Starbucks employees move to unionize after being told to work at least 24 hours a week

Simon Gosselin, an employee at the Quebec City Starbucks, claims Starbucks made "unfair" changes to working conditions when it told the staff -- mostly student workers -- they had to work at least 24 hours a week or be fired. "I was working between 12 and 16 hours, most of the employees were doing it as well, and none of us will be able to do that anymore," complains Gosselin. Read "Starbucks staff tries to unionize in Quebec City"

Comments

[Jonny]

Are you kidding me, a company no longer can stop hiring part-time employee.. A company should be able to do whatever they want..it's a free Market..oh..o.. I forgot it's Canada!

[me myself and I]

Well Starbucks can certainly be bad, but joining a union because of it? Might be worse.

Anyway, if you are pro or con unions doesn't matter. If you are unhappy, go ahead, tell everybody how bad they are treating you and look for another low wage job. There are certainly some around. Just be flexible. (I know not everybody can be flexible, but a lot of students could be, if they are willing to sacrifice just a little for their job.)

[Nolan]

Hey! That is Quebec, whole different animal, most Canadians don't even consider it part of Canada they are so different.

Ignorant American, they are following in the footprints of American Starbucks employees that have done the same. But oh, when its in Canada its different. Dumb ass.

[Will]

Hey, Jonny, you're right, it IS a free market, and in a free market, employees and human capital can organize any way they see fit.

I'm so tired of "conservatives" just being shills for corporate interests. Republicans in America aren't really interested in limited government, individual rights, etc -- they just want to maximize corporate profits by any means necessary, be it corporate welfare, stomping on people's rights (ie TORT reform), or union busting.

Businesses are entitled to run their businesses how they see fit, and to make a healthy profit doing it, but not at the expense of human rights and dignity.

[Vancity]

Although there are many similarities between Canada and the US, this is one area of difference. This case seems to have to do with the new Optimal Scheduling getting ready to take effect next month in Canada. In the US, Starbucks can fire tenured partners at will who will not comply with working at least three shifts per week.

In Canada however, employment standards are dictated by individual provinces, many of which have stipulations that require BOTH the company and the employee to AGREE on the changes to the employment contract. Therefore, if the employee disagrees and/or cannot work Starbucks' requested three shifts per week, Starbucks will have to either let the partner work their originally agreed to shifts, or fire the partner without cause and pay them severance.

[JT]

Will,

Please hang your BS "human rights and dignity" crap at the door. Starbucks is in NO WAY tramplin gon people's rights. You have a job. Do your freakin job. If you do not like it, go elsewhere. Free market economy works both ways.

[Nolan]

Just to clarify my comment was in response to Jonny.

Also, Vancity is exactly right with respect to laws in most provinces and the requirement to pay severance (although not often more than two weeks salary) when an employment contract, written or based on historical employment conditions (read verbal or assumed) when an employee is terminated.

Not to sure about Quebec though as their legal system the way I understand it is bijuridical. Their civil law is based on French Heritage Law and criminal is based on Canadian Common Law. They are the only province that does not base their entire legal system on common law.

Therefor it could be anybody's guess as to the requirements in Quebec. One thing is for sure though, students working a part time job should not be exploiting the right to unionize. Unions are meant to protect full time workers who have careers in industries where they may be exploited, not to protect kids who are going to school to work in other industries and part time jobs are just pit stops on the highway of life. Every student I talk to who works at a starbucks loves their job and the fact that they are treated relatively well compared to other part time jobs.

[Will]

Human rights as in the right to organize. I see union busting, and people trying to infringe on that right as being a violation of human rights.

Sorry that you think the "free market" means that employees shouldn't have rights.

[Shift Supervisor]

A union would destroy a company like Starbucks. I use to be a shop steward in the Teamsters Union and all it will do is take more money out of your paycheck. You will probably get more benefits (Starbucks already gives you a lot that other companies don't) but it will also cause the company to do even more cutbacks and even raise their prices to make up the difference in the extra benefits they would offer. In turn more stores closing and also raising prices will cause more customers to leave and in turn do even more cutbacks....are you following this. So a Union would NOT help in any way. BUT I do agree there needs to be some kind of "secure" voice for the partners in the company where one can speak up without any fear of retaliation of any kind. I know I know you will say they do not retaliate it is in their policy not to but come on....get real we all know it happens in many many different forms.

