A historic breakthrough has been achieved by the Starbucks organizing campaign, which has succeeded in unionizing nearly 20 of the coffee chain's U.S. stores. The union is in the early stages of negotiations for a first contract.
Starbucks doesn't want to give the workers a good deal since it would encourage more workers to organize. If Workers United can get solid gains in a collective bargaining agreement, it will make it easier to organize Starbucks stores in the U.S.
Both sides are bracing for a fight at the negotiating table that could determine the future of unions inside Starbucks.
Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, predicted that it would be difficult for partners to develop a contract that exceeds what they already offer. The full-stop rule is what it is. The contract negotiations begin.
Some hardball tactics may be in store for Starbucks. Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz suggested in a recent company forum that Starbucks could offer new benefits that would apply everywhere but the unionized locations, since those stores are now negotiating their own work terms.
“Starbucks has every incentive not to offer the workers a satisfactory deal, since that would only encourage more workers to organize.”
The union is trying to consolidate its leverage against the company. Starbucks Workers United has been organizing the chain store by store, filing for elections at locations where union support is high. The National Labor Relations Board sided with the union after the company pushed for larger elections that would encompass an entire market.
The union's store-by-store strategy is more manageable than trying to unionize Starbucks nationally. The union is still negotiating a contract for every store that joins.
The campaign views each Starbucks as distinct, and that applying the same exact contract to every outpost would go against what they said they wanted from the beginning.
There are aspects of the company that are consistent in these stores, but there are other aspects that are not.
Eisen said she works at a small walk-in location, known as a cafe in company parlance, and that her store is different from the one in Mesa, Arizona, that recently unionized. Some contract language may not make sense for one.
We have to find elements of stores that are consistent and that becomes a national framework, but allowing for flexibility within the contracts that can cater to each individual store as well.
The company has no interest in crafting national standards, no matter how many stores decide to unionize.
The law and the National Labor Relations Board allowed the union to argue that each store is its own unit.
Employers face no meaningful penalties for dragging out the process of securing a first contract in the U.S. It is a common strategy for companies to bargain in bad faith and make no real progress at the table in hopes that union support will dwindle over time and the union will be decertified.
It would be easier for Starbucks to stifle the campaign if only a few stores unionize. The union has filed for elections at more than 200 stores, and so far they have only lost two of the more than 20 votes that have already been cast. The union is likely to get more public support and leverage at the bargaining table.
Rebecca Givan is an associate professor of labor studies at Rutgers University.
The company will honor the process and bargain in good faith, but achieving a contract could take years.
“It’s clear that this is a very worker-led organizing drive, and the workers are in extremely good communication with each other.”
- Rebecca Givan, Rutgers University
Dozens of lawyers from the union-avoidance law firm Littler Mendelson have been sent by Starbucks to slow the pace of union elections. As the campaign grows, fighting a union effort becomes less appealing.
It will be difficult to maintain that strategy at many bargaining tables when workers are fully aligned and in coordination with each other.
A number of union supporters have been fired by Starbucks. The labor board determined that seven firings in Memphis were illegal because they were in response to union activism. The labor board will pursue a case against Starbucks if it doesn't agree to a settlement.
Starbucks could face a backlash from consumers that affects its bottom line if workers speak out about the company's handling of the union campaign. If the union uses labor-friendly politicians and other high-profile supporters to criticize the company in the contract fight, the stakes could be even higher.
Sharon Block, a labor law professor at Harvard University and former official in the Biden White House, said that the brand dynamic is hard to quantify, but thatReputable considerations must figure into Starbucks.
She said that it weighs on their decision-making.
If workers can organize hundreds of stores, Starbucks may want to acknowledge it as a union employer and bargain accordingly, rather than continue to wage a battle at every store where a union petition pops up.
Eisen wondered how much organizing it would take to get there. She said unionizing a single store takes a long time. She thinks that public support for the campaign might be more important than the number of stores that end up in the union column.
The hope is that the company is really who they say they are.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
