Starbucks unions to strike on November 16th

[ClownLoach]

I'm neutral on unions in general. My view is employees who are treated fairly have no reason to unionize. I don't see where Starbucks employees are being treated unfairly. It seems like they are treated a lot better than the average foodservice and retail workers. The union lost me when they stated that they want assurances stores won't close. That's ridiculous. Firstly, companies are free to make business decisions such as closing stores. Secondly, unionized companies close locations all the time.

Starbucks rarely closes stores, but they do, especially in economic downturns. The unionized stores want to prevent a "store closed to union problems" issue.

The way to avoid problems between the two parties would be to have well-communicated standards based on income and fixed expenses.

In my area I've watched Starbucks close a lot of stores. There is always an alternate location nearby. It is rare for them to abandon somewhere entirely. But the relocation may be a licensee shop instead of a corporate shop.

Just in downtown Reno alone they have closed 3 corporate stores over the years (currently they have 2 corporate stores there). Downtown Reno is not big and doesn't have much going on. This is in like a 10 block by 10 block area.

They only offer licensed or franchised locations to the big supermarket operators, Target, and airport operators. If it's a freestanding, drive thru, or in line Starbucks that isn't inside a separate business then it's a company owned and operated store.

There have been a very small handful of corporate stores that were transferred to licensees which I would describe as "attached" stores that are not built today, for example there was a company store "attached" to and renting space from a QFC reportedly somewhere in Seattle; it had a side door that opened into the sales floor. Starbucks decided to transfer it to QFC and let them take over which infuriated the employees who wanted to unionize. There were some Barnes and Noble stores that were actually corporate Starbucks and same thing, separate suite with a second door opening into the bookstore; they transferred those back to B&N who converted some to their Cafe concept and closed others (Huntington Beach for example). Finally, Simon Malls decided for reasons I can't comprehend to make a deal to take over the freestanding kiosk format stores in their malls and food courts. These are the ones that look like a grocery store format. If it's still in it's own separate walled suite in the mall it's still a corporate Starbucks.

I do wonder if the Union push gained legitimacy by switching to UFCW or Teamsters etc. if we would see Starbucks move in a very different direction and franchise out the US stores. With the push into supermarkets, coupled with the Target partnership, they now have about 10,000 company stores and 6,000+ licensed stores inside grocery stores and airports plus the Simon mall deal. More that don't count because not open to the public in corporate cafeterias licensed by Sodexo and other vendors. So they are getting closer to a 50/50 split. The major downside is that the licensed operators like Target pay substantially less than Starbucks does, especially for the leadership. A Starbucks Store Manager pay seems to be around $70K in California (I've seen as low as $58K and as high as $120K reported, maybe that high for a crazy location like Downtown Disney with hundreds of employees). Meanwhile Target will give a team leader near identical responsibilities for less than $20 an hour... Of course once they learn how to do it there and realize they're grossly under paid they can apply at Starbucks to run a "real" store.

[ClownLoach]

I do not think I am qualified (nor is anyone else) to second guess employees who want a Union. They work there, we do not. If things are not working for them (however silly we think they are) then I support what they are doing and always will.

The propaganda from Corporations, the media and anti-union types writ large is nonsense.

I will always be biased for the employee. I would trust a lousy Union before trusting a corporation (and its HR puppets) or Chambers of Commerce types or the corporate Media world.

I normally agree, but there is something that smells rotten about this Starbucks Workers United group. I'm not saying that the people at Starbucks are all saints, but this union has basically been found out to have unionized most of their successful stores through the paid "salt" method of a professional organizer being planted to disrupt the store. They collect two paychecks and try to "inform" the Starbucks workers that their job is actually terrible but they are the solution. They obviously are not being transparent as to how many of the unionized locations were the result of salting, but it seems like 80% were. The remaining 20% are all oddball store situations where they really have a legitimate beef with the location or facilities or very high store volume. So 20% of the approximately 300 stores that unionized actually "did it on their own" or about 60 out of 10,000 stores. I should mention that they're down to 300 because about 50 have already voted to drop out of Starbucks Workers United.