[Former Union Shift Sup.]

Has anyone ever noticed that when the topic of Unions comes up most people go into automatic Knee-jerk reaction mode???
It's a bit like talking about religion-people believe what they believe-usually because their parents believed it- and rarely do they try to really understand what each other are talking about...
I worked for a Unionized Starbucks and after the dust settled and the Company got used to it, everything was fine. I paid a few bucks a month in dues and I knew there was a contract that they would be held to. NOTE: this was a contract that THEY agreed to, which was negotiated by their lawyers across the table from a group of brave baristas.
For all of you Americans out there who work in 'At Will' States, I understand that it would be hard ( and nice) to imagine your employer needing an actual reason to get rid of you...I live in one now and after living my whole life in Canada which has MUCH more protective Labour laws, it's pretty hard to get used to. Canada is not America, folks! The 'Free Market' is not supreme. PS in my experience, the general goal of any Union worth it's salt is a world where Unions are no longer needed. PPS. The union did NOT destroy Starbucks-no stores were closed. @Shift Supervisor: the 'secure voice' you talk about is what the Union gave us.

[mini french press]

as a student I would kill to get a guaranteed 24+ hours a week on top of a full course load and extracurriculars. It must be frustrating to be told you have to work the 24 hours, but really, is it going to be that big of a burden to make a little more money and have a little less time watching tv while complaining about how you're so busy? Probs not.

[Pat Nerr]

while I am no fan of a Union at Starbucks... it cracks me up that after major trauma that the company endured just a few years ago in Vancouver BC... that they didn't learn a single lesson at all about f'n with employees hours up there... and good luck to Starbucks in dealing with it up there this time as Anti-Union laws are much tougher than in the US...

I guess they think history doesn't apply to them...

[Vancity]

@ Nolan

You hit the nail on the head!! And Quebec is a different animal than the rest of the country. Mind you as a born and bred BC boy, I don't have the kindest sentiments towards Quebec either ;)

@ Pat Nerr

Bottom line is that ignorance is alive and well at Starbucks!! There might only be a few people at SCC and regional that would know about these differences, but that information is not communicated to either the area, district, or especially the store level. Unfortunately, the company relies on the genuine ignorance of store level partners on labor issues and fully takes advantage of this!! A simple web search of provincial employment standards acts can allow partners to print off the applicable sections and have it at their disposal in black and white!!

[Clarence Ewing]

I don't see being required to work 24 housrs per week as a big deal, or a violation of rights. At my job I'm required to work 40 hours per week.

That being said, any group of workers has the right to organize and petition for better working conditions. I'm not sure the "right" to work less than 24 hours per week is one of them.

[Former Union Shift Sup.]

I think part of the problem here ( and at most stores ) is that Starbucks wants employees to be available for something like 80% of the open hours BUT will not promise any set amount of shifts so this makes it impossible to get another job (in case you only get 4 hours ) and also makes it virtually impossible to do anything else like go to school or go away for a weekend or study for an exam.
ps I know most people reading this site will already know this but it seemed to need to be said again

[Bov]

Confused. You're complaining you have to work more than 12 hours to get a free pound of coffee and 30%? really? If all you work is 16 you don't have bills to pay thus no job needed. Was that too harsh or was that a life statement?

[Nona Suomy]

Just out of curiosity: is anyone else being "test-marketed" for the new fixed scheduling procedures?

Rumor has it that the district I work in is one of the "few" that is being subjected to this, but it does not seem... legal? It enforces the same exact schedule for every single week, for shifts supervisors and baristas alike. But here's the kicker: 100% WITHOUT the option to request off EVER. Meaning, (despite the fact that our vacation hours have been topped off depending on how long one has been employed by the company) our vacation hours will continue to accrue and we have no choice but to use them on our already scheduled days off in order to continue to accrue what we've earned.

But long gone are the days of requesting off, if only for one day, should it be on one of your already-set-in-stone scheduled days. You need a week off because you'll be out-of-state? You need to call around and get those five/six days scheduled. And if you can't... you're S.O.L.

