Starbucks Union

Starbucks settles NLRB complaint of fired barista

By LAUREN SHEPHERD

NEW YORK (AP) — Starbucks Corp. has settled a National Labor Relations Board complaint with an employee who said he was fired this summer for promoting union activity.

The agreement marks the gourmet coffee chain's third settlement of an NLRB complaint alleging the company was attempting to dissuade employees from joining a union.

The settlement stemmed from a complaint filed in July by Minneapolis barista Erik Forman who claimed he was fired for encouraging workers to join the Industrial Workers of the World union.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Starbucks Workers Union/Industrial Workers of the World

Contact: Erik Forman, 608-695-8705

October 1, 2008

Starbucks Settles Labor Board Case Over Illegal Union-Busting in Minnesota

Fired Union Barista Reinstated to Mall of America Location after Union Pressure Campaign

Minneapolis, MN– The Starbucks Workers Union announced today that Starbucks has settled with the National Labor Relations Board on charges of anti-union malfeasance, ranging from interrogation of union activists, threats against workers, illegal firings, to surveillance of union activity. The settlement agreement comes in the wake of the reinstatement of IWW barista Erik Forman to the Mall of America location on August 31. Forman, a union organizer, was illegally fired on July 10 for allegedly “discussing a written warning with a peer.â€

Forman said, “Sadly, Starbucks has continued the legacy of illegal union-busting against the IWW that they initiated in New York City in 2004. We have shown that they won’t get away with it in Minnesota. The public is on our side. The law is on our side. We will keep organizing until we win justice for baristas.â€

This is the third NLRB settlement Starbucks has entered into in its four-year battle with the Industrial Workers of the World, a labor union. Since the launch of the IWW campaign at Starbucks on May 17, 2004, the company has been cited in three states for illegal union-busting by the National Labor Relations Board. The company settled three complaints against it and is awaiting a decision by a judge in New York on more than 30 additional rights’ violations. Starbucks’ large anti-union operation is operated in conjunction with the Akin Gump law firm and the Edelman public relations firm. In Minnesota, Starbucks has contracted with unionbusting consultants Halleland Lewis Nilan & Johnson.

By LAUREN SHEPHERD
AP BUSINESS WRITER

August 29, 2008

NEW YORK -- A barista who said he was fired from Starbucks Corp. for helping to organize fellow workers into a union has been given his job back.

In a preliminary reinstatement agreement dated Aug. 14 obtained by The Associated Press, Starbucks said its firing of employee Erik Forman was "ill-considered and should be reversed."

Forman said he will start back at work on Sunday at the same Mall of America location in Minnesota that he was fired from in July.

When he worked there, Forman said he had been talking to employees at his own store and at other stores in the area about joining the Industrial Workers of the World union.

In an interview, Forman said although several other employees at the store were members of the union, "I was the most vocal and the most active."

Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow confirmed that Forman was being given his job back but said his firing and reinstatement had nothing to do with his support for the union.

"We don't track our partners' involvement in those organizations," Darrow said.

Forman said he was fired July 10 after he received a "final written warning" for showing up half an hour late to work. The warning followed two prior instances of tardiness a year earlier. Once a final written warning is issued, an employee may be fired.

Forman said he had expected a warning after showing up late for work, but not a final warning. Some employees are given half a dozen or more warnings before receiving a final one, he said, adding that managers frequently choose not to give warnings to well-liked employees.

In the agreement, Starbucks called Forman's firing "an unfortunate series of events." Darrow characterized it as "a mistake."

Besides giving him back his job, Starbucks is also paying Forman about $2,000 in back pay, he said.

Forman said he believes Starbucks reinstated him partly due to pressure from the IWW and other Starbucks workers. His co-workers at the Mall of America store walked out of work the day after he was fired in protest and Forman said about 50 Starbucks employees in the area signed a petition asking the company to give him his job back.

Forman also said he filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board the day after he was fired.

Darrow said the filing of complaint did not influence Starbucks' decision to re-hire Forman and that the company reviewed the situation at Forman's request.

Although Starbucks has asked him to voluntarily withdraw the NLRB complaint now that he has his job back, Forman said he still intends to pursue it.

"The law was violated," Forman said. "They haven't given me any guarantee that this will not happen again."

Robert Chester, regional director for the NLRB in Minneapolis, confirmed that Forman filed the complaint in July and said the office is investigating.

If the NLRB deems that a law was broken, it will attempt to negotiate a settlement between Forman and Starbucks. If they don't agree to a settlement, the case would then go to court.

In 2006, Starbucks entered into a settlement with the NLRB to resolve a complaint filed by New York City workers attempting to organize a union at a Starbucks store. In that settlement, Starbucks rehired two employees that had been fired and posted a notice in three stores for 60 days affirming the rights of workers to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act.

Starbucks also settled with the NLRB in a 2007 Grand Rapids, Mich. case that involved bulletin board postings and an alleged comment made by a manager that an employee said was threatening.

Darrow said Starbucks did not admit to any wrongdoing in either settlement agreement and that the company decided to settle the cases to save both time and expense for all parties.

Starbucks baristas union drive comes at key time

The effort to organize local latte-slingers could hurt the ailing chain

By Matt Snyders

published: July 23, 2008, City Pages

It was a typical, busy Thursday afternoon at the Mall of America's first-floor Starbucks, and Erik Forman was four hours into his shift. The slight, 23-year-old barista was soon approached by a vaguely familiar face: Caroline Kaker, the chain's Bloomington-based district manager.

She pulled him aside and led him to the adjacent Barnes & Noble. There, she broke the grim news: You're fired.

