Starbucks Workers United

More stories

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    NLRB Finds Merit in Union Accusations Against Amazon and Starbucks

    by

    In a sign that federal labor officials are closely scrutinizing management behavior during union campaigns, the National Labor Relations Board said Friday that it had found merit in accusations that Amazon and Starbucks had violated labor law.At Amazon, the labor board found merit to charges that the company had required workers to attend anti-union meetings at a vast Staten Island warehouse where the Amazon Labor Union won a stunning election victory last month. The determination was communicated to the union Friday by an attorney for the labor board’s regional office in Brooklyn, according to Seth Goldstein, a lawyer representing the union.Such meetings, often known as “captive audience” meetings, are legal under current labor board precedent. But last month, the board’s general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued a memo saying that the precedent was at odds with the underlying federal statute, and she indicated that she would seek to challenge it.In the same filing of charges, the Amazon Labor Union accused the company of threatening to withhold benefits from employees if they voted to unionize, and of inaccurately indicating to employees that they could be fired if the warehouse were to unionize and they failed to pay union dues. The labor board also found merit to these accusations, according to an email from the attorney at the regional office, Matt Jackson.Mr. Jackson said the agency would soon issue a complaint reflecting those accusations unless Amazon settled the case. The complaint would be litigated before an administrative law judge, whose decision could be appealed to the labor board in Washington.Understand the Unionization Efforts at AmazonBeating Amazon: A homegrown, low-budget push to unionize at a Staten Island warehouse led to a historic labor victory. (Workers at another nearby Amazon facility rejected joining a similar effort shortly after.)Retaliation: Weeks after the landmark win, Amazon fired several managers in Staten Island. Some see it as retaliation for their involvement in the unionization efforts.A New Playbook: The success of the Amazon union’s independent drive has organized labor asking whether it should take more of a back seat.Amazon’s Approach: The company has countered unionization efforts with mandatory “training” sessions that carry clear anti-union messages.Mr. Goldstein applauded Ms. Abruzzo and the regional office for taking “decisive steps ending required captive audience meetings” and said the right to unionize “will be protected by ending Amazon’s inherently coercive work practices.”Kelly Nantel, an Amazon spokeswoman, said in a statement that “these allegations are false and we look forward to showing that through the process.”At Starbucks, where the union has won initial votes at more than 50 stores since December, the labor board issued a complaint Friday over a series of charges the union filed, most of them in February, accusing the company of illegal behavior. Those accusations include firing employees in retaliation for supporting the union; threatening employees’ ability to receive new benefits if they choose to unionize; requiring workers to be available for a minimum number of hours to remain employed at a unionized store without bargaining over the change, as a way to force out at least one union supporter; and effectively promising benefits to workers if they decide not to unionize.In addition to those allegations, the labor board found merit to accusations that the company intimidated workers by closing Buffalo-area stores and engaging in surveillance of workers while they were on the job. All of those actions would be illegal.In a statement, Starbucks Workers United, the branch of the union representing workers there, said that the finding “confirms the extent and depravity of Starbucks’s conduct in Western New York for the better part of a year.” It added: “Starbucks will be held accountable for the union-busting minefield they forced workers to walk through in fighting for their right to organize.”Starbucks said in a statement that the complaint doesn’t constitute a judgment by the labor board, adding, “We believe the allegations contained in the complaint are false, and we look forward to presenting our evidence when the allegations are adjudicated.” More

  • 75 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks Union Campaign Continues Its Momentum

