Staff at approximately 220 Starbucks locations in the United States have voted to unionize, making unexpectedly successful inroads at the popular coffee chain. However, the movement is in jeopardy as the economy slows and the company responds furiously.
Joselyn Chuquillanqui had been with Starbucks for nearly seven years when she was let go last month.
She had been anticipating the decision. Though she enjoyed her job as a barista because it allowed her to care for her young niece, the 28-year-old had tried to rally her coworkers in New York to join a labor union this winter, frustrated by the company’s stance on sick leave during the pandemic.
Soon after, she claims her boss began punishing her for minor infractions that others overlooked, such as arriving a few minutes late for her 5:30 a.m. shift.
When she misplaced her store key in July, it appeared to be the final straw, though she immediately informed her manager. The key was eventually discovered inside the shop.
Starbucks cited a pattern of tardiness and the key incident in her separation notice.
However, Joselyn, a Starbucks employee since 2015 and a shift supervisor earning more than $22 per hour, says: “It was almost certainly retaliation. I’ve never heard of anyone being fired for being less than five minutes late.”
According to union organizers, Joselyn’s altercation was part of a national crackdown in which more than 75 union activists have been fired and some stores have been closed as the company, which has marketed itself as a progressive workplace, tries to keep the labor movement at bay.
Starbucks, which operates nearly 9,000 stores in the United States and licenses thousands more, denies any retaliation. The company respects workers’ right to organize and has closed stores based on safety records.
However, there is no doubt that it regards the union as a threat.
“We do not believe that a third party should lead our people, so we are fighting for their hearts and minds. And we will be successful, I am confident “Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, stated at a June conference.
Core principles
Mr Schultz, who was born into a working-class family in Brooklyn, has already seen off several labor movements during his tenure as CEO of the company, which he led from 1987 to 2000 and again for roughly a decade after the 2008 financial crisis as it grew from a small Seattle chain to an internationally recognized behemoth.
When the company’s CEO, Kevin Johnson, stepped down in April amid a labor dispute, Mr Schultz took over as interim CEO for the third time, promising to mend the company’s relationship with its employees and “reinvent the role and responsibility of a public company.”
Senior management has held dozens of meetings about the issue, aiming to air grievances and convince employees that the company can respond better without a union.
The company has also announced a $1 billion investment in higher wages, additional training, and other improvements, raising the company’s minimum wage in the United States to $15 an hour and the average to around $17.
When pay increases went into effect on August 1, the company made it clear that they would not be extended to employees at unionized stores, claiming that a change in benefits would have to be negotiated as part of a larger contract.
“Sharing success through wins and benefits with our partners has been one of our core values for 50 years,” Mr Schultz said in May. “Our values are not, and have never been, the result of outside demands or interference.”
Unions represent a tiny percentage of the company’s workforce globally, most notably in Chile.
Starbucks Association
Campaigners in the United States maintain that the recent improvements announced by Starbucks are the result of their efforts, which have included 60 worker strikes across the country.
Their cause has been aided by an unusually tight labor market, which is credited with empowering employees at companies across the United States, including Apple and Amazon.
However, as the economy slows, those conditions may shift, just as Starbucks’ response intensifies and organizers face pressure to deliver a strong contract.
Evan Sunshine, 20, worked at a Starbucks in Ithaca, New York, that voted to unionize in April and was recently closed by Starbucks, which cited difficulty fixing an overflowing trap for cooking grease.
Evan credits the union with assisting him in relocating his job, but he adds, “A lot of workers are starting to get tired, and workers at other stores that haven’t unionised might want to but are afraid because of all of this backlash.”
Starbucks Workers United has accused the company of breaking labor laws, filing dozens of charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the government’s labor rights watchdog.
After investigating the claims, the NLRB filed 16 complaints of its own, and in some cases sought court orders to immediately reinstate fired employees – an unusually proactive step.
Starbucks, fighting the charges, has filed complaints alleging wrongdoing by the union and regulators.
It has asked for the suspension of dozens of pending union elections while its complaints are investigated. It also recently defeated an NLRB request to reinstate workers in Arizona on an emergency basis.
Regardless of how the disputes are resolved, Risa Lieberwitz, professor of labor and employment law at Cornell University and director of its Worker Institute, says that companies in the United States frequently test the limits of the law because protections and penalties for breaking them are notoriously lax.
She believes that the more serious risk to the company is that the fight will harm its brand, as polls show that Americans’ approval of organized labor has reached its highest level in decades.
This spring, a group of socially conscious investors petitioned Starbucks to take a more neutral stance, citing the company’s long history of courting progressive customers by allying with causes such as Black Lives Matter.
“Public opinion is always important,” Prof Lieberwitz says, “especially when you have a very large, well-known corporation that wants to present itself as [progressive].” “If you see this contradiction, it can seriously harm the company’s reputation.”
For the time being, it appears Starbucks is willing to take that risk.
Staff at Joselyn’s store voted 5-6 not to join the union in May, despite the fact that most staff had signed cards in support of an election just a few weeks earlier.
The union is contesting the results, claiming unethical behavior. Joselyn claimed her manager spread rumors that she was being paid for her union work, reduced her hours, and threatened employees with denial of promotions and other benefits.
“It was extremely disappointing,” she admits. “They exploited people’s weaknesses and vilified me, and that’s how they won.”