[OverCaffeinated]

That's ridiculous. I've hears rumours of this fixed-schedule thing for a while now, but we haven't started it in my area. Honestly, if partners accrue vacation time, they have a right to use it. I know my DM has taken at least two 2week vacations since I've been in her district (about a year). Upper Management doesn't seem to be suffering from the same type of benefit cuts that us hourly partners have dealt with in the last year, i.e. losing personal days, vacation days etc. The new rules regarding the fixed-schedule seem to be designed to keep hourly partners from using their hard-earned vacation days, thus saving the company money when we lose them. This is why unionizing may not be a bad idea. Small steps back for workers' rights eventually turn into large losses when you look back, and once gone it's that much harder to regain them. Perhaps those that share Jonny's views should do a little reading in their history books and learn why unions were so vital to building America's middle class and gaining the standard of living they've grown accostomed to. Weekends, vacation days, and 40 hour work weeks didn't always exist. Maybe turning off Fox News wouldn't be a bad idea, either.

[smoothienotvivanno]

Former Union Shift Sup hit the nail on the head with his explanation.

I was incredulous a few weeks ago as my RM explained the fixed-schedule thing to me. Almost as if he had single-handedly made it up himself! And what a great benefit for all of us to always know what we will be working!!

If something comes up with relatively short notice, you will be at the mercy of your other partners for coverage. No thanks.

The old system has worked very well in my store for the last five years.

They want you to be available for huge blocks of time, without any guaranteed hours in return. This will effectively get rid of all of our students and anyone else who needs some flexibility in their lives.

Umm, not for $9 an hour, you will not get that from me.

[Fred Frappuccino]

Isn't one of the things the IWW asking for is a guaranteed number of hours. Say maybe something like . . . 24?

Join the union so you can have less hours and make less money! And pay dues! And not use your brain!

[Will]

Wow. Because Unions have never worked before. Not like they've provided comfortable livings, protection from exploitation, and a voice to the disenfranchised before.

Boo unions, Yay corrupt corporations!

[Noodoggy]

Just out of curiosity: is anyone else being "test-marketed" for the new fixed scheduling procedures?

Rumor has it that the district I work in is one of the "few" that is being subjected to this, but it does not seem... legal? It enforces the same exact schedule for every single week, for shifts supervisors and baristas alike. But here's the kicker: 100% WITHOUT the option to request off EVER. Meaning, (despite the fact that our vacation hours have been topped off depending on how long one has been employed by the company) our vacation hours will continue to accrue and we have no choice but to use them on our already scheduled days off in order to continue to accrue what we've earned.

But long gone are the days of requesting off, if only for one day, should it be on one of your already-set-in-stone scheduled days. You need a week off because you'll be out-of-state? You need to call around and get those five/six days scheduled. And if you can't... you're S.O.L.

Posted by: Nona Suomy | July 15, 2009 at 04:04 PM

okay...
not sure I see what the problem is...except the fact that no one wants to own their part and take responsibility for their job! The fixed schedule sounds great! And to get time off...all you have to do is be a responsible adult and get your shifts covered by someone else. (oh my god! the sheer maturity of that notion is enough to frighten anyone! lol) hmmm...ever think about managers and when they take time off? hmm...they probably (just my guess) schedule someone to cover their shifts ...and take time off. I doubt they just go...bye...yall figure out what's gonna happen when i am gone. The biggest malaise in this country right now is that lots of people...and there is no generational skew in this...think that jobs owe them something...Hello!!! Jobs are there for a business to make money (unless you are in govt<--probably the heart of the problem lol) Your job is not a right. It's a privelege. It's a chance to show your contribution to a productive society. If it's just a paycheck to you...then you might want to try welfare or something. A business does need workers, but they need people who contribute to the health of the business. Not drain it. It saddens me to think that partners who work less than 40 hours a week and live on this, DEMAND(?) that they get vacation time? When working as hourly partner, I treasured my extra days off...and if I wanted a day off, i got my shift covered, by another partner like me who wanted to work extra, knowing that they dont work a full time job. Enough for my rant on this.
Unions. Join and make them if you want. But in my opinion all you are doing is paying someone else to look out for yourself. And I dont think anyone else knows what's best for me at all. I have my own fate that I want to create, and noone else knows best how to get me there except me. I can ask for help to get me there, but I certainly am not going to let someone else look out for me. I am an adult I can take responsibility for my own life, thank you very much.