    by

    Starbucks workers have added to the momentum of a union campaign that went public in late August and has upended decades of union-free labor at the company’s corporate-owned stores.On Thursday and Friday, workers at six stores in upstate New York voted to unionize, according to the National Labor Relations Board, bringing the total number of company-owned stores where workers have backed a union to 16. The union, Workers United, was also leading by a wide margin at a store in Kansas whose votes were tallied Friday, but the number of challenged ballots leaves the outcome officially in doubt until their status can be resolved.The union has lost only a single election so far, but it is formally challenging the outcome.Since the union secured its first two victories in elections that concluded in December, workers at more than 175 other stores across at least 25 states have filed for union elections, out of roughly 9,000 corporate-owned stores in the United States. The labor board will count ballots in at least three more stores next week.The organizing success at Starbucks appears to reflect a growing interest among workers in unionizing, including the efforts at Amazon, where workers last week voted to unionize a Staten Island warehouse by a significant margin.On Wednesday, the general counsel of the labor board, Jennifer Abruzzo, announced that union election filings were up more than 50 percent during the previous six months versus the same period one year earlier. Ms. Abruzzo expressed concern that funding and staff shortages were making it difficult for the agency to keep up with the activity, saying in a statement that the board “needs a significant increase of funds to fully effectuate the mission of the agency.”Starbucks has sought to persuade workers not to unionize by holding anti-union meetings with workers and conversations between managers and individual employees, but some employees say the meetings have only galvanized their support for organizing.In some cases, Starbucks has also sent a number of senior officials to stores from out of town, a move the company says is intended to address operational issues like staffing and training but which some union supporters have said they find intimidating.The union has accused Starbucks of seeking to cut back hours nationally as a way to encourage longtime employees to leave the company and replace them with workers who are more skeptical about unionizing. And the union argues that Starbucks has retaliated against workers for supporting the union by disciplining or firing them. Last month, the labor board issued a formal complaint against Starbucks for retaliating against two Arizona employees, a step it takes after finding merit in accusations against employers or unions.The company has denied that it has cut hours to prompt employees to leave, saying it schedules workers in response to customer demand, and it has rejected accusations of anti-union activity.As the union campaign accelerated in March, the company announced that Kevin Johnson, who had served as chief executive since 2017, would be replaced on an interim basis by Howard Schultz, who had led the company twice before and remained one of its largest investors.Some investors who had warned Mr. Johnson that the company’s anti-union tactics could damage its reputation expressed optimism that the leadership change might bring about a shift in Starbucks’s posture toward the union. But the company soon announced that it would not agree to stay neutral in union elections, as the union has requested, dampening those hopes.On Monday, the same day that Mr. Schultz returned as chief executive, the company fired Laila Dalton, one of the two Arizona workers the N.L.R.B. had accused Starbucks of retaliating against in March. The company said that Ms. Dalton had violated company rules by recording co-workers’ conversations without their permission.“A partner’s interest in a union does not exempt them from the standards we have always held,” Reggie Borges, a company spokesman, said in a statement, using the company’s term for an employee. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks Is Moving to Oust Workers in Buffalo, Union Supporters Say

