Sunday, 6 April 2008
Who gets to share tips at Starbucks?
This past Thursday (3 April 2008), Reuters published a short report that Starbucks baristas in N.Y. join battle over tips:
"Starbucks Corp baristas in New York sued the popular coffee chain for more than $5 million on Thursday, joining employees from other regions who say they were unfairly forced to share tips with shift supervisors.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, seeks class action status for more than 2,000 Starbucks hourly employees, who are referred to as baristas.
In March, a San Diego Superior Court Judge ordered Starbucks to pay roughly $106 million to more than 100,000 current and former workers employed at California Starbucks stores since late 2000.
Starbucks in a statement said it would appeal the California judgment, which also required that Starbucks cease letting supervisors share tips."
For some more background and commentary, see Greg Moran's Starbucks Baristas Win California Tip Case at the IWW Starbucks Workers Union blog.
"Starbucks Corp baristas in New York sued the popular coffee chain for more than $5 million on Thursday, joining employees from other regions who say they were unfairly forced to share tips with shift supervisors.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, seeks class action status for more than 2,000 Starbucks hourly employees, who are referred to as baristas.
In March, a San Diego Superior Court Judge ordered Starbucks to pay roughly $106 million to more than 100,000 current and former workers employed at California Starbucks stores since late 2000.
Starbucks in a statement said it would appeal the California judgment, which also required that Starbucks cease letting supervisors share tips."
For some more background and commentary, see Greg Moran's Starbucks Baristas Win California Tip Case at the IWW Starbucks Workers Union blog.
Saturday, 12 January 2008
Starbucks Emails Describe Efforts to Stop Unionization
By KRIS MAHER, Wall Street Journal; January 9, 2008:
A series of emails by Starbucks Corp. managers sheds
light on the company's efforts to thwart union organizing among its baristas.
The emails, which are part of a labor-dispute proceeding in New York
and were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, open a rare window onto the company's
labor relations practices. Labor experts not involved with the case said the
activity is not illegal. But the emails could prove embarrassing because they show managers using various methods to identify pro-union employees.
The Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW, has been
trying to organize workers at Starbucks since 2004 and
has been able to organize only several dozen at a
handful of stores in New York and a few other cities.
According to several emails, in early 2006, Starbucks
managers discovered that two pro-union employees in
New York were graduates of a Cornell University labor
program. According to an email, managers took the
names of graduates from an online Cornell discussion
group and the school's Web site and cross-checked them
with employee lists nationwide. They found that three
employees in California, Michigan and Illinois were
graduates of the program and recommended that local managers be informed.
The emails are exhibits in a pending case before an
administrative law judge in New York. Brandon Borrman,
a Starbucks spokesman, said most of the documents
relate to issues that were already settled in a
separate agreement with the National Labor Relations
Board, in which the company didn't admit any
wrongdoing. He said the claims in that case were
baseless but declined to comment on specifics, and
said disclosure of the documents violates a confidentiality order.
Referring to Starbucks employees as partners, he said:
"We honor the free choices of partners, and we strictly
comply with labor laws, including those for organizing
activities. It is unfortunate that a small group of activists
continues to misrepresent itself as speaking on behalf of more
than 150,000 partners world-wide when it does not."
In the pending NLRB case in New York, the IWW has accused Starbucks
of committing about 30 labor law violations during 2005 and 2006.
The union argues that the company's effort to identify union supporters was
part of a broader campaign of unlawful activity, and it argues that the company discharged three employees because they supported the union.
"What possible nondiscriminatory reason could
Starbucks come up with to scrutinize Cornell graduates
working at the company?" said Daniel Gross, a former
barista in New York. He alleges that he was fired in
August 2006 because he is a union activist, and his
termination is a subject of the pending NLRB case.
Workers at Starbucks often have higher pay and better benefits than
typical part-time food-service employees. Starbucks in 2006 said
its New York baristas typically start at about $8.75 an hour.
According to the Department of Labor, the group that includes
counter attendants, cafeteria workers, food-concession workers and
coffee-shop workers had a median wage of $7.76 that same year.
The company emails show that managers have been fighting the union
since 2004. "Below is a summary of the recent developments in New York City
regarding our attempts to thwart a potential union situation,"
begins an email dated Oct. 29, 2004 by a Starbucks New York regional official.
In subsequent emails, managers identify whether an employee is an
"IWW supporter" and discuss when pro-union employees will be reviewed
and those that are "at risk" of being terminated.
Taking action against an employee based on union
sympathies, such as firing an employee or directly
asking if they support the union, would be illegal,
said Chuck Cohen, a former member of the National
Labor Relations Board and a partner at Morgan Lewis &
Bockius in Washington. But "employers speculating
about individual union sympathies is not unlawful," he said.
Several times, managers expressed concern that emails could turn up
in a legal case. On May 13, 2005, a manager warned: "Also, not to
sound too 007 here but I am going to ask that we delete these messages after
reading and stick to verbal conversations as none of this is protected under
attorney client privilege and is subject to full disclosure."
