The Industrial Workers of the World ramps up its campaign to organize Starbucks
By Sam Stoker
December 22, 2008
On Aug. 31, the light-rail train from
Forman, an IWW organizer, had been fired on July 10, his boss told him, for discussing with co-workers the disciplinary action that was taken against him after showing up late to work. But Forman believes the real reason was because of his outspoken advocacy for the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) - which is part of the IWW - and says that his termination was an attempt by Starbucks, the world's largest coffee-shop chain, to bust a growing union movement among its employees.
Forman filed a complaint for illegal termination and anti-union malfeasance with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) a week later. In support, Starbucks' baristas throughout the Twin Cities signed a petition demanding Forman's reinstatement. After a series of work stoppages and protests, Starbucks settled the complaint on Aug. 31.
Under the terms of the settlement, the company did not admit guilt or that the IWW's actions influenced its decision to rehire Forman. But it did agree to reinstate him with back pay for missed time and to post signs in the shop for 60 days, informing workers that management would not interfere with attempts to organize.
More than half of Forman's shop is now in the IWW - and at the Mall of America the Wobblies were planning 'to drink some union-made lattes' in a sign of solidarity.
`We are the union' A handful of baristas started the SWU in a single Starbucks shop in
'The union was sparked because workers had become fed up with low wages, unsecured scheduling, a prohibitive healthcare system and a lack of respect from managers,'
says founding member Daniel Gross.
The SWU soon spread to Starbucks across the city, all while embracing the tenets of the IWW - particularly solidarity unionism. Unlike the prominent union model that uses a hierarchical power structure and focuses on bargaining with employers, solidarity unionism embraces direct democracy with members supporting one another directly.
'We are not part of a union,' says Gross. 'We are the union.'
Members of the SWU say Starbucks embarked on an anti- union campaign since the its inception. They allege management threatened employees who expressed interest in the union, and spied on and interrogated employees about union activity. SWU says the most outspoken union advocates were fired.
Starbucks denies these charges. 'Such allegations are baseless,' says Starbucks spokesperson Tara Darrow.
'Starbucks strictly abides with laws and guidelines associated with labor law. We wouldn't do that because it is against the law.'
Yet Starbucks' settlement with the NLRB complaint on Forman's behalf was the third such settlement in three years. During that time, Starbucks has reinstated four employees after they filed complaints with the NLRB, and two cases remain open.
In New York, Gross is still awaiting the decision of an August 2007 hearing in which the NLRB filed 30 complaints against Starbucks for anti-union malfeasance, in addition to a complaint that he, Gross, was fired illegally. More recently, in
According to Dorsey, the SWU began organizing in
'We were attempting to organize a union election, a tactic we thought could be effective here in
Those baristas collectively decided that Dorsey - at least initially - should be the union's public face while others remained underground.
Dorsey was fired on June 6 during the union election campaign. Starbucks' Darrow says Dorsey - who had worked at Starbucks for two years and had won employee awards - was fired for being tardy after receiving a final warning. As in other cases, Starbucks denies allegations of union-busting activity.
'The backbone of my case is that I was fired for less than what other employees have done,' Dorsey says.
In a response to Dorsey's NLRB complaint, Starbucks'
attorneys reiterated the official reason he was fired, and added that he was a 'salt,' suggesting that Dorsey had no interest in working at Starbucks and was there only to organize.
'I guess it is true in a sense because I am organizing people, but what they fail to understand is that I also depend on the income from my job, and they took that away from me,' Dorsey says. 'We never wanted this to be a contentious issue. We want a union so that we can improve workplace conditions. Starbucks has made the situation contentious.'
Improving working conditions In the past year, the SWU has grown more than it had in its first three years combined. The group says it has around 250 members nationally, with most congregated in
SWU members say that the Twin Cities have the fastest growth rate nationwide, attributing much of the growth to the controversy stirred up by Forman's firing.
Forman says the union's local growth is only a step in a larger campaign to challenge Starbucks to improve worker conditions. With stores in 60 countries, Starbucks employs 150,000 people worldwide.
'The union needs to become international and it eventually needs to spread into all of the service industry,' Forman says.
A global movement against the corporation appears to be underway. Dorsey's termination coincided with the firing of Monica (who wouldn't reveal her last name because she fears being blacklisted by other employers), a Starbucks barista in
Monica is a member of the Confederaci - n Nacional del Trabajo (CNT), the Spanish counterpart of the IWW.
Like Dorsey, Monica was also allegedly fired for union organizing. Their terminations sparked an international day of protest on July 5 at hundreds of Starbucks in cities across the world.
But, according to spokeswoman Darrow, Starbucks doesn't fear such organizing.
'As far as we are concerned, our [employees] have free choice [to unionize] at all times,' she says. 'We feel we have great communication back and forth with employees and we pride ourselves on providing a good workplace.'