    by

    Some employees who back unionization efforts have been told they must increase their work availability or leave. The company cites scheduling issues.Workers at Starbucks stores in Buffalo are accusing the company of retaliating against union supporters by telling some of them they may have to leave the company if they cannot increase their work availability.At least five of the cases have arisen at a store that unionized in December, though union supporters at other Buffalo-area stores report similar conversations with managers, frequently but not always involving pro-union employees. The company denies any connection between the scheduling issues and union activities and says the matter is strictly logistical.The tensions indicate how labor relations are playing out after initial successes in unionizing company stores. None of Starbucks’s roughly 9,000 corporate-owned stores in the United States were unionized before early December, but three have unionized since then, and workers at more than 100 stores across the country have filed for union elections.One of the Buffalo workers, Cassie Fleischer, said her manager told her on Feb. 20 that she would soon no longer be employed at the store where she had worked since 2020 because she had sought to reduce her hours from around 30 to 15, a change the manager said she could not accommodate. The store was recently unionized, and Ms. Fleischer is a prominent union supporter.Kellen Montanye, who works at the same store, said the manager told him in a meeting Sunday that he would have to decide this week if he could increase his availability to 15 or 20 hours or leave the company. Mr. Montanye was also outspoken in supporting the union.“This new policy is a complete betrayal of the promise made by Starbucks to its partners, to schedule us around our other jobs or our school hours,” Starbucks Workers United, the union representing the workers, said in a statement, using the company’s term for its employees. “This is a part of Starbucks’s broader strategy to bust our union.”News that the company was asking some employees to be available to work more hours or leave was reported earlier by the labor-oriented website More Perfect Union.Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, said that the company was not firing the workers and that there was no policy requiring minimum availability. The company generally tries to honor employees’ preferences on availability, he said, but it cannot guarantee that it will do so, especially when several employees request more limited availability around the same time.Mr. Borges said that 10 people at Ms. Fleischer’s and Mr. Montanye’s store, on Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo, had made such requests recently, out of a total of about 27 workers there.Union supporters said they had not previously faced resistance when making such requests. Many union supporters were also skeptical that 10 workers at the Elmwood store had asked to scale back their hours in ways that posed an unusual challenge for management. A recording of a meeting between Ms. Fleischer and her manager, provided to a reporter by the union, seemed to indicate that the number was lower.“There’s your shift and a couple other people that really, with the hours that I — I just, I don’t have the quite the availability,” the manager told Ms. Fleischer. If fewer workers had sought significant reductions in availability, that would presumably be easier to accommodate.The manager appeared to acknowledge in the recording that the refusal to grant the reduction in hours was a break with her previous approach. “There’s certain things that I have to take care of as well, that maybe I didn’t do the right way before, but I have to get on board,” the manager said.Mr. Montanye, a graduate student at the University at Buffalo, said that he had worked at Starbucks since 2018 and at the Elmwood store for roughly one year, and that he had frequently adjusted his hours. He said he typically worked nearly full time during winter and summer breaks and only one or two days a week while school was in session. His managers had never taken issue with these requests, he added.But at an initial meeting on Feb. 13, he said, his manager told him that his current schedule of one day a week no longer met the store’s “needs” and that he would have to provide 15 or 20 hours of weekly availability to stay on the schedule. At a follow-up meeting over the weekend, he said, the manager told him to decide this week whether he could provide the additional availability. He may seek a leave of absence instead.The Starbucks store on Elmwood Avenue in Buffalo. Union supporters were skeptical that 10 workers at the store had asked to scale back their hours.Mustafa Hussain for The New York TimesMs. Fleischer had worked at Starbucks for over four years, and at the Elmwood store since the summer of 2020. She was typically scheduled for about 33 or 34 hours a week during the second half of last year. But she began looking for additional work elsewhere to cover expenses after her scheduled hours dropped somewhat in January.She asked to scale back to 15 hours a week upon finding a second job, at which point her manager told her in an initial meeting in early February that the more limited availability didn’t meet the “needs of the business,” according to Ms. Fleischer.In her final meeting with her manager, which Ms. Fleischer recorded on Feb. 20, the manager said that she had not put Ms. Fleischer on the schedule for the next two weeks and that, after a certain number of weeks of being unscheduled, Ms. Fleischer would be “termed out” — that is, no longer employed by Starbucks. She is scheduled to meet with her district manager to discuss the issue on Mar. 7.Ms. Fleischer said she would have been unlikely to look for a second job had her hours not dropped in January. Hours at Starbucks tend to fall somewhat during the slow months of January and February, but Ms. Fleischer and Mr. Montanye said they believed the changes were also driven by the addition of several new workers to the store in the fall.The union has said the fall hiring was intended to dilute union support ahead of an election at the store; the company has said the hiring was intended to address understaffing. Mr. Borges said that a similar number of workers had left the store since then and that hours had been fairly consistent.An employee at another Starbucks in Buffalo, Roisin Doherty, said her store also cut back her hours. In late January she too took another job, then informed her manager that she would need to change her availability to weekends only. Screenshots provided by Ms. Doherty show that the manager congratulated her through a messaging app and did not indicate that the new constraints would be a problem. But in early February the manager wrote that she would need “at least four days” of availability. Workers at her store filed for a union election in between the two exchanges, on Jan. 31, and Ms. Doherty has helped lead the union campaign, though she said another worker who is not identified with the union had also been told that his availability was insufficient.Ms. Doherty said that she remained on the schedule and that she had yet to have a second interaction with a manager forcing the issue.Mr. Borges, the Starbucks spokesman, said Ms. Doherty’s hours were reduced after she was given a written warning about tardiness and attendance issues. He said managers would continue contacting employees when necessary to explain that narrow availability could lead them to go unscheduled for a few weeks, which could ultimately cause their separation from the company.“Leaders are trying to make sure partners understand that the lack of availability could lead to that,” Mr. Borges said in an email. More

  • 100 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks Workers in Mesa, Ariz., Vote for Union

