Friday, July 10, 2009
Friday, July 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Saturday, May 23, 2009
What do Starbucks and Walmart have in common?
Brave New Films has launched a new campaign confronting Starbucks union busting. It is called Stop Starbucks. This is a commercial they have made for the campaign.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Video of "Starbucks Union Members Speak" February 21st 2009
We would again like to thank the NorthStar Center and Solidarity and Defense for hosting this event. Also, to Tom Rico for taping.
Check out the Twin Cities blog here.
The panelists are Cole Dorsey (Grand Rapids SWU), Erik Forman (Twin Cities SWU), Angel Gardner (Twin Cities SWU).
Each panelist described their specific experience at Starbucks and then there was a Question and Answer session. The clips will be shown in reverse order starting with the questions.
Q & A at Starbucks Union Members Speak
Angel Gardner Minnesota SWU Member
Erik Forman Minnesota SWU Member
Cole Dorsey Michigan SWU Member
Check out the Twin Cities blog here.
The panelists are Cole Dorsey (Grand Rapids SWU), Erik Forman (Twin Cities SWU), Angel Gardner (Twin Cities SWU).
Each panelist described their specific experience at Starbucks and then there was a Question and Answer session. The clips will be shown in reverse order starting with the questions.
Q & A at Starbucks Union Members Speak
Angel Gardner Minnesota SWU Member
Erik Forman Minnesota SWU Member
Cole Dorsey Michigan SWU Member
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
SWU Members Speak - February 21st, 4pm NorthStar Center
Erik Forman (Twin Cities SWU) and Cole Dorsey (Grand Rapids SWU) speak about the Starbucks organizing drive and its relevancy to the labor movement.
Friday, January 30, 2009
MIOSHA Trial Date
State Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules
Ottawa State Office Building 2nd Floor
611 West Ottawa St.
Lansing, Michigan
9:00 a.m.
March 23, 2009
Ottawa State Office Building 2nd Floor
611 West Ottawa St.
Lansing, Michigan
9:00 a.m.
March 23, 2009
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Starbucks Settles ULP Charges Over Firing, But Union Refuses to Sign [BNA]
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
January 22, 2009
Starbucks Settles ULP Charges Over Firing At Michigan Store, But Union Refuses
to Sign
A National Labor Relations Board regional director in Detroit Jan. 16 approved
a settlement agreement with Starbucks Corp. resolving allegations of unfair
labor practices by the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU), an affiliate of the
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), filed with NLRB Region
7 (Starbucks Corp.
d/b/a Starbucks
Coffee Co., N.L.R.B. Reg. Dir., No. 7-CA-51190, settlement
approved 1/16/09).
The NLRB regional office in Detroit had found sufficient evidence to establish
an employer violation of the National Labor Relations Act at a Starbucks store
in Grand Rapids, Mich., according to Stephen Glasser, NLRB regional director for
Region 7.
The Grand Rapids Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) filed several charges April 15,
one of which NLRB found to be a possible violation of the act. On behalf of
fired worker Cole Dorsey, SWU claimed Starbucks illegally fired a worker who had
been involved in union activities.
Glasser said NLRB concluded there was sufficient evidence to establish Dorsey
was fired for his union activities and support for the union. “We thought we
could prove that,” he told BNA Jan. 9. Starbucks had said it fired Dorsey for
attendance issues,
Glasser
said.
Reinstatement Not Required.
Under the settlement, reached one day before a trial was to be held, Starbucks
will expunge record of the termination from the employee's personnel file
and will post a notice for 60 days at the Grand Rapids, Mich., store outlining
employees' rights under the NLRA.
Under the settlement, Starbucks is not required to reinstate the employee or
issue back pay. Although the union had sought Dorsey's reinstatement, NLRB
determined that it would not be appropriate, Glasser said.
NLRB would not agree to allow a denial of company wrongdoing in the settlement,
but that does not mean Starbucks admits to wrongdoing, Glasser told BNA Jan. 21.
The union issued a statement Jan. 13 saying it is pleased the board found that
“Starbucks violated federal labor law by
firing” Dorsey. However, “since
the SWU prefers open trials to settlements and because Mr. Dorsey was
not
awarded the full array of remedies we believe he is entitled to, the union will
not be joining the agreement between Starbucks and the NLRB.”
SWU said Dorsey is “an outspoken union member working with his co-workers to
achieve secure work hours and fairness on the job.”
Glasser approved the settlement without a signature of a union representative
after the union declined to sign the settlement.
The union does not intend to appeal the settlement to the NLRB office in
Washington, D.C., Daniel Gross, an IWW organizer and former Starbucks employee,
said Jan. 21.
Among the charges SWU filed in April, the union also claimed Starbucks had
violated an earlier settlement agreement of unfair labor practice charges
reached in October 2007
(195 DLR A-5, 10/10/07). In that settlement agreement,
the employer said it will not interrogate employees about union activities or
restrain, coerce, or
interfere with employee rights under the NLRA.
Dorsey told BNA Jan. 9 that if the case had gone to trial, the union would have
been able to raise other issues as evidence. Dorsey maintained that he was fired
for filing a safety report with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health
Administration about employees' hazardous mold concerns as the result of an
air conditioner leak at the store. Dorsey said Starbucks lawyers had
interrogated him about a meeting with MIOSHA.
In a Jan. 21 statement, Starbucks said, “We feel vindicated as the agreement
does not require reinstatement of or back pay to a partner whose termination we
believe was appropriate.”
Earlier Developments.
