Starbucks Union Campaign Continues Its Running

Employees at Starbucks have added to the scope of the union campaign that appeared at the end of August and has spanned decades of uncooperative work in corporate stores.

On Thursday and Friday, workers in six stores in upstate New York voted to join, according to the National Labor Relations Board, bringing the number of company stores where employees supported the union to 16. The union, Workers United, was also leading the store in Kansas whose votes were counted Friday, but the number of votes contested leaves the results in doubt until their term expires.

The coalition has lost just one vote so far, but it is contesting the outcome.

Since the coalition secured its first two victories in the December election, workers in more than 175 stores in at least 25 states have made corporate decisions, in nearly 9,000 corporate stores in the United States. The union will count votes in at least three other stores next week.

The planned success at Starbucks seems to reflect growing interest among union workers, including attempts at Amazon, where workers last week voted to align the Staten Island warehouse with borders.

On Wednesday, the union’s chief justice, Jennifer Abruzzo, announced that the results of the general election had risen by more than 50 percent in the past six months compared to the same period a year earlier. Ms Abruzzo lamented that the lack of funding and staffing made it difficult for the agency to continue operating, saying the agency “needed a significant increase in funding to meet the agency’s mandate.”

Starbucks has tried to persuade employees to refrain from holding anti-union meetings and negotiations between managers and individual employees, but some employees say the meetings have only increased their support for the process.

In some cases, Starbucks has also sent a number of officials to out-of-town stores, with the company saying it wants to address work-related issues such as staff and education but what some corporate executives have said are threatening.

The union has criticized Starbucks for reducing hours nationwide as a way to encourage long-time employees to leave the company and replace them with employees who are highly skeptical of the agreement. And the union claims that Starbucks has retaliated against employees for supporting the union by punishing or firing them. Last month, a labor union filed a complaint against Starbucks over the return of two Arizona employees, a step it takes later on grounds of harassment against employers or employers.

The company has denied any wrongdoing on the part of the employees, claiming that it prepares employees according to customer requirements, and has denied any wrongdoing.

As the merger campaign expanded in March, the company announced that Kevin Johnson, who has served as a senior since 2017, has been temporarily replaced by Howard Schultz, who has led the company twice in the past and remains one of its largest businesses.

Some vendors who warned Johnson that ways of opposing the company’s contract could damage his reputation have expressed hope that a change of leadership could bring Starbucks’ change to the contract. But the company soon announced that it would not accept political neutrality in coalition elections, as requested by the commission, and diminished that confidence.

On Monday, the same day that Mr. Schultz returned as head of the organization, the company fired Laila Dalton, one of two Arizona employees who NLRB challenged Starbucks to retaliate in March. The company alleged that Ms. Dalton violated company rules by recording interviews with employees without their consent.

“The interest of corporate partners does not detract from the standards we have always held,” said Reggie Borges, a spokeswoman for the company, using the company’s words to the employee.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.