    by

    The victory was the union’s first outside Buffalo and appeared to underscore its momentum in organizing company employees across the country.First they won in Buffalo. Now they’ve scored a victory on the other side of the country.On Friday, the National Labor Relations Board announced that workers at a Starbucks in Mesa, Ariz., had voted 25 to 3 to unionize, with three challenged votes. The result brought the number of company-owned stores with a union to three, out of roughly 9,000 nationwide.The victory was the first for the union since two stores voted to unionize in Buffalo in December, but it could mark the beginning of a larger trend. More than 100 Starbucks stores across more than 25 states have filed petitions for union elections, most of them since that first victory. The next tally will probably come from three more stores in the Buffalo area, where votes have already been cast. Starbucks workers in cities including Boston, Chicago and Seattle are scheduled to vote or are likely to vote in the coming months.“This is another historic moment for Starbucks partners and service industry workers across the country,” Michelle Hejduk, a shift supervisor at the store, said in a statement. “This movement started in Buffalo, and we’ve now brought it across the country.”Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, said in a statement that the company’s position had not changed. “As we have said throughout, we will respect the process and will bargain in good faith guided by our principles,” he said, adding: “We hope that the union does the same.”Lawyers who advise companies on labor relations said Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union, appeared to have considerable momentum in organizing Starbucks workers.“Clearly the work force is very sympathetic to what the union is selling,” said Brian West Easley, a management-side lawyer with Jones Day. “Right now, they probably rightfully believe they have the upper hand, given the number of petitions filed each week.”The company has generally sought to challenge the union store by store, contesting the voting pool for each election before the labor board and sending company officials to cities where workers have filed for elections, partly to share its concerns about unionizing. The challenges delayed the counting of votes in Mesa and the second round of Buffalo stores.But Mr. Easley argued that it would become more difficult for Starbucks to sustain that approach if the company continued to suffer defeats, especially as the number of stores filing for elections increases.“The bigger this gets, the more stretched resources become and the more ineffective they become,” he said. “The ability to push back is eroding as the numbers increase.”At least one prominent Starbucks investor echoed that concern, arguing that the company appeared to be wasting money in its efforts to resist the union. “The company is devoting quite a bit of time and money to putting forward these arguments in front of the N.L.R.B.,” said Jonas Kron, the chief advocacy officer of Trillium Asset Management, which makes investments to further environmental, social and governance goals and had a roughly $43 million stake in Starbucks at the end of last year. “It doesn’t feel like they’re using investor resources — stakeholder resources — that well.”Mr. Kron and Trillium have urged the company to take a neutral stand toward the union. Other labor experts suggested it may eventually be forced to do so whether it wants to or not.“I’m sure there will be a tipping point at some point,” said Amy Zdravecky, a management-side lawyer at Barnes & Thornburg. “How many losses do you have before you change strategy?”Ms. Zdravecky added that the union’s ability to win an election in a state not normally sympathetic to organized labor suggested that the campaign had staying power, and that one risk for Starbucks’s approach to opposing the union is that it could begin to alienate the company’s liberal-leaning customer base.“Fighting unions may not align with where they want to be elsewhere,” she said.Many of the issues that workers in Mesa cited in their decision to support the union were similar to those identified by workers in Buffalo, like staffing and Covid-19 safety. Liz Alanna, a shift supervisor at the store, said that customers sometimes waited 45 minutes last fall after submitting a mobile order because there were not enough baristas to handle the volume. “The lobby would be full of people waiting,” Ms. Alanna said. .The Mesa campaign had an additional subplot that raised the stakes for workers. In early October, the store’s manager, Brittany Harrison, was found to have leukemia. The company initially appeared to rally behind her, Ms. Harrison said in an interview, but its posture later changed.“I’d reach out to the district manager and it would go to voice mail or ring forever and she wouldn’t call back,” she said. Ms. Harrison, and other workers like Ms. Alanna, said that she repeatedly sought an assistant manager to help at the store but that none was forthcoming.The situation came to a head on Friday, Nov. 12, when Ms. Harrison became ill at the store, then put in her two-week notice. The workers at the store filed their petition for a union election the following week. “We really had an easy time moving forward,” said Ms. Alanna, citing frustration over how the company had treated Ms. Harrison. Mr. Borges said that the company had offered Ms. Harrison support throughout her time there, and that it had offered to provide an assistant manager if she went on leave, which she had yet to do. Starbucks’s approach to the union election in Mesa resembled its approach in Buffalo. The company sent a variety of officials to the store — including two new managers, at least two new assistant managers, a senior human resources official based in Colorado, a senior manager who had worked in California and a regional vice president based in Colorado.Workers said they felt the managers and other officials were partly there to monitor them. Ms. Hejduk said the new managers appeared to implement a policy in which at least one manager must be in the store at all times to “babysit,” as she put it.Ms. Hejduk said she had been told on a recent weekday morning that the store was closing and that her shift was being canceled because no manager was available to come in, even though she has a key and frequently worked in the store without a manager before the union election filing. She said the policy was relaxed after the union voting ended.In Mesa, as in at least one of the Buffalo stores, Starbucks also brought in several new workers after the election filing, who typically had spent a few weeks training at other stores. The union argued that the offsite training was meant to ensure that workers began their employment with no contact with union supporters and that the workers were brought in to dilute support for the union. The union, which argues that some of the new workers had not worked at the store long enough to be eligible to vote, won a challenge on similar grounds in Buffalo.Mr. Borges said the officials were addressing operational issues like staffing and soliciting input from workers and educating them about the risks of unionizing, though he said Starbucks respected the rights of its employees to unionize. He said that having a separate location focused on instructing new employees allowed the company to train them more efficiently, and that all of the workers who received ballots were eligible under N.L.R.B. rules. He said it was occasionally a policy to have one manager on at all times when there was new leadership in a store.The count in Mesa and at the three additional Buffalo-area stores had been held up by management challenges over a key legal issue: the proper voting pool for the union elections.In a rebuff to Starbucks, the labor relations board ruled Wednesday that stores could vote individually, rather than having to cast ballots with other stores in a geographic area. The board’s detailed ruling makes it more difficult for Starbucks to get its way on the issue elsewhere.Unions typically favor voting on a smaller scale to reduce the number of votes needed to secure a majority in at least some locations, but Starbucks has argued that stores in the same market are akin to a single unit because employees can work at multiple locations and because district managers oversee them as a cohesive group.One option for Starbucks in light of its recent defeats, said Mr. Easley of Jones Day, would be to resign itself to a union presence and position the company to minimize the union’s influence. He suggested, for example, that Starbucks might focus its opposition on cities where the union had already won, to make sure there weren’t several unionized stores that would provide it with greater leverage.“The next phase of this may be divide and conquer,” he said. “Make sure they don’t end up with voting blocks that could shut down business in a market.”He added, referring to the union: “If they can control market in a particular location, they have leverage to get Starbucks to do something.” More