Starbucks' pride in its 'good workplace' stems from the employee pay and benefit packages that the company often trumpets - benefits that include stock option programs and healthcare benefits that the company claims cover 65 percent of eligible employees. But the bottom line for the SWU is that a person simply cannot live a decent life as a Starbucks worker. The wages, which generally hover slightly above each state's minimum wage, are too low; the hours are unstable; and health insurance premiums and deductibles are prohibitive compared to earnings.
'There are many corporations like Starbucks that exploit workers, but few have succeeded like Starbucks in portraying itself as a socially conscious corporation,' Gross says.
While the most common response to such a situation is `Why don't you quit?' Forman says, 'The fact is there are not many industries a person can get into with no skills, and retail is one of them. The best thing people can do is organize.'
Back at the Mall of America The Wobblies' Aug. 31 party on the light-rail was cut short two train stops before the Mall of America, when police officers boarded the train and questioned the group. Police told them the Mall of America is private property and that no demonstrations or protests are allowed there.
The union members explained that they were simply joining their friend for his first day of work and assured the officers they were not there to demonstrate or disrupt shoppers. The officers let them pass.
But when the train arrived at the Mall of America, a line of police in riot gear blocked the doors to the platform. Among them were FBI agents. (Aug. 31 was also the day before the opening of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, which may have explained the police presence.) A co-worker text-messaged Forman that management had been speaking with police in their shop.
No one was allowed off the train and police threatened to arrest anyone who tried to exit.
'It's ridiculous,' Forman later says. 'Management, the police and the FBI are working together. They say they didn't want us demonstrating, but we assured them that was not our intent. I think it is clear, what they really fear is us organizing.'
Sam Stoker is a freelance reporter based in
Starbucks Loses Round in
By Steven Greenhouse
The New York Times
December 24, 2008
A National Labor Relations Board judge ruled on Tuesday that Starbucks had illegally fired three baristas and otherwise violated federal labor laws in seeking to beat back unionization efforts at several of its
The administrative law judge, Mindy E. Landow, found that Starbucks had also broken the law by issuing negative job evaluations to union supporters and prohibiting employees from discussing the union even though the employees were allowed to discuss other subjects not related to work.
'The judge's ruling shows that this company has trampled on workers' rights to organize a labor union,' said one of the fired baristas, Daniel Gross, who is a longtime leader of the effort by the Industrial Workers of the World to unionize Starbucks workers in New York, Minnesota, Michigan and other states.
Judge Landow ordered that Mr. Gross and the two other baristas be reinstated to their jobs and receive back wages. She also ordered Starbucks to pledge to end what she said was discriminatory treatment toward workers who supported the union at four of its Manhattan shops: 200 Madison Avenue at 36th Street, 145 Second Avenue at 9th Street, 15 Union Square East and 116 East 57th Street.
Starbucks was quick to voice its dismay with the ruling.
'While we respect the N.L.R.B. process, we're disappointed with the decision, and we intend to appeal it to the next stage in the process,' said Tara Darrow, a spokeswoman for Starbucks. She said the company was disappointed that the decision did not take into consideration what she said where personal threats lodged against managers.
Ms. Darrow said the company was proud of its tradition of communicating with its employees directly, and not through a union. 'We believe that at the end of this, our policies and approach will be deemed fair and consistent.'
The judge's ruling grows out of charges that the labor board's
In March 2006, Starbucks reached a settlement with the union, agreeing to pay $2,000 in back pay and reinstating two other New York baristas who the labor board said had been fired illegally as part of an effort to quash unionization. Judge Landow ruled against Starbucks on most issues, finding that its managers had improperly barred employees from wearing more than one pro-union button and had illegally prohibited workers at its
The judge also ruled that a Starbucks manager had illegally prohibited employees from talking about wages and other terms of employment.
But the judge found that Starbucks managers did not improperly discriminate when they prohibited two union supporters from wearing what the managers said were overly obtrusive necklaces.
The 88-page ruling describes a bitter and escalating battle between Starbucks and the union since it began its organizing drive in 2004. The union has repeatedly sought to pressure Starbucks, demonstrating outside shops and handing petitions to management demanding improvements in working conditions.
The company asserted that the fired employees were terminated for legitimate reasons, including insubordination, disrespectful conduct, using profane language and poor work performance. But Judge Landow found that the three fired employees - Mr. Gross, Joe Agins Jr. and Isis Saenz - were fired because of their pro-union activities.
Judge Landow's decision noted that Starbucks tried to keep close track of union supporters, going so far as to disseminate 'what information it received regarding off-duty employee gatherings, such as parties, where recruiting was suspected.'
'This decision conclusively establishes Starbucks' animosity toward labor organizing,' said Stuart Lichten, a lawyer for the union. 'For the first time, a judge has confirmed the existence of a nationally coordinated antiunion operation at Starbucks.'
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
Donations can be sent to the
"The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and everything to lose--especially their lives." Eugene Victor Debs