Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Starbucks' Dirty Secrets Revealed

Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Films at 2:55 PM on May 21, 2009.


Anti-worker and anti-EFCA, the momentum to Stop Starbucks' problematic anti-labor practices is building.
1

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

The momentum to Stop Starbucks’ problematic anti-labor practices is building.  In just one day, 10,000 people have signed the memo insisting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz allow workers to unionize.  Meanwhile Starbucks drew the wrath of Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) yesterday.  As members of Congress, union leaders, and clergy gathered for a Capitol Hill prayer breakfast to pray for the passage of the Employee Free Choice Act, Edwards declared she no longer held “coffee conversations” at Starbucks in her district because of the company’s opposition to this vital legislation.

As I wrote yesterday, Starbucks is part of the Orwellian-sounding Committee for Level Playing Field.  (Notice the pattern with Starbucks speak.  The company sticks to an “Optimal Scheduling” policy that is anything but optimal for its “partners,” which is the company’s clever name for workers, even though Starbucks routinely disrespects these employees by punishing them for participating in union activities.)  Along with Whole Foods and Costco, Starbucks is pushing for a compromise on Employee Free Choice that would basically keep secret ballot elections in place that are prone to intimidation, without truly allowing for the union authorization card alternative proposed by the legislation.  The Committee’s so-called compromise would also increase penalties for companies that discriminate against workers trying to unionize, which is ironic considering Starbucks is one of those companies and has repeatedly violated the National Labor Relations Act.

Now here’s the fun part.  There’s a lot you can do to let Starbucks know they should stop harassing workers for exercising their rights to unionize and negotiate for better pay, benefits, and working conditions.  Starbucks currently has a site, My Starbucks Idea, calling for ideas from people to “shape the future of Starbucks.”  This is a great chance to tell Starbucks what you really think.  Here’s what I wrote, head to the site and vote it up or submit your own idea:

 

Allow Your Workers to Unionize

An increasing number of Starbucks employees want to join a union to negotiate fairer wages, benefits, and working conditions. And in just one day, 10,000 people have joined the Stop Starbucks campaign (http://stopstarbucks.com/), signing a memo to Starbucks’ billionaire CEO Howard Schultz insisting he allow workers to unionize. If Starbucks is truly the progressive company it pretends to be, it will allow workers to unionize without fear of reprisals.

Starbucks has a nasty history of being anti-barista, anti-union, and thus anti-Employee Free Choice Act as well. The National Labor Relations Board has repeatedly found Starbucks guilty of illegally terminating, harassing, intimidating, and discriminating against employees attempting to unionize. Late last year, a judge ruled Starbucks had committed over a dozen violations of the National Labor Relations Act at a few New York stores. Starbucks has settled five such labor disputes in the last few years in New York, Minnesota, and Michigan, spending millions on legal fees to avoid exposing their anti-worker ways.

Howard Schultz has said if workers “had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.” If Schultz really wants workers to trust him, Starbucks wouldn’t go to such great lengths to keep workers from joining a union.

Then, help us alert everyone to Starbucks’ anti-union practices.  The company announced a new ad campaign yesterday, asking people to look for Starbucks posters in six major cities across the country, take a photo and report them on Twitter.  Here’s how we can flip this campaign to call out Starbucks for its anti-labor practices.  From the Stop Starbucks website:

  1. Make a sign and take a photo of yourself with it in front of a Starbucks poster or Starbucks store and post it to TwitPic.com. This site automatically uploads your photo and comment to your Twitter page. Our message is focused on Starbucks’ anti-labor practices, but feel free to point out other company practices with which you disagree.  (See photo above for an example.)
  2. In your post, write what was on your sign or something else like: “Thanks a latte for nothing, Mr. Schultz,” Spill the beans about Starbucks’ union busting,” or “Mr. Schultz, let your workers unionize!”
  3. Use these two hashtags in your post: #top3percent and #starbucks. (Just copy-paste them to the end of your message.) The first hashtag is the one Starbucks is using for the contest and assures their execs will see it, and the second is for people who check out Starbucks on Twitter. It’s important to include these in your post.

These are great ways to grab the attention of Starbucks’ execs — Twitter bombs away!

Digg!

Tagged as: workers, starbucks, workers' rights, schultz

ZP Heller is the editorial director of Brave New Films. He has written for The American Prospect, AlterNet, The Philadelphia Inquirer, and The Huffington Post, covering everything from politics to pop culture.


What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Palin's associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theory
Post by Bruce Wilson. November 21, 2009.
Considering a Faux Turkey for the Holidays? Better Read This First
A review of four "birds" -- and it's not pretty.
Post by Tara Lohan. November 21, 2009.
Tea-Parties so Diverse, They Had to Use the Same Black Guy in 5 Different Scenes of Tea-Bagger Movie
Really, you know a black tea-bagger named Nate?
Post by Oliver Willis. November 20, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Check out Reverend Billy Talen
Posted by: greenferret on May 22, 2009 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reverend Billy and the Church of Life After Shopping Choir have been banned for life from every Starbucks in the world. Why? Because of their creative singing demonstrations exposing the fake bohemia of Starbucks as just another ruthless corporation, supplanting small businesses and fair wages wherever it goes.