[Dumb]

Noodoggy:

managers MAKE the schedule. Of COURSE they find people to work for them they just SCHEDULE it that way. What company gives vacation time and not the ability to take days off? Maturity had nothing to do with this! You are sick you get your shift covered but if you're in a wedding two months from now and tell your manager you need the day off RIGHT NOW? That showsmore maturity than waiting the week before and pray you get it covered.

[smoothienotvivanno]

Noodoggy - I have known many Starbucks partners and I don't know a single one who DEMANDS vacation time.

The company offers it. So the partners should expect to be able to take it.

Regarding fixed schedules and getting shifts covered: In the scenario that was explained to me, nearly all of the partners would already be working close to full-time hours. They would most likely not be able to pick up another shift without getting into overtime.

And forget trying to call around to other stores for help - they will all be in the same boat.

I probably wouldn't join a union over this, though. I'm just saddened to see how unfriendly this once great company has become in the last few years. They don't belong on any 'Best Places to Work' list...

[PowerShift]

Great. Closing 1000 Starbucks last year wasn't enough?

Get ready for more closures. Now you union-lovers can have ZERO required hours.

Freedom from the tyranny of employment, brought to you by unions.

Yay, unions!

[noodoggy]

if a manager can get his shifts covered for his vacation...a barista certainly get theirs covered. second, what is the difference between being sick and asking off? you are not at work BOTH times...so why not cover your shift when you are out of town. if that is not plain to see then we have a problem here. if you are a partner..take some responsibility for your position and realize if you dont work, someone else has to work. it's that simple. and when i said demand, i meant, that partners think its their right to take a vacation whenever they want regardless of the consequences and who has to work for them. Be a partner about it and ask someone ahead of time to cover your shift willingly, not at the whim of some computer scheduling program. it's just the right thing to do.

[noodoggy]

@smoothienotvivanno - it seems that what you are being told about the fixed scheduling doesnt seem right. I have implemented my own fixed schedule at my store and it is working beautifully. Partners are being responsible about their shifts and getting them covered. all partner are working only four days and getting their maximum eligible hours. They have the same schedule week in and week out...so they ask fellow partners to swap or pick up shifts for them WAY in advance. And we are all insuring that we act like partners. send your SM my way and I'll see what i can do to help =)

[Vancity]

@ Noodoggy

Take your blinders off and look at it from a barista's perspective. There's a HUGE difference between management and non-management covering off their shifts. Due to your position of authority, you are much better able to persuade your underlings to cover your shifts. Oddly enough, even though there is endless chatter about partners not getting enough hours, I am rarely able to get my shift covered on my own if need be. However, if I get my ASM or SM to cover it off, it gets covered no problem.

[Seriously?]

Noodoggy:

are you kidding? What kind of store has the same schedule every week? That is VERY improper. You are also very ignorant. Most stores have different schedules each week. Your lack of knowledge in that area astounds me. Every Monday I get a schedule with different hours and different days off. That is EVERYWHERE! You bring up responsibility. How is it irresponsible to let a manager know months in advance of a day they need off?

I can't wait to hear how a store that varies hours every week works under your system. And before you spread more lies, schedules vary not only for request time off but every week is scheduled different based on that week a year ago and the previous one. I'm so excited for the reply.

[Ridiculous]

To noodoggy:

my mom past away and I had the chance to request off before the schedule was made so I could go. What if I couldn't get it covered? Thank you. I hope you get fired.

[smoothienotvivanno]

Noondoggy - what I was told about fixed scheduling was told to me by no less than the RM, so I would imagine he knows what he is talking about.

And - A manager gets his shifts covered for vacation BY NOT SCHEDULING HIMSELF for any shifts. This is quite different than what a barista has the ability to do.

In one of your posts you ask - what is the difference between being sick and asking off? WTF are you talking about?? There is a world of difference.

You don't make much sense in your rantings. Are you new to the working world, by any chance?

[noodoggy]

@vancity - i can appreciate your point about it being easier for me to get my shift covered b/c of my position...but at the same time...i have fewer partners, i.e. shift supervisors, who are able to cover my shift...so it pretty much evens out. as for lack of partners wanting to work...sounds like partners who maybe should rethink their position at the company. but what u can do about it is offer incentive...pick up their shift, offer them your coffee markout...i dont know..be creative...you could be surprised at works...

