except by under-performance, leaves them vulnerable.

That's pretty much all you need to know about whether to join or not join a union.

[)P##&]

Not True jac

It's to bad you're close minded :(

[INFO]

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz believes workers should “believe in their hearts that management trusted them and treated them with respect...If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.”

Starbucks has been lobbying for an anti-labor compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act, requiring 70% of workers to sign a union authorization card to form a union instead of the 50% proposed by this legislation.

In the past few years, Starbucks has settled five labor complaints in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota that threatened to expose their unfair labor practices.

In 2008, the National Labor Relations Board found Starbucks maintained multiple policies which interfered with workers' right to communicate about the union and about working conditions; terminated three workers in retaliation for union activity; and repeatedly discriminated against union supporters.

At eight Starbucks located in the Twin Cities, the National Labor Relations Board found the company engaged in unfair labor practices to thwart workers' efforts to unionize.

Starbucks and Schultz engaged in union busting tactics at the company's Kent, Washington roasting plant in 1999, when workers wanted to unionize for regulated wages.

At a Washington state roasting plant, Starbucks workers filed local, state, and federal charges of coercion, discrimination, health and safety violations, intimidation, and physical assault.

Starbucks agreed to pay $85,000 to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed in 2006 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission after the company fired a Seattle barista with bipolar disorder.

Baristas earn wages equal to and in some cases less than Wal-Mart workers at $7-$9 an hour.

Starbucks does not guarantee set hours for workers, even those regarded as "full time."

Starbucks' Optimal Scheduling policy forces workers to dramatically increase their own availability, which means that if baristas want to work full-time hours, they must be available 80.5 hours a week. (This prevents low-earning baristas from having the time to take a second job to support themselves.)

Starbucks Washington managers have filed suit after being forced to work unpaid overtime.

Starbucks provides less than 42% of its 127,000 U.S. employees with health coverage -- lower than Wal-Mart, which insures about 47% of its workers.

[unionsucks]

If you don't want to work at Starbucks go and work for Walmart. Change from green blood to blue blood.

[expiredshot]

I just left the company (corporate) by choice and found out the hard way about the vacation thing. It is the only company I have ever heard of that does this. I’m very disappointed because I did love Starbucks and it was because of my passion for the company and my team that I didn’t take my vacation earlier. Pretty sure it’s not a shock that most of the corporate employees remaining after the layoffs have been busting their butts to get the work done. It’s disappointing to know that Starbucks went above and beyond to find a loophole to take money from people when they leave. I had every intention to be on good terms I as set out on a new adventure but I hate to say that's no longer the case. Pretty sure the financial impact of my friends, family and myself never going back to Starbucks is going to hurt them more than if they had paid me out the money most companies would have said I deserved. this is legendary service at it’s best with a sprinkle of respect and dignity. I ALWAYS supported the company until now. it's sad.

[SBUX Alum Bill]

@ NEWS

The above article from the Phoenix Business Journal is heavily slanted & only presents the Starbucks case. I think the Wikipedia entry on the
Free Choice Act presents a much more balanced analysis. It includes an extensive section showing the primary arguments from both points of view.

[Jimmy Coleman]

Fight the good fight Starbucks Union! I would love to organize a Starbucks myself. All these conservative comments are by anti-union, fascists anyways guys. Your right to join a union is defined in the International Declaration of Human Rights. Do not let these clowns on the right talk you out of using those rights. Organize!