The settlement in
Grand Rapids is the latest incident involving SWU claims of
anti-union practices at Starbucks.
In December, an NLRB administrative law judge found Starbucks had violated
workers' rights by restricting
activity on behalf of SWU and by firing three
workers because of their support for the labor organization (249 DLR A-1,
12/30/08). Gross was one of the three workers the ALJ found was fired for his
union support.
In October, Starbucks settled NLRB charges of unfair labor practices by
reinstating an employee in Minneapolis, providing back pay, and removing record
of the discipline from his personnel records (195 DLR A-9, 10/8/08). The alleged
unfair labor practice allegations in Minneapolis that NLRB determined to be
meritorious were related to concerted, protected activities, but not to union
activities.
In March 2006, Starbucks and IWW Industrial Union 660 reached a settlement in
New York of unfair labor practice charges alleging that two workers were
discharged for engaging in protected union activity (47 DLR A-2, 3/10/06).
Copyright 2009, The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc
January 22, 2009
Starbucks Settles ULP Charges Over Firing At Michigan Store, But Union Refuses
to Sign
A National Labor Relations Board regional director in Detroit Jan. 16 approved
a settlement agreement with Starbucks Corp. resolving allegations of unfair
labor practices by the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU), an affiliate of the
Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), filed with NLRB Region
7 (Starbucks Corp.
d/b/a Starbucks
Coffee Co., N.L.R.B. Reg. Dir., No. 7-CA-51190, settlement
approved 1/16/09).
The NLRB regional office in Detroit had found sufficient evidence to establish
an employer violation of the National Labor Relations Act at a Starbucks store
in Grand Rapids, Mich., according to Stephen Glasser, NLRB regional director for
Region 7.
The Grand Rapids Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) filed several charges April 15,
one of which NLRB found to be a possible violation of the act. On behalf of
fired worker Cole Dorsey, SWU claimed Starbucks illegally fired a worker who had
been involved in union activities.
Glasser said NLRB concluded there was sufficient evidence to establish Dorsey
was fired for his union activities and support for the union. “We thought we
could prove that,” he told BNA Jan. 9. Starbucks had said it fired Dorsey for
attendance issues,
Glasser
said.
Reinstatement Not Required.
Under the settlement, reached one day before a trial was to be held, Starbucks
will expunge record of the termination from the employee's personnel file
and will post a notice for 60 days at the Grand Rapids, Mich., store outlining
employees' rights under the NLRA.
Under the settlement, Starbucks is not required to reinstate the employee or
issue back pay. Although the union had sought Dorsey's reinstatement, NLRB
determined that it would not be appropriate, Glasser said.
NLRB would not agree to allow a denial of company wrongdoing in the settlement,
but that does not mean Starbucks admits to wrongdoing, Glasser told BNA Jan. 21.
The union issued a statement Jan. 13 saying it is pleased the board found that
“Starbucks violated federal labor law by
firing” Dorsey. However, “since
the SWU prefers open trials to settlements and because Mr. Dorsey was
not
awarded the full array of remedies we believe he is entitled to, the union will
not be joining the agreement between Starbucks and the NLRB.”
SWU said Dorsey is “an outspoken union member working with his co-workers to
achieve secure work hours and fairness on the job.”
Glasser approved the settlement without a signature of a union representative
after the union declined to sign the settlement.
The union does not intend to appeal the settlement to the NLRB office in
Washington, D.C., Daniel Gross, an IWW organizer and former Starbucks employee,
said Jan. 21.
Among the charges SWU filed in April, the union also claimed Starbucks had
violated an earlier settlement agreement of unfair labor practice charges
reached in October 2007
(195 DLR A-5, 10/10/07). In that settlement agreement,
the employer said it will not interrogate employees about union activities or
restrain, coerce, or
interfere with employee rights under the NLRA.
Dorsey told BNA Jan. 9 that if the case had gone to trial, the union would have
been able to raise other issues as evidence. Dorsey maintained that he was fired
for filing a safety report with the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health
Administration about employees' hazardous mold concerns as the result of an
air conditioner leak at the store. Dorsey said Starbucks lawyers had
interrogated him about a meeting with MIOSHA.
In a Jan. 21 statement, Starbucks said, “We feel vindicated as the agreement
does not require reinstatement of or back pay to a partner whose termination we
believe was appropriate.”
Earlier Developments.
The settlement in
Grand Rapids is the latest incident involving SWU claims of
anti-union practices at Starbucks.
In December, an NLRB administrative law judge found Starbucks had violated
workers' rights by restricting
activity on behalf of SWU and by firing three
workers because of their support for the labor organization (249 DLR A-1,
12/30/08). Gross was one of the three workers the ALJ found was fired for his
union support.
In October, Starbucks settled NLRB charges of unfair labor practices by
reinstating an employee in Minneapolis, providing back pay, and removing record
of the discipline from his personnel records (195 DLR A-9, 10/8/08). The alleged
unfair labor practice allegations in Minneapolis that NLRB determined to be
meritorious were related to concerted, protected activities, but not to union
activities.
In March 2006, Starbucks and IWW Industrial Union 660 reached a settlement in
New York of unfair labor practice charges alleging that two workers were
discharged for engaging in protected union activity (47 DLR A-2, 3/10/06).