@seriously - i hesitate to respond due to your inability to get past derogatory judgments, but i figure it cant hurt...I trust you will learn something from it. First, not all stores have a different schedule. Second, the reason it is diff is because ALS is DOS based program that really cant take much complexity. Third, I never said it was IRRESPONSIBLE to let your manager know. I said to take some responsibility for your position as a PARTNER. Partner is not an employee...check the definition...a great place to look it up would to search google...
Lastly, as for a store that has wildly varying hours, partners get EXTRA hours that week. Same regular schedule, with either longer shifts or more shifts total. Pretty simple if you think about it....not too complicated. As far as business being the same every week...I think you would see that in general it is pretty regular at most stores. You might not see it because you are working a different schedule every week!
When you would like to discuss this further, please just call me by my name Noodoggy...I do enough judging of my intelligence without your helpful input

[Seriously]

Noodoggy:
I will play by you rules, then.

You said partners should take some responsibility and get their shifts covered. True story: I have a wedding in September. I am in this wedding. I need the day off. I have told my manager, in February, that I will need to *request* that day off. Request is the appropriate word. No one said people wanted a "Demand off" book it's a "Request Off" book. Difference. Now. I have known about this wedding for ages. You, as a manager as in example, happen to be at a store where the schedule is different every week. I have worked at over 20 stores and never once heard of a store that has the *exact* same hours and shifts each week.

To continue, you, as a manager, would rather me not tell you about the wedding and simply wait until the week before the wedding to get my shift covered(remember, your store does *not* have the exact same shifts/hours/people working the same day every day)? And if I do not get it covered the week before, do I simply say "I am a Proud Partner, I am worth showing up for work and not getting to be in this wedding!"? Seriouly. No sarcasm at all, I am playing nice, here. This kind of thinking does not work.

For the sake of your store, you say each week is exactly the same for everyone so I will assume you never have to print off a schedule or anything of the sort. In your store, I would have to be in a wedding but I would know, in February, that in September I will work on that wedding day so I have until September to find someone. Other question: again, what if I cannot find a willing partner?

Most companies like Starbucks has a "Request" off of some kind. It could be different for some, however. I am just curious that if you are so proud of being a"Partner" and taking responsibility for getting your shifts covered and helping one another out, I would think you'd WANT to help these partners and rearrange the schedule for special occasions.

I apologize if I insulted you somehow, but I deem these practices unfair.

[noodoggy]

motto: always assume the best motivation of someone

"Most companies like Starbucks has a "Request" off of some kind. It could be different for some, however. I am just curious that if you are so proud of being a"Partner" and taking responsibility for getting your shifts covered and helping one another out, I would think you'd WANT to help these partners and rearrange the schedule for special occasions."

Funny you should say this...b/c that's exactly what I do. I help them figure out who can cover their shifts, but they call the other partners. And I am also teaching them to be responsible and use star skills...like ask for help.

I sense an animosity towards your manager. I am sorry that you feel that way about your manager. I try my utmost to help my partners and make their lives more enjoyable and challenging. And as I would encourage my fellow partners, instead of giving me ways to make a fixed schedule will not work, how about figuring out ways it will work. You'd be surprised what difference that little attitude change can make.
Finally ask my partners if they think its unfair.

[noodoggy]

oh...i forgot...one of the main reasons I am trying out this fixed schedule thing is that I dont think it's quite fair for me to rearrange everyone's schedule WITHOUT ASKING THE PARTNERS just to accommodate only one partner's request. In some stores...and I bet many stores, there can be some days with very limited availabilities and if one partner is out or requests off...lots of rearranging has to happen to get the schedule covered. It's much easier and saner than you might think.

[Seriously]

No animosity towards my manager. I was actually putting YOU in his shoes and asking what you should do. I love my manager. He started as a Barista and he works as hard as he can to help us, as we do him.

To reply to your second post: Barista's have an availability sheet you fill out when you're hired and can resubmit at any time. At least where I am. There are no problems with the schedule at stores I have worked *until* a partner requests a day off. It doesn't always, but that is what happens. A funeral is requested off, a wedding, a baby being born. If EVERYONE in your store likes working the same hours and same days off your "accommodating one partner" makes absolutely sense. Why change everyone elses schedule to fit one person?