Now Reverend Billy Talen is running for mayor of NYC! Check out his campaign site:
VoteRevBilly.org

Change-a-lujah!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so true
Posted by: missmoon on May 22, 2009 5:57 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and Equal Exchange, that fair trade coop, is no better... way under paid, the worker/owners don't really have an Equal say.... all companies, all coops, eventually become bottom liners and forget to be Fair

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

SCHULTZ HAS A POINT
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 22, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If people are treated fairly there is no need for unions. But that's not the case, most workers are not treated fairly. Schultz grew up in poverty and realizes the need for union representation and organization. He shouldn't be offended by it. People should be allowed to realize that poverty doesn't have to be a lifeime sentence. Unions are a way to make people fell human and at the very least paid for the amount of time they work. The built in rip-off can't be allowed to go on. It's become the American way and it stinks. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Boycott
Posted by: chimpie on May 22, 2009 8:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't patronise Starbucks. They are certainly not the only coffee shop on the block, but are the most overpriced. Whatever did we do before Starbucks?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two ides ot every story
Posted by: kagu632418 on May 22, 2009 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just about a year ago Starbucks was listed as one of the best companies to work for. So what is the beef now. I beleive their employees are treated fairly and get more perks than many other companies offer their employees. I don't know if I were happy after working hard and building a great business to be tools "well we are going Union now." Besides the Union are worthless - just look what happen in the auto industry! Amercal Union members pay dues and don't get a thing in return ! I ma from Europe and over there if the Union calls a Strike - the wrokes get paid 80% of their regular wages tax free by their Uninon .. So Starbuck workers before you buy a big bag of beans from your Union representative - be smart - use your brain and really look into what you're getting .. Whis NOTHING that is what you are getting .. he big Union honchos are the one that make the money ! The are the corrupt ones among you !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Organization Is Ever Perfect
Posted by: mikeblack on May 22, 2009 10:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unions aren’t perfect by any means, and I’d question the intellect of anybody who honestly believed they were the solution of all of workers problems. They’re easily corrupted, they’re often times splintered, and the American Union success rate isn’t nearly as good as those in other areas like Europe.

That being said, they absolutely have to exist because you cannot trust a corporation to look out for anything other than its bottom line. All the scare tactics about “you’re just going to pay Union dues for something you don’t need. Unions today don’t accomplish anything” are outright corporate propaganda. While nothing in life is ever perfect, I’d much rather face downsizing or outsourcing or benefit removals with a union to fight than without one.

In the case of Starbucks for instance, for years people pointed out that they gave out some of the best health benefits you could get in the chain-restaurant industry and also had better wages than others chains. But in an economic downturn, who is going to put up a fight when they decide “Well, our profits are down so we’ve got to cut benefits and payrolls to balance it out.” Otherwise you’re just at their mercy for when business is booming they’ll take care of you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We respectfully contest the comments about our co-op, Equal Exchange
Posted by: Rodney North on May 23, 2009 6:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On behalf of my worker co-operative, Equal Exchange and the broader co-operative movement I contest the comment from Missmoon.

Re: underpaid.
It is true that our managers and top managers make less than they would at conventional corporations. In fact, the higher their rank the more our managers' income trails behind their peers at our more bottom-lined focused competitors. This is in part because of our top-to-bottom 4:1 pay ratio policy. This means that no employee may make more than 4X as much as the least paid full-time employee. By contrast at most Fortune 500 companies the top-to-bottom ratio is 200:1 or higher.
Consequently this means that sometimes those at the bottom of our pay scale actually receive HIGHER-than-market incomes, especially when you consider our substantial benefits package, like full health care coverage and up to 5 weeks paid vacation.
Further, that 4:1 policy is something only the worker-owners or their worker-owner-led Board of Directors can change.

Additionally you have to consider that 40% of our net profits are set aside to be distributed to the worker-owners, and that those funds are distributed _equally_. The co-op founder/President and a relatively new warehouse worker would both receive the same check at year's end. This is unheard of outside of the worker co-op sector.

Re: no real say
As a worker-owner with 13 years at Equal Exchange I simply do not know what Missmoon is talking about. Where else would the employees control the pay ratio? or determine the mission? or have control over the 20 year vision? or hold 6 of the 9 board seats? or elect all 9 board directors? or has complete control over the company by-laws? and so on. Equal Exchange is not a collective where everyone votes on every matter, but I'm fine with that and think that, in fact, over the years the worker-owners have actually gained more authority, even while at the same time our top managers have gained more of the kind of freedom they need for Equal Exchange to succeeed.
This may be why Equal Exchange has been named one of the world's "Most Democratic Workplaces" by WorldBlu for 3 years in a row.

I also think Missmoon unfairly maligned the co-op movement, which as been refreshingly free of the scandals and dispairing trends we've seen in the rest of the American business community. Please check out the National Cooperative Business Assoc. for more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]