Copyright 2009, The Bureau of National Affairs,
Inc
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Starbucks Cowers to the IWW
Media Statement delivered January 7:
Faced with the prospect of losing another trial in front of the National Labor Relations Board the Regional Director has agreed to let Starbucks settle the charges against them and forego the trial that was to begin today. The union is upset that the Board is agreeing to accept another Starbucks settlement in Grand Rapids instead of holding them accountable in open court. If this most recent settlement is approved it will be 3rd one allowed by the board in Grand Rapids. With the signing of each settlement Starbucks has said they would end their anti-union intimidation and each time it has continued unabated. We can be sure it will continue which is why union membership is so vital.
Had the trial gone on here today in Grand Rapids we would have detailed the same type of union busting activity that Starbucks was found guilty of a couple weeks ago in New York. Internal communications would have been admitted into evidence showing upper management discussions about union organizing in Grand Rapids and speculation about barista's union sympathies. The same type of surveillance and monitoring that was going on in New York. Also, Starbucks selectively enforced the attendance policy, scheduled baristas based on their union sympathies, and gave me less in raises because of my union affiliation. Based on the evidence that would have been presented its unbelievable that Howard Schultz doesn't have knowledge of the huge anti-union operation in place at Starbucks. Its possible hes directing the whole operation.
On July 5th of last year there was a Global Day of Action against Starbucks called by the Grand Rapids Starbucks Workers Union and the Seville (Spain) CNT. The Day of Action was called after Monica was fired from a Starbucks in Seville and I was fired here in Grand Rapids. Over 200 Starbucks were picketed in over 80 cities in 20 countries. We have a message from the CNT with an update of Monica's situation.
"In Sevilla (Spain), the CNT has forced Starbucks to recognise the unfairness of the dissmissal of our organizer Monica. The company compensated the worker with a severance of 45 days per year as the Spanish labor laws mandates. After the global day of action, groups of workers have gotten in touch with CNT in order to join the union and organize within Starbucks. From the Local Federation of Sevilla of CNT we send our greetings to Cole Dorsey and other members of the SWU. The CNT and the IWA will respond to all the international calls for solidarity against Starbucks or other multinational coporations. We will not allow the anti-union policy of such corporations."
There is still a MIOSHA determination that has to be resolved. MIOSHA also concluded that Starbucks wrongfully terminated me. A date will be set for a trial on those charges so we may still get our day in court.
The important lesson of this process has been how important my union membership is. Had I not been a union member and Starbucks illegally fired me I would have just been fired. I happily pay my union dues every month because I know the power I have as a union member can't be produced on my own. The strength of solidarity that we have in the Starbucks Workers Union has produced positive results in every city that Starbucks has discriminated against IWW members. That is why virtually every day baristas join the Starbucks Workers Union. As Starbucks cuts labor hours for baristas nationally the only way we can combat the growing assault on our jobs is the collective direct action through the union. The economy is sinking because of corporate wrongdoing and the only way we will stop the trend and reverse the tide is through our solidarity on the job.
We have another union victory and there will be many more in the future!
Faced with the prospect of losing another trial in front of the National Labor Relations Board the Regional Director has agreed to let Starbucks settle the charges against them and forego the trial that was to begin today. The union is upset that the Board is agreeing to accept another Starbucks settlement in Grand Rapids instead of holding them accountable in open court. If this most recent settlement is approved it will be 3rd one allowed by the board in Grand Rapids. With the signing of each settlement Starbucks has said they would end their anti-union intimidation and each time it has continued unabated. We can be sure it will continue which is why union membership is so vital.
Had the trial gone on here today in Grand Rapids we would have detailed the same type of union busting activity that Starbucks was found guilty of a couple weeks ago in New York. Internal communications would have been admitted into evidence showing upper management discussions about union organizing in Grand Rapids and speculation about barista's union sympathies. The same type of surveillance and monitoring that was going on in New York. Also, Starbucks selectively enforced the attendance policy, scheduled baristas based on their union sympathies, and gave me less in raises because of my union affiliation. Based on the evidence that would have been presented its unbelievable that Howard Schultz doesn't have knowledge of the huge anti-union operation in place at Starbucks. Its possible hes directing the whole operation.
On July 5th of last year there was a Global Day of Action against Starbucks called by the Grand Rapids Starbucks Workers Union and the Seville (Spain) CNT. The Day of Action was called after Monica was fired from a Starbucks in Seville and I was fired here in Grand Rapids. Over 200 Starbucks were picketed in over 80 cities in 20 countries. We have a message from the CNT with an update of Monica's situation.
"In Sevilla (Spain), the CNT has forced Starbucks to recognise the unfairness of the dissmissal of our organizer Monica. The company compensated the worker with a severance of 45 days per year as the Spanish labor laws mandates. After the global day of action, groups of workers have gotten in touch with CNT in order to join the union and organize within Starbucks. From the Local Federation of Sevilla of CNT we send our greetings to Cole Dorsey and other members of the SWU. The CNT and the IWA will respond to all the international calls for solidarity against Starbucks or other multinational coporations. We will not allow the anti-union policy of such corporations."
There is still a MIOSHA determination that has to be resolved. MIOSHA also concluded that Starbucks wrongfully terminated me. A date will be set for a trial on those charges so we may still get our day in court.
The important lesson of this process has been how important my union membership is. Had I not been a union member and Starbucks illegally fired me I would have just been fired. I happily pay my union dues every month because I know the power I have as a union member can't be produced on my own. The strength of solidarity that we have in the Starbucks Workers Union has produced positive results in every city that Starbucks has discriminated against IWW members. That is why virtually every day baristas join the Starbucks Workers Union. As Starbucks cuts labor hours for baristas nationally the only way we can combat the growing assault on our jobs is the collective direct action through the union. The economy is sinking because of corporate wrongdoing and the only way we will stop the trend and reverse the tide is through our solidarity on the job.