  • 100 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks fires Memphis workers involved in unionization efforts.

    by

    Starbucks on Tuesday fired seven employees in Memphis who were seeking to unionize their store, one of several dozen nationwide where workers have filed for union elections since December.A Starbucks spokesman said the employees had violated company safety and security policies. The union seeking to organize the store accused Starbucks of retaliating against the workers for their labor activities.The firings relate at least in part to an interview that workers conducted at the store with a local media outlet.Reggie Borges, a company spokesman, said in an email that Starbucks fired the workers after an investigation revealed violations. He cited a photograph on Twitter showing that store employees had allowed media representatives inside the store to conduct interviews, in which some of the employees were unmasked and which he said had taken place after hours. “That is a clear policy violation, not to mention the lack of masks,” Mr. Borges wrote.Among the violations, Mr. Borges said, were opening a locked door at their store; remaining inside the store without authorization after it had closed; allowing other unauthorized individuals inside the store after it had closed; and allowing unauthorized individuals in parts of the store where access is typically restricted.He also wrote that one employee had opened a store safe when the employee was not authorized to do so and that another employee had failed to step in to prevent this violation.Two of the terminated employees said that some of the supposed violations were common practices at the store and that employees were not previously disciplined over them. They said, for example, that off-duty employees frequently went to the back of the store to check their schedules, which are posted there. Mr. Borges said that this was uncommon when a store is closed.One of the former workers, Beto Sanchez, said he was the employee accused of opening a store safe without authorization. He said that as a shift supervisor, he was normally authorized to open the safe and that he had done so to help a colleague on the evening of the media interview, when he was not on duty. He wondered why he had been fired over the violation rather than disciplined some other way.In a statement, Starbucks Workers United, the union that represents workers at two stores in Buffalo and that is helping to unionize Starbucks workers across the country, said, “Starbucks chose to selectively enforce policies that have not previously been consistently enforced as a pretext to fire union leaders.”The union said on Twitter that the company was “repeating history by retaliating against unionizing workers.”A judge for the National Labor Relations Board found last year that Starbucks in 2019 and 2020 had unlawfully disciplined and fired two employees seeking to unionize a store in Philadelphia. Starbucks has appealed the ruling.A petition filed with the labor board seeking a union vote at the store says 20 employees there would be eligible for membership.Wilma Liebman, who headed the labor board under President Barack Obama, said that to prove that the firings constituted unjust retaliation, the board’s general counsel would have to show that the workers were engaged in union activity and that the union activity played a “substantial or motivating” role in the decision to fire them.One question in resolving the latter issue is whether Starbucks typically fires employees, whom it refers to as partners, over similar infractions.Mr. Borges, the spokesman, wrote: “We absolutely fire partners who let unauthorized people or partners in the store after hours and/or violate policies like letting others handle cash in the safe when not authorized to do so. This is a common, understood policy by partners as it brings an element of safety and security risk that crosses a number of lines.”He did not immediately provide data on the number of employees fired for such violations in a typical year. More