Forman was stunned. Sure, two weeks earlier, he had shown up a half-hour late and was issued a written warning. But that wasn't why Forman was getting the ax today. Management decided to deep-six him after learning that Forman had discussed the warning with co-workers.

"Erik violated terms of his June 2008 final written corrective action by discussing it with a peer," reads the notice of separation.

But there was another topic Forman had discussed with peers, one not explicitly mentioned in the write-up: unionizing.

A member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), Forman had been in the process of organizing his co-workers under the IWW banner for nearly two years.

"It started with workers during their situations during cigarette breaks, during car rides to and from work," Forman recalls. "We first approached the IWW in September of '06. They helped us figure out how to build a strategy."

In 2004, the IWW took on a Starbucks in Midtown Manhattan, with modest success. In the following years, the list of IWW Starbucks Union affiliates grew to include five other shops in New York City; two in Chicago; one in Grand Rapids, Michigan; and one in Rockville, Maryland.

Shortly after the first union sprouted in New York, Starbucks higher-ups exchanged concerned emails, leaked to The Wall Street Journal, about how to handle the epidemic of unionizing. One, dated October 29, 2004, begins with a blunt introduction: "Below is a summary of the recent developments in New York City regarding our attempts to thwart a potential union situation," it reads.

In March 2006, the IWW accused the coffee giant of union-busting and filed a charge with the National Labor Relations Board. Starbucks settled, agreeing to display workers' rights posters in three of its stores and to allow two fired workers back on staff.

"The reasons they gave for firing me were identical to what they did in New York," says Forman, who's also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. "This is a pretty blatant example of union-busting. We've been planning on making our movement public for a while—so even though it comes as a blow, it's kind of a galvanizing blow."

On July 11, one day after Forman got clipped, five workers walked off the floor and approached the floor manager, Jason Lyons, with a petition demanding Forman's reinstatement. Lyons told them it was out of his hands.

Now Forman and the IWW stand poised to organize baristas throughout the metro. On Monday, July 21, they went public. Their demands include a living wage, "respectful" scheduling, and an end to the company's alleged union-busting.

Asked about Forman's allegations, a Starbucks spokesperson had little to say.

"We just received the charge [from Forman] and we're reviewing it," says Stacey Krum, on the phone from Seattle. "There's nothing we can offer right now."

The charges clash with Starbucks' image as a corporate paragon of social responsibility. The Seattle-based chain has staked its reputation on progressive values that play well with its well-to-do clientele. Starbucks was listed as No. 7 in Fortune's "100 Best Companies to Work For" this year.

The most frequently extolled of Starbucks' labor practices is its healthcare program. It's one of the few major retailers to provide health insurance to part-time employees. But that comes with a couple of caveats.

First, in order to qualify, workers must log 240 hours per quarter. However, there are no guaranteed hours and many baristas complain of sporadic, unpredictable scheduling. As a result, only 65 percent of Starbucks workers, including management, meet the 240-hour minimum. Many of the remaining workers (particularly part-timers) decide not to buy into the plan; rent payments take priority over premiums.

Consequently, the company's health insurance plan covers less than half (40.9 percent) of employees. As organizers like to point out, that's less than the oft-demonized Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which covers 47 percent of its workers.

"It's just incredible hypocrisy on this core identity issue," says IWW organizer Daniel Gross. "It's absolutely misleading. It's taken a sub-par program and turned it into a marketing advantage through spin and PR."

Last week, Starbucks released the full list of 600-odd stores expected to close in the coming months, including 27 in Minnesota. Sixteen of the doomed shops sit in the Twin Cities metro.The closings will affect some 12,000 workers nationwide. On Monday, Forman's former co-workers at the Mall of America's Starbucks walked off the floor and issued a letter to management demanding "just treatment of all employees affected by Starbucks' closure of stores nationwide." With an economy seemingly in free-fall and job security plummeting, unionization—for good or ill—enjoys more appeal than it did 10 years ago.

"This will be the biggest fire they've had to put out in a while," says Forman. "The economy is getting worse, people can't get by and are having to work 14-hour days. Management's biggest tool has always been the threat of firing. People are starting to think maybe that's a risk worth taking."

Mall of America Starbucks Baristas Walk Off Job, Protest Closures

Starbucks union plans protest of nationwide closures at MOA

BLOOMINGTON, Minn. -- Starbucks baristas at the Mall of America location walked off the job Monday and delivered a letter to management demanding “just treatment†of all employees affected by Starbucks' store closures nationwide.

The barista walkout comes days after Starbucks announce the closure of 600 stores nationwide, including 27 in Minnesota.

BARISTA DEMANDS

The baristas demanded a severance package of closure-affected workers, plus the option to transfer to other stores.

The Starbucks Workers Union says the company plans to give workers one month notice before laying them off with “a paltry two weeks' pay.†The union also says Starbucks will "insist some baristas transfer and will revoke severance pay if transfer offers are refused."

Starbucks pays baristas a wage of $7.60 per hour -- a rate above minimum wage, but below an amount baristas find satisfactory.

"With the skyrocketing cost of living, workers have no other choice than to stand up for improvements on the job,†former barista Erik Foreman said. “Even at Starbucks in the Mall of America, we can organize and fight!"

MINNESOTA MINIMUM WAGE

There are three minimum wages in effect in Minnesota: $5.25 an hour at businesses with gross yearly sales of less than $500,000; the federal minimum of $5.85 at businesses with sales between $500,000 and $625,000; and $6.15 for larger companies. Starting July 24, all employers with sales topping $500,000 must pay the new federal minimum of $6.55 an hour.

Union Link: www.StarbucksUnion.org