We have another union victory and there will be many more in the future!
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Starbucks to settle NLRB case in Michigan
Wednesday January 7,
Starbucks to settle National Labor Relations case in Michigan, avoids trial
NEW YORK (AP) -- Starbucks Corp. said Wednesday it will settle a dispute with the National Labor Relations Board over a Michigan barista who said he was fired for participating in union activities.
The settlement allows Starbucks to avoid an administrative trial that was scheduled to begin today.
Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow said the company is working to finalize the settlement. She said Starbucks was approached by the NLRB Tuesday with a request to work out an agreement.
In a complaint filed by the Detroit office of the NLRB in September, Cole Dorsey -- a Starbucks barista in Grand Rapids, Mich. -- said he received warnings and then was fired because of his "sympathies for and activities on behalf of" the Industrial Workers of the World, a union that has been attempting to gain a foothold at the gourmet coffee retailer.
He was fired eight months after the IWW and Starbucks settled another complaint at the Grand Rapids store. As part of that settlement, Starbucks agreed to post notices on bulletin boards advising employees of their right to join a union.
Starbucks said it fired Dorsey for being late.
Starbucks shares fell 23 cents, or 2.3 percent, to close at $9.99.
Starbucks to settle National Labor Relations case in Michigan, avoids trial
NEW YORK (AP) -- Starbucks Corp. said Wednesday it will settle a dispute with the National Labor Relations Board over a Michigan barista who said he was fired for participating in union activities.
The settlement allows Starbucks to avoid an administrative trial that was scheduled to begin today.
Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow said the company is working to finalize the settlement. She said Starbucks was approached by the NLRB Tuesday with a request to work out an agreement.
In a complaint filed by the Detroit office of the NLRB in September, Cole Dorsey -- a Starbucks barista in Grand Rapids, Mich. -- said he received warnings and then was fired because of his "sympathies for and activities on behalf of" the Industrial Workers of the World, a union that has been attempting to gain a foothold at the gourmet coffee retailer.
He was fired eight months after the IWW and Starbucks settled another complaint at the Grand Rapids store. As part of that settlement, Starbucks agreed to post notices on bulletin boards advising employees of their right to join a union.
Starbucks said it fired Dorsey for being late.
Starbucks shares fell 23 cents, or 2.3 percent, to close at $9.99.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Grand Rapids Starbucks Union vs. Starbucks; Trial Starts Wednesday!
AFTER A CRUSHING DEFEAT IN NEW YORK WATCH STARBUCKS ATTEMPT TO DODGE CHARGES IN GRAND RAPIDS!
PACK THE COURTROOM FOR BARISTA RIGHTS!
What:
A trial against Starbucks at the National Labor Relations Board over the wrongful termination of an IWW barista. The proceedings are open to the public.
Who:
Starbucks baristas, supporters from the IWW, the community, and Starbucks management officials.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union will be represented by attorney Rodger Webb of Webb, Englehardt, and Fernandes.
Starbucks will be represented by David Khorey and Kelly Stoppels of Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, and Howlett.
The NLRB attorney on the case is Brad Howell.
Why:
Starbucks' is preparing to fight its second trial against Unfair Labor Practices. Last week, in an 88 page decision, an administrative law judge found, among other things, that Starbucks maintained multiple policies which interfered with workers' right to communicate about the union and about working conditions; terminated three workers in retaliation for union activity; and repeatedly discriminated against union supporters.
After an investigation triggered by charges from the IWW in Grand Rapids, the Labor Board hit Starbucks with a complaint alleging the illegal termination of an employee for union activity.The barista firing at issue in the case resulted in solidarity actions from around the world. Now Starbucks will have to answer for its illegal acts in open court, again!
Despite the fierce anti-union campaign by the world's largest fast-food coffee outlet, baristas around the country continue to join the IWW Starbucks Workers Union to pressure the company on issues of concern including insecure work hours, poverty wages, and unaffordable health care.
Background on the complaint for which Starbucks will stand trial: "Starbucks faces another NLRB complaint", by
Lauren Shepherd for the Associated Press, available online
When:
Starting Wednesday, January 7th at 10am
Thursday, January 8th 10am
(possibly) Friday, January 9th 10am
Where:
NLRB Region 7 at the Federal Building. David L. Basso Hearing Room, 82 Ionia 3rd Floor in Grand Rapids, MI 49503.
Press Conference 930am January 7th in front of 82 Ionia
PACK THE COURTROOM FOR BARISTA RIGHTS!
What:
A trial against Starbucks at the National Labor Relations Board over the wrongful termination of an IWW barista. The proceedings are open to the public.
Who:
Starbucks baristas, supporters from the IWW, the community, and Starbucks management officials.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union will be represented by attorney Rodger Webb of Webb, Englehardt, and Fernandes.
Starbucks will be represented by David Khorey and Kelly Stoppels of Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, and Howlett.
The NLRB attorney on the case is Brad Howell.
Why:
Starbucks' is preparing to fight its second trial against Unfair Labor Practices. Last week, in an 88 page decision, an administrative law judge found, among other things, that Starbucks maintained multiple policies which interfered with workers' right to communicate about the union and about working conditions; terminated three workers in retaliation for union activity; and repeatedly discriminated against union supporters.
After an investigation triggered by charges from the IWW in Grand Rapids, the Labor Board hit Starbucks with a complaint alleging the illegal termination of an employee for union activity.The barista firing at issue in the case resulted in solidarity actions from around the world. Now Starbucks will have to answer for its illegal acts in open court, again!