However, your partners have an availability that they signed. If a partner at your store never works Wednesdays just because they don't but are available to, they should be scheduled if someone requests it off. At my store and previously worked ones? When a partner requests off and we work different hours each week anyway? There is no reason for us to feel accommodated because its random anyway. If i were at a store that I got a set schedule every week and had to find someone to cover my set schedule? I would own up and find someone. A lot of stores do not have set schedules. Not having a set schedule each week and having NO request off book program is wrong.

If my store was like yours, I would agree with you. However, it is much harder at a store that does not have set scheduling. Most would say working different each week is refreshing.

[jeezlouise]

God forbid someone in a union actually have to work.

[rf]

actually the new optimal scheduling as they are calling it REQUIRES ALL partners to be available 70% of store operating hours. which means, at my stiore at least, I HAVE to be available 90 HOURS a week or lose my job. As a full time student, part time martial arts instructor, full time time and hose wife is also a college student i DONT HAVE 90 hours in the week im available.

[We Are The Union]

Attn: Union Members

We are the Company and the reason this whole shits is running keep on Keepin on baby

SOLIDARITY

[jeezlouise]

rf, I think your candle is burning at both ends, do you even have time for all of this SBux crap? Not worth it, I say. Take care of you and your fam.
We Are The Union.. what did you just say? "this whold shits is running" Does someone have diarrhea?

[bearista]

you idiots do realize that without unions you would be working 80 hour weeks and the "weekend" wouldn't exist, right?

and before sbux filled their stores with a push button espresso machine, baristas were paid a lot more, because it took longer to train them. sbux wanted to keep those people around because it was also expensive to train new people to make a real espresso. now all they have to train you to do is push a button, and so they can justify paying you a low wage that nobody can possibly live with. and clopens? right. 24 hour shifts? if you dont like it, get another min. wage job. you people are assholes.

[wow.]

Bearista:

Any minimum wage job is the same. Don't like being paid so little? Go to college and get a better job. When in retail sales, you shouldn't even have a weekend. I work at Sbux Friday-Monday every week. I only WISH I could work 80 hours a week! Or, 40 even!

[alicepaul]

"Go to college and get a better job."

That's a good one! It might have been more convincing years ago, but it's a total joke now. Many of the employees that work at Starbucks have college degrees as well as many of the applicants. Educational inflation coupled with economic recession makes a Bachelors Degree pretty useless.

The service industry is quickly becoming the fastest growing industry in America. It's a grim future, but reality is, it's not just the less ambitious that hold these kinds of jobs. We are often people who are trying our hardest to pay the rent and get by when it's becoming impossible to find better options. And really, is it that wrong to demand a living wage, even if it's a job that's considered "unskilled"? Shouldn't everyone be paid enough to survive?

Who is benefiting from keeping a sector of low-wage workers? It sure as hell isn't you, wow. Keep on clinging to your comforting lie...the American dream is quite the compelling myth.

[Mickey Blue Eyes]

SBUX employees now have to work 24 hours A WEEK?! OMG, that's terrible! That it is a violation of human rights to make someone work 24 hours per week.

They definitely need to unionize and fight the cruel 24 hour work week. That's the mindset that made the American automotive industry what it is today.

[Tomato]

I'm joining this discussion because the rules have just been applied in my store and I see the company's goal of providing a consistent weekly schedule as an albatross that is going to drive away all the dedicated long-time Partners.

While on the surface the reasoning appears like a good thing; consistency for the partner and less time making schedules by the manager. It is the inflexible way that it is being applied that is angering many partners.

It is entirely reasonable to expect someone to cover their posted schedule. No one should take issue with that. It's when you get your shift covered, you are still expected to work your 24 hours/week and not fall below. What difference does it make if I've done the responsible thing and covered my shift? The store can still operate with another partner in my absence. Why is the company imposing this penalty for doing so?

Until now it's always been a two way street with me; if the store needs extra help, I'm there if I'm able to, and if I need extra time off I've taken it. It was a mutual respect based on each other's needs. Now it is "my way or the highway".

[BolivarianHero]

The people who argue that the Starbucks coffee will get too expensive don't know what the Hell they're going on about. I go to Carleton University, and the student union-run coffee house, Rooster's, relies on a unionized staff and sells only fair trade coffee. They also have the most inexpensive coffee on campus (the competition is Tim Horton's and Starbucks; neither is unionized) and are profitable enough to cover the deficit run by the bar.