60 unhappy locations out of 10,000 sounds pretty good to me, I'm used to seeing 20% or more of stores in a chain that score substantially below average on engagement surveys meaning they're likely to be unionized if organization was attempted. 60 stores is a statistical rounding error, not a "tidal wave of unhappy Starbucks workers seeking justice." The rest I do not trust I'm sorry but the salting strategy that is the foundation of the union is suspicious at best and again I am curious to see where the $2.5M they started with to fund professional salts to infiltrate the company came from...

If this union is serious, and they believe there really are that many unhappy workers being mistreated, they will find a merger partner like SEIU or UFCW immediately and let them take over operations in an effort to broaden the organizing effort and bring in their professional negotiators to reach a bargaining agreement.

You cannot be serious about the unionizing concept, where you believe the organizing is better for the worker and better for the business in the long run, if you actually pay to sabotage the business itself. The paid salts cause actual harm to the business intentionally which hurts everyone including union members. Industrial sabotage is grounds for justified termination... Unless a union salt does it. That's an inequity that isn't appropriate.

[veteran+]

Understood, but the Corporation and or Owner have their version of "Salting" which they overwhelmingly get away with unless the NLRB is on it (and if they do anything about it that means anything). The NLRB has been dormant for decades and laws have been enacted all over giving a "wink" to the employer.

[ClownLoach]

Understood, but the Corporation and or Owner have their version of "Salting" which they overwhelmingly get away with unless the NLRB is on it (and if they do anything about it that means anything). The NLRB has been dormant for decades and laws have been enacted all over giving a "wink" to the employer.

You mean planting a corporate shill in the store. It's expensive for the company to do and these days it's harder than ever to accomplish thanks to social media and such. People figure out in seconds about the new guy who has a suspicious tattoo that says "I love Corporate America" and drives a Mercedes to their minimum wage job, then it blows up in their face and accelerates unionizing.

I'm just going to say again that I find it strange that a brand new startup union magically has millions of dollars at its disposal to fund hiring and paying professional organizers to infiltrate functional Starbucks locations. I don't find corporations to be models of ethical behavior, but sabotage isn't any better as you're portraying that you're going to be loyal to your new employer and you are joining in compliance with the code of business conducts and such that you don't have any conflicts of interest. You're entering the relationship as a liar and then you will continue by sabotaging what might be a perfectly good workplace where everyone is happy and conflict free.

I truly believe that with the incredible size of Starbucks and number of employees that if it was really a bad place to work and wrongdoings were really being committed on a regular basis then they would have been organizing a long time ago with the existing unions. Workers United seems to be a solution developed with the intention to go out and create problems. I think real unions seek existing problems and then argue they're the best solution.

Where is the money coming from to fund this? If they were a part of a big union like Teamsters it would make more sense, but I feel like Teamsters or SEIU people are more capable of connecting without secret infiltration and convincing people of the benefits of organizing with a strong, proven union that has proven again and again they can successfully bargain with hardline employers. Why is Workers United playing a game of chicken and obviously hiding from the negotiating table? Starbucks wants the negotiating and contract done with so they can move on, and I think the truth is Workers United knows that they are not going to get what they promised they would and in fact the worker will be worse off because the union dues will offset the pay raises which are also going to all nonunion stores. The floor will fall out of the union and everyone will decertify. Workers United is just prolonging their inevitable demise while hoping the artificial delays might convince more stores to join them. They need to dissolve and transfer the workers to a real union like SEIU or Teamsters or others who can get the job done if a union is really needed at Starbucks, which I still doubt. When I see the factory level operation of a McDonald's running on two or three employees at minimum wage that's where I see a Union that is an expert on such working conditions could really make a difference for the employees.