In an email the prior day, the manager suggested that managers avoid
"any specific language around 'union avoidance,'" and added, "It's
semantics but we really can to avoid any wording that suggests we engaged
in counter union activity."
In other emails, managers discuss employee
relationships to discern their union preferences. In
one case, executives sought information about a
Halloween party employees attended, and noted that a
discussion about the union between two employees ended
in part because they "were attracted to each other and
this became the focus of their evening."
Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com
A series of emails by Starbucks Corp. managers sheds
light on the company's efforts to thwart union organizing among its baristas.
The emails, which are part of a labor-dispute proceeding in New York
and were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, open a rare window onto the company's
labor relations practices. Labor experts not involved with the case said the
activity is not illegal. But the emails could prove embarrassing because they show managers using various methods to identify pro-union employees.
The Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW, has been
trying to organize workers at Starbucks since 2004 and
has been able to organize only several dozen at a
handful of stores in New York and a few other cities.
According to several emails, in early 2006, Starbucks
managers discovered that two pro-union employees in
New York were graduates of a Cornell University labor
program. According to an email, managers took the
names of graduates from an online Cornell discussion
group and the school's Web site and cross-checked them
with employee lists nationwide. They found that three
employees in California, Michigan and Illinois were
graduates of the program and recommended that local managers be informed.
The emails are exhibits in a pending case before an
administrative law judge in New York. Brandon Borrman,
a Starbucks spokesman, said most of the documents
relate to issues that were already settled in a
separate agreement with the National Labor Relations
Board, in which the company didn't admit any
wrongdoing. He said the claims in that case were
baseless but declined to comment on specifics, and
said disclosure of the documents violates a confidentiality order.
Referring to Starbucks employees as partners, he said:
"We honor the free choices of partners, and we strictly
comply with labor laws, including those for organizing
activities. It is unfortunate that a small group of activists
continues to misrepresent itself as speaking on behalf of more
than 150,000 partners world-wide when it does not."
In the pending NLRB case in New York, the IWW has accused Starbucks
of committing about 30 labor law violations during 2005 and 2006.
The union argues that the company's effort to identify union supporters was
part of a broader campaign of unlawful activity, and it argues that the company discharged three employees because they supported the union.
"What possible nondiscriminatory reason could
Starbucks come up with to scrutinize Cornell graduates
working at the company?" said Daniel Gross, a former
barista in New York. He alleges that he was fired in
August 2006 because he is a union activist, and his
termination is a subject of the pending NLRB case.
Workers at Starbucks often have higher pay and better benefits than
typical part-time food-service employees. Starbucks in 2006 said
its New York baristas typically start at about $8.75 an hour.
According to the Department of Labor, the group that includes
counter attendants, cafeteria workers, food-concession workers and
coffee-shop workers had a median wage of $7.76 that same year.
The company emails show that managers have been fighting the union
since 2004. "Below is a summary of the recent developments in New York City
regarding our attempts to thwart a potential union situation,"
begins an email dated Oct. 29, 2004 by a Starbucks New York regional official.
In subsequent emails, managers identify whether an employee is an
"IWW supporter" and discuss when pro-union employees will be reviewed
and those that are "at risk" of being terminated.
Taking action against an employee based on union
sympathies, such as firing an employee or directly
asking if they support the union, would be illegal,
said Chuck Cohen, a former member of the National
Labor Relations Board and a partner at Morgan Lewis &
Bockius in Washington. But "employers speculating
about individual union sympathies is not unlawful," he said.
Several times, managers expressed concern that emails could turn up
in a legal case. On May 13, 2005, a manager warned: "Also, not to
sound too 007 here but I am going to ask that we delete these messages after
reading and stick to verbal conversations as none of this is protected under
attorney client privilege and is subject to full disclosure."
In an email the prior day, the manager suggested that managers avoid
"any specific language around 'union avoidance,'" and added, "It's
semantics but we really can to avoid any wording that suggests we engaged
in counter union activity."
In other emails, managers discuss employee
relationships to discern their union preferences. In
one case, executives sought information about a
Halloween party employees attended, and noted that a
discussion about the union between two employees ended
in part because they "were attracted to each other and
this became the focus of their evening."
Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
M17: Stand In Solidarity with Starbucks Workers on the Third Anniversary of the SWU
This is copied from the IWW Starbucks Workers Union website (visit there for future updates and further background):
Call to Action for a Day in Solidarity with Starbucks Workers
May 17, 2007
Starbucks workers and their allies will take to the
streets around the world to demand justice from the
world's largest coffee chain for baristas and coffee
farmers. Three years ago the corporate bosses at
Starbucks were sitting pretty on their multi-million
dollar fortunes, confident that anti-worker labor laws
would continue to ensure a workforce with zero union
membership in the United States. But no matter the
constraints, working people will find a way to join
hands and struggle for justice until victory. Three
years after the founding of the IWW Starbucks Workers
Union [StarbucksUnion.org], the organization has
members in multiple U.S states successfully using
Direct Action to rise out of poverty and articulate an
independent voice on the job.