Despite the fierce anti-union campaign by the world's largest fast-food coffee outlet, baristas around the country continue to join the IWW Starbucks Workers Union to pressure the company on issues of concern including insecure work hours, poverty wages, and unaffordable health care.
Background on the complaint for which Starbucks will stand trial: "Starbucks faces another NLRB complaint", by
Lauren Shepherd for the Associated Press, available online
When:
Starting Wednesday, January 7th at 10am
Thursday, January 8th 10am
(possibly) Friday, January 9th 10am
Where:
NLRB Region 7 at the Federal Building. David L. Basso Hearing Room, 82 Ionia 3rd Floor in Grand Rapids, MI 49503.
Press Conference 930am January 7th in front of 82 Ionia
Friday, January 2, 2009
Saturday, December 27, 2008
Judge Finds Against Starbucks for Illegal Union Busting; Grand Rapids NLRB Trial January 7
The IWW Scores Big Victory Over Global Coffee Chain
New York, NY (Dec. 23, 2008)- Following a lengthy trial here last year, a National Labor Relations Board judge has found Starbucks guilty of extensive violations of federal labor law in its bid to counter the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. In an 88-page decision, Judge Mindy E. Landow found, among other things, that Starbucks maintained multiple policies which interfered with workers' right to communicate about the union and about working conditions; terminated three workers in retaliation for union activity; and repeatedly discriminated against union supporters. The decision comes despite a 2006 New York settlement in which Starbucks pledged to stop illegal anti-union activities and mirrors federal government action against the company for its conduct toward baristas in Minnesota and Michigan.
"The judge's decision coupled with previous government findings expose Starbucks for what it is --- a union-busting corporation that will go to staggering lengths to interfere with the right to freedom of association," said Daniel Gross, a barista and member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union found to have been unlawfully terminated by the coffee giant. "In these trying economic times of mass layoffs and slashed work hours, it's more important than ever that Starbucks and every corporation is confronted with a social movement that insists on the right to an independent voice on the job."
The Board decision is the latest blow against a company that has experienced a stunning fall from grace. From a precipitous decrease in customer demand to its increasingly tattered socially responsible image, the myriad of challenges facing Starbucks has resulted in the company losing over half its value from just a year ago. The decision also represents a significant victory for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union which continues to grow across the country with baristas taking creative and determined actions to improve the security of works hours and win respect on the job. Starbucks faces another Labor Board trial next month in Grand Rapids, Michigan over illegal union-busting.
"For the first time, a judge has confirmed the existence of a nationally coordinated anti-union operation at Starbucks," said Stuart Lichten, the attorney for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the case. "This decision conclusively establishes Starbucks' animosity toward labor organizing."
The union is confident that Judge Landow's copiously documented and well-reasoned 88-page decision will be upheld by the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. should Starbucks appeal. The victory is sure to be gratifying for the union's international supporters who conducted spirited global days of action in defense of Isis Saenz, Joe Agins, Jr., and Daniel Gross after their terminations which the Board has now found to be unlawful.
The National Labor Relations Board attorneys on the case were Burt Pearlstone and Audrey Eveillard. The union's attorney Stuart Lichten is a partner at Schwartz, Licthen & Bright, a prominent New York City labor law firm. Starbucks was represented by union-avoidance lawyers Daniel Nash, Stacey Eisenstein, and Nicole Morgan at corporate firm Akin Gump.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union (StarbucksUnion.org) is an organization of almost 300 current and former Starbucks employees united for a living wage, secure work hours, and respect on the job. Founded in 2004, the union uses direct action, litigation, and advocacy to both make systemic improvements at Starbucks and take on the company over unfair treatment of individual baristas.
The Industrial Workers of the World (iww.org) is a rank and file labor union dedicated to democracy in the workplace and global solidarity.
January 7 10 am
NLRB Region 7 at the Federal Building. David L. Basso Hearing Room, 82 Ionia in Grand Rapids, 3rd Floor.
New York, NY (Dec. 23, 2008)- Following a lengthy trial here last year, a National Labor Relations Board judge has found Starbucks guilty of extensive violations of federal labor law in its bid to counter the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. In an 88-page decision, Judge Mindy E. Landow found, among other things, that Starbucks maintained multiple policies which interfered with workers' right to communicate about the union and about working conditions; terminated three workers in retaliation for union activity; and repeatedly discriminated against union supporters. The decision comes despite a 2006 New York settlement in which Starbucks pledged to stop illegal anti-union activities and mirrors federal government action against the company for its conduct toward baristas in Minnesota and Michigan.
"The judge's decision coupled with previous government findings expose Starbucks for what it is --- a union-busting corporation that will go to staggering lengths to interfere with the right to freedom of association," said Daniel Gross, a barista and member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union found to have been unlawfully terminated by the coffee giant. "In these trying economic times of mass layoffs and slashed work hours, it's more important than ever that Starbucks and every corporation is confronted with a social movement that insists on the right to an independent voice on the job."
The Board decision is the latest blow against a company that has experienced a stunning fall from grace. From a precipitous decrease in customer demand to its increasingly tattered socially responsible image, the myriad of challenges facing Starbucks has resulted in the company losing over half its value from just a year ago. The decision also represents a significant victory for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union which continues to grow across the country with baristas taking creative and determined actions to improve the security of works hours and win respect on the job. Starbucks faces another Labor Board trial next month in Grand Rapids, Michigan over illegal union-busting.
