Starbucks did not possess an "anti-union playbook" and did not intentionally participate in union busting, according to a third-party report in response to shareholders' complaints to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Led by labor relations expert Thomas Mackall, the coffee chain was said to be ill-prepared for the unionization efforts at its stores, leading to significant negative consequences for the company.
Workers United Campaign
Workers United initiated a campaign in Buffalo, New York, in August 2021, which has expanded to over 350 Starbucks stores nationwide. This organizing effort has resulted in intense conflicts between the company and union organizers, spanning the leadership of three Starbucks CEOs. The report released on Wednesday was prompted by a shareholder proposal led by New York City Comptroller Brad Lander earlier this year. Lander, acting as a fiduciary to city public pension funds, proposed an independent assessment of worker rights at Starbucks, gaining majority support from investors at the company's March 23 annual meeting.
"Union-Busting" Accusations
Employees accused Starbucks of engaging in "union-busting" when they advocated for better wages, staffing, and schedules. The inquiry, conducted from July to September, recommended that Starbucks enhance its approach to unionization and update its Global Human Rights Statement. As per the report, there was no evidence of any interference with employees' freedom to unionize. Mellody Hobson, independent chair of Starbucks, emphasized the need for the company to improve its commitments despite acknowledging Starbucks' intention to uphold the principles of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.
Union's Stance
The Starbucks Workers United union, representing over 9,000 employees in about 360 U.S. stores, stated that the report recognizes significant issues in the company's response to workers organizing, such as firings, retaliation, store closures, and withholding benefits from unionized workers. The union would engage in dialogue if Starbucks' recent efforts were genuine. Starbucks contacted the union last week and suggested resuming discussions with a selected group of stores in January.
Although there was no evidence of deliberate union busting, the report reveals that the company was unprepared for an organizing campaign. The response was hindered by an internal belief at Starbucks that union activity was limited to Buffalo. The report highlights that the concept of employees unionizing was so distant to the company that it lacked a trained and dedicated labor relations team.
Starbucks became vulnerable when it dispatched reinforcements to Buffalo to stabilize operations. While union organizers gained support in Buffalo-area stores, the report notes that Starbucks concentrated on addressing operational and management issues, including staffing problems, substandard facilities, and training and standards.
Legal Violations and Organizers' Tactics
The report suggests that the emphasis on operations overshadowed a careful regard for the rights of unionizing workers protected by federal law. Throughout the union campaign, federal administrative law judges have determined that store-level managers or supervisors have often overstepped boundaries. It also mentions that skilled union organizers can identify and report legal violations and, in some cases, even provoke them. If allegations of unlawful actions increase and are substantiated by federal regulators, a union can use them to generate publicity and pressure the targeted organization.