To silence worker voices, Starbucks has disgracefully
terminated eight SWU baristas in retaliation for their
union activity. The SWU has prevailed against
Starbucks to reinstate two of the members but six
remain out of a job. Despite multiple Labor Board
complaints, the coffee giant continues to punish
baristas for discussing the union and relentlessly
forces union-busting propaganda down workers throats.
Starbucks must understand that working people of
conscience will not allow this affront to the dignity
of our class.
On May 17, commemorate the third anniversary of the
SWU and stand in solidarity with baristas and coffee
farmers with actions in your local community. 1)
Hold a spirited protest against Starbucks
union-busting, 2) reach out to baristas with a message
of support, 3) organize a fundraiser, or 4) choose
a different solidarity action. Whatever you do,
you'll be part of a global effort challenging the
neoliberal logic that places profits over people.
Starbucks workers are struggling not just for
ourselves and our families but for every worker at the
big brands who are looking for a collective voice and
a better life. Join us.
Let us know about actions you are organizing by
sending an e-mail to StarbucksUnion@yahoo.com
Please take photos, video, and/or write up a report of
your action to share with workers around the world.
Together We Win.
IWW Starbucks Workers Union
Call to Action for a Day in Solidarity with Starbucks Workers
May 17, 2007
Starbucks workers and their allies will take to the
streets around the world to demand justice from the
world's largest coffee chain for baristas and coffee
farmers. Three years ago the corporate bosses at
Starbucks were sitting pretty on their multi-million
dollar fortunes, confident that anti-worker labor laws
would continue to ensure a workforce with zero union
membership in the United States. But no matter the
constraints, working people will find a way to join
hands and struggle for justice until victory. Three
years after the founding of the IWW Starbucks Workers
Union [StarbucksUnion.org], the organization has
members in multiple U.S states successfully using
Direct Action to rise out of poverty and articulate an
independent voice on the job.
To silence worker voices, Starbucks has disgracefully
terminated eight SWU baristas in retaliation for their
union activity. The SWU has prevailed against
Starbucks to reinstate two of the members but six
remain out of a job. Despite multiple Labor Board
complaints, the coffee giant continues to punish
baristas for discussing the union and relentlessly
forces union-busting propaganda down workers throats.
Starbucks must understand that working people of
conscience will not allow this affront to the dignity
of our class.
On May 17, commemorate the third anniversary of the
SWU and stand in solidarity with baristas and coffee
farmers with actions in your local community. 1)
Hold a spirited protest against Starbucks
union-busting, 2) reach out to baristas with a message
of support, 3) organize a fundraiser, or 4) choose
a different solidarity action. Whatever you do,
you'll be part of a global effort challenging the
neoliberal logic that places profits over people.
Starbucks workers are struggling not just for
ourselves and our families but for every worker at the
big brands who are looking for a collective voice and
a better life. Join us.
Let us know about actions you are organizing by
sending an e-mail to StarbucksUnion@yahoo.com
Please take photos, video, and/or write up a report of
your action to share with workers around the world.
Together We Win.
IWW Starbucks Workers Union
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Starbucks to announce Ethiopian Trademark deal this month
According to a recent report by Anton Foek for CorpWatch, Starbucks is on the verge of signing a historic, progressive deal whereby the company would recognize Ethiopia's decision to trademark three of its coffees, rather than certifiy the bean names:
"What the Ethiopians have demanded is Starbucks' support for the country's innovative plan to trademark three of its coffees - Harar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe. Until now, the world's largest specialty coffee retailer has resisted the move, arguing instead for certification of bean names. Trademarking, say critics, would give power to growers; certification, they argue, is toothless.
The dispute sounds technical, but at root the controversy is about trying to close the gap between the $4 a Western consumer may pay for a cappuccino and the 50 cents a day earned by a laborer on an Ethiopian coffee farm (or on farms elsewhere in the world: see Brazil box).
Every penny counts, for individuals (an estimated 11 million Ethiopians, about one-fifth of the population, depend on coffee for their livelihoods) and for the nation (coffee provides two-thirds of the country's export earnings)."
See the entire May 8th, 2007 Food and Agricultre article,Trademarking Coffee: Starbucks cuts Ethopia Deal, for more details and further background.
"What the Ethiopians have demanded is Starbucks' support for the country's innovative plan to trademark three of its coffees - Harar, Sidamo and Yirgacheffe. Until now, the world's largest specialty coffee retailer has resisted the move, arguing instead for certification of bean names. Trademarking, say critics, would give power to growers; certification, they argue, is toothless.
The dispute sounds technical, but at root the controversy is about trying to close the gap between the $4 a Western consumer may pay for a cappuccino and the 50 cents a day earned by a laborer on an Ethiopian coffee farm (or on farms elsewhere in the world: see Brazil box).
Every penny counts, for individuals (an estimated 11 million Ethiopians, about one-fifth of the population, depend on coffee for their livelihoods) and for the nation (coffee provides two-thirds of the country's export earnings)."
See the entire May 8th, 2007 Food and Agricultre article,Trademarking Coffee: Starbucks cuts Ethopia Deal, for more details and further background.
Labels: Fair Trade, Starbucks