"For the first time, a judge has confirmed the existence of a nationally coordinated anti-union operation at Starbucks," said Stuart Lichten, the attorney for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union in the case. "This decision conclusively establishes Starbucks' animosity toward labor organizing."
The union is confident that Judge Landow's copiously documented and well-reasoned 88-page decision will be upheld by the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D.C. should Starbucks appeal. The victory is sure to be gratifying for the union's international supporters who conducted spirited global days of action in defense of Isis Saenz, Joe Agins, Jr., and Daniel Gross after their terminations which the Board has now found to be unlawful.
The National Labor Relations Board attorneys on the case were Burt Pearlstone and Audrey Eveillard. The union's attorney Stuart Lichten is a partner at Schwartz, Licthen & Bright, a prominent New York City labor law firm. Starbucks was represented by union-avoidance lawyers Daniel Nash, Stacey Eisenstein, and Nicole Morgan at corporate firm Akin Gump.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union (StarbucksUnion.org) is an organization of almost 300 current and former Starbucks employees united for a living wage, secure work hours, and respect on the job. Founded in 2004, the union uses direct action, litigation, and advocacy to both make systemic improvements at Starbucks and take on the company over unfair treatment of individual baristas.
The Industrial Workers of the World (iww.org) is a rank and file labor union dedicated to democracy in the workplace and global solidarity.
January 7 10 am
NLRB Region 7 at the Federal Building. David L. Basso Hearing Room, 82 Ionia in Grand Rapids, 3rd Floor.
Twin Cities Baristas Spill the Beans in New Blog
Starbucks Workers Union Invites Public to 'Look Behind the Brand
Blog: http://tcsbuxunion.com
Minneapolis, MN-- the Starbucks Workers Union announced today that Twin Cities Baristas have launched a new blog to document their struggle against poverty wages, inconsistent scheduling, and job insecurity at the world's largest coffee chain.
Union Barista Aaron Kocher said, "This is the blog that Howard Schultz doesn't want you to read. As Starbucks' overpaid executives gut the company to feed greedy investors, we will bring the truth behind the brand into the public eye."
The blog, accessible at http://tcsbuxunion.com, will provide an inside look at working conditions at Starbucks, keeping the public abreast of Starbucks' vicious attempts to thwart worker unionization amidst deteriorating working conditions.
Blog: http://tcsbuxunion.com
Minneapolis, MN-- the Starbucks Workers Union announced today that Twin Cities Baristas have launched a new blog to document their struggle against poverty wages, inconsistent scheduling, and job insecurity at the world's largest coffee chain.
Union Barista Aaron Kocher said, "This is the blog that Howard Schultz doesn't want you to read. As Starbucks' overpaid executives gut the company to feed greedy investors, we will bring the truth behind the brand into the public eye."
The blog, accessible at http://tcsbuxunion.com, will provide an inside look at working conditions at Starbucks, keeping the public abreast of Starbucks' vicious attempts to thwart worker unionization amidst deteriorating working conditions.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Health and Safety Agency Finds Against Starbucks in Michigan
Coffee Giant Must Reinstate Barista With Backpay
Grand Rapids, MI (12/08/2008)- The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration has found after trial that Starbucks unlawfully terminated a barista here in retaliation for filing a safety complaint. The barista, a member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, was retaliated against after complaining about the effects of a perennially leaking roof. The MIOSHA determination comes less than a month before embattled Starbucks faces a trial in Grand Rapids at the National Labor Relations Board over anti-union retaliation.
"Two federal agencies are holding Starbucks accountable in Grand Rapids for wantonly trampling employee rights. Without the IWW Starbucks Workers Union they may have gotten away with it," said Cole Dorsey, the fired barista and union member.
The Michigan litigation comes on the heels of a recent settlement Starbucks signed with the NLRB in Minnesota. In that instance they re-instated a barista who was wrongfully terminated for union activity and agreed to desist illegal anti-union activity. The company and union are awaiting a judge’s decision in New York after a 2007 trial on over 30 counts of unlawful union-busting.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union is a grassroots organization of over 200 current and former employees at the world's largest coffee chain united for secure work hours and a living wage. The union has members throughout the United States fighting for systemic change at the company and remedying individual grievances with management. The SWU has been especially active in New York City, Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Grand Rapids.
Union baristas, bussers, and shift supervisors have fought successfully toward improved scheduling and staffing levels, increased wages, and workplace safety. Workers who join the union have immediate access to co-workers and members of the community who will struggle with them for a better life on the job.
###
Grand Rapids, MI (12/08/2008)- The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration has found after trial that Starbucks unlawfully terminated a barista here in retaliation for filing a safety complaint. The barista, a member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, was retaliated against after complaining about the effects of a perennially leaking roof. The MIOSHA determination comes less than a month before embattled Starbucks faces a trial in Grand Rapids at the National Labor Relations Board over anti-union retaliation.
"Two federal agencies are holding Starbucks accountable in Grand Rapids for wantonly trampling employee rights. Without the IWW Starbucks Workers Union they may have gotten away with it," said Cole Dorsey, the fired barista and union member.
The Michigan litigation comes on the heels of a recent settlement Starbucks signed with the NLRB in Minnesota. In that instance they re-instated a barista who was wrongfully terminated for union activity and agreed to desist illegal anti-union activity. The company and union are awaiting a judge’s decision in New York after a 2007 trial on over 30 counts of unlawful union-busting.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union is a grassroots organization of over 200 current and former employees at the world's largest coffee chain united for secure work hours and a living wage. The union has members throughout the United States fighting for systemic change at the company and remedying individual grievances with management. The SWU has been especially active in New York City, Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Grand Rapids.
Union baristas, bussers, and shift supervisors have fought successfully toward improved scheduling and staffing levels, increased wages, and workplace safety. Workers who join the union have immediate access to co-workers and members of the community who will struggle with them for a better life on the job.
###
Monday, October 6, 2008
Starbucks faces another NLRB complaint (AP)
By LAUREN SHEPHERD
NEW YORK (AP) — Starbucks Corp. is facing another complaint from the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the gourmet coffee chain engaged in unfair labor practices by firing a barista in Michigan.
The complaint, filed last month by the Detroit office of the NLRB, stems from an investigation into a charge made by employee Cole Dorsey earlier this year.
According to the NLRB complaint, Dorsey — a member of the Industrial Workers of the World union at Starbucks — was fired June 6 from his job at a store in Grand Rapids, Mich. Before being fired, Dorsey had been given two prior disciplinary warnings by his store manager.
The complaint alleges that Dorsey received the warnings and was fired because of his "sympathies for and activities on behalf of" the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. The union has been attempting to organize workers at the chain.
"We have reasonable cause to believe there may be a violation here when Starbucks terminated" Dorsey, said Stephen Glasser, regional director at the Detroit NLRB office.
The NLRB is requesting Starbucks re-hire Dorsey, compensate him for loss of wages, rescind the disciplinary warnings and post notices in the store saying workers have the right to unionize.
Starbucks has until Oct. 14 to formally respond to the complaint. If the company does not settle the case, it will go to trial in front of an administrative law judge on Nov. 20.
In a statement, Starbucks said Dorsey was fired after he was more than 30 minutes late to work. The disciplinary notices, the company said, were also related to tardiness.
The company said the charge that his firing was due to union activity is "without merit."
Starbucks also noted that the NLRB dismissed several charges made in Dorsey's case, including that the company encouraged co-workers to investigate Dorsey and did not allow employees to post union-related notices on the company bulletin board.
The latest dustup with the NLRB follows the settlement of a case last week. In that case, the NLRB filed a complaint after a Starbucks employee in Minnesota, Erik Forman, said he was fired for promoting union activity.
Starbucks, which fired Forman after he was 30 minutes late to work, later reversed its decision and re-hired him, saying his firing was "ill-considered." As part of the settlement, it also paid him for lost wages and posted a notice on his store's bulletin board affirming the rights of workers.
That was the chain's third settlement of an NLRB complaint alleging that it was attempting to dissuade employees from joining a union.
Starbucks has had a somewhat contentious relationship with the union, which says it represents about 200 current and former Starbucks workers. The union is now "vowing action" against the chain for a new scheduling system in which fewer employees will work more hours.
The system is meant to foster an environment where baristas know their customers better in a bid to boost sales. The program is also meant to allow baristas to secure more hours each week.
Starbucks does not guarantee full-time work hours, so employees have consistently complained that they have not been able to work as much as they would like. Under the new system, baristas can get "full-time" status if they work at least 32 hours a week.
The union, however, says the new system still does not offer a guarantee that employees will get the 32 hours they need and it requires full-time baristas to be available to work 70 percent of the hours that stores are open.
Starbucks shares fell 50 cents, or 3.7 percent, to $13.16 in afternoon trading.
NEW YORK (AP) — Starbucks Corp. is facing another complaint from the National Labor Relations Board alleging that the gourmet coffee chain engaged in unfair labor practices by firing a barista in Michigan.
The complaint, filed last month by the Detroit office of the NLRB, stems from an investigation into a charge made by employee Cole Dorsey earlier this year.
According to the NLRB complaint, Dorsey — a member of the Industrial Workers of the World union at Starbucks — was fired June 6 from his job at a store in Grand Rapids, Mich. Before being fired, Dorsey had been given two prior disciplinary warnings by his store manager.
The complaint alleges that Dorsey received the warnings and was fired because of his "sympathies for and activities on behalf of" the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. The union has been attempting to organize workers at the chain.
"We have reasonable cause to believe there may be a violation here when Starbucks terminated" Dorsey, said Stephen Glasser, regional director at the Detroit NLRB office.
The NLRB is requesting Starbucks re-hire Dorsey, compensate him for loss of wages, rescind the disciplinary warnings and post notices in the store saying workers have the right to unionize.
Starbucks has until Oct. 14 to formally respond to the complaint. If the company does not settle the case, it will go to trial in front of an administrative law judge on Nov. 20.
In a statement, Starbucks said Dorsey was fired after he was more than 30 minutes late to work. The disciplinary notices, the company said, were also related to tardiness.
The company said the charge that his firing was due to union activity is "without merit."
Starbucks also noted that the NLRB dismissed several charges made in Dorsey's case, including that the company encouraged co-workers to investigate Dorsey and did not allow employees to post union-related notices on the company bulletin board.
The latest dustup with the NLRB follows the settlement of a case last week. In that case, the NLRB filed a complaint after a Starbucks employee in Minnesota, Erik Forman, said he was fired for promoting union activity.
Starbucks, which fired Forman after he was 30 minutes late to work, later reversed its decision and re-hired him, saying his firing was "ill-considered." As part of the settlement, it also paid him for lost wages and posted a notice on his store's bulletin board affirming the rights of workers.
That was the chain's third settlement of an NLRB complaint alleging that it was attempting to dissuade employees from joining a union.
Starbucks has had a somewhat contentious relationship with the union, which says it represents about 200 current and former Starbucks workers. The union is now "vowing action" against the chain for a new scheduling system in which fewer employees will work more hours.
The system is meant to foster an environment where baristas know their customers better in a bid to boost sales. The program is also meant to allow baristas to secure more hours each week.
Starbucks does not guarantee full-time work hours, so employees have consistently complained that they have not been able to work as much as they would like. Under the new system, baristas can get "full-time" status if they work at least 32 hours a week.
The union, however, says the new system still does not offer a guarantee that employees will get the 32 hours they need and it requires full-time baristas to be available to work 70 percent of the hours that stores are open.
Starbucks shares fell 50 cents, or 3.7 percent, to $13.16 in afternoon trading.
Battered Starbucks Hit With Yet Another Federal Labor Complaint
Labor Board in Michigan Files Complaint Against Starbucks Over Illegal Union-Busting
A Further Complaint is Pending on Starbucks Lawyers Questioning of Baristas
Grand Rapids, MI- The Starbucks Coffee Co. barely had time to wipe the dust off after settling a Labor Board case against it in Minnesota when it got hit with another complaint here. With stark similarities to the Minnesota case and prior cases in New York, the National Labor Relations Board contends that Starbucks engaged in Unfair Labor Practices when it unlawfully terminated outspoken union member and barista, Cole Dorsey, because of his protected activities. Starbucks also has a week to decide if they will settle the complaint issued against them that they further engaged in Unfair Labor Practices through their lawyer's interrogation of baristas. Starbucks is set to stand trial on November 20, 2008.
"Starbucks tried to quietly get rid of me because as a union member I speak out for the respect baristas deserve," said Cole Dorsey, the fired barista and member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. "It's time for Starbucks to start addressing the issues, like poverty wages to baristas and coffee farmers, instead of spending tons of money on anti-union lawyers and social responsibility advertising gimmicks."
Concurrently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government's health safety watchdog, will soon announce their decision of a recently concluded trial to determine whether a barista was unlawfully terminated for reporting a health violation.
In the OSHA trial, Starbucks management and local baristas testified regarding a barista who was fired a week after filing a health complaint over a leaky roof. Prior to the trial, lawyers from Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, and Howlett interrogated multiple baristas in an attempt to find out what their answers would be at the OSHA trial. The prominent Grand Rapids corporate law firm continues to represent Starbucks after they signed a settlement agreement with the NLRB in 2006 saying they would end barista interrogations.
“Starbucks’ aggressive anti-union attorneys may have crossed the line into illegality,” said Pete Montalbano, a New York-based organizer with the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. “Given Starbucks’ track record of flaunting labor law, this doesn’t come as a surprise.”
Starbucks’ legal woes are not unique to Michigan. The NLRB recently concluded an investigation of Starbucks in Minnesota after a union barista was wrongfully terminated at their Mall of America location. The barista was re-instated after union pressure and Starbucks has since settled those charges. In 2006, Starbucks settled a large case against it in New York involving the right to communicate about the union and terminations of union supporters. Finally, an administrative law judge in New York will soon announce a decision after a lengthy trial the NLRB prosecuted against Starbucks there involving over 30 counts of illegal anti-union activity.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union is a grassroots organization of over 200 current and former employees at the world's largest coffee chain united for secure work hours and a living wage. The union has members throughout the United States fighting for systemic change at the company and remedying individual grievances with management. The SWU has been especially active in New York City, Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Grand Rapids.
Union baristas, bussers, and shift supervisors have fought successfully toward improved scheduling and staffing levels, increased wages, and workplace safety. Workers who join the union have immediate access to co-workers and members of the community who will struggle with them for a better life on the job.
###
A Further Complaint is Pending on Starbucks Lawyers Questioning of Baristas
Grand Rapids, MI- The Starbucks Coffee Co. barely had time to wipe the dust off after settling a Labor Board case against it in Minnesota when it got hit with another complaint here. With stark similarities to the Minnesota case and prior cases in New York, the National Labor Relations Board contends that Starbucks engaged in Unfair Labor Practices when it unlawfully terminated outspoken union member and barista, Cole Dorsey, because of his protected activities. Starbucks also has a week to decide if they will settle the complaint issued against them that they further engaged in Unfair Labor Practices through their lawyer's interrogation of baristas. Starbucks is set to stand trial on November 20, 2008.
"Starbucks tried to quietly get rid of me because as a union member I speak out for the respect baristas deserve," said Cole Dorsey, the fired barista and member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. "It's time for Starbucks to start addressing the issues, like poverty wages to baristas and coffee farmers, instead of spending tons of money on anti-union lawyers and social responsibility advertising gimmicks."
Concurrently, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the government's health safety watchdog, will soon announce their decision of a recently concluded trial to determine whether a barista was unlawfully terminated for reporting a health violation.
In the OSHA trial, Starbucks management and local baristas testified regarding a barista who was fired a week after filing a health complaint over a leaky roof. Prior to the trial, lawyers from Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, and Howlett interrogated multiple baristas in an attempt to find out what their answers would be at the OSHA trial. The prominent Grand Rapids corporate law firm continues to represent Starbucks after they signed a settlement agreement with the NLRB in 2006 saying they would end barista interrogations.
“Starbucks’ aggressive anti-union attorneys may have crossed the line into illegality,” said Pete Montalbano, a New York-based organizer with the IWW Starbucks Workers Union. “Given Starbucks’ track record of flaunting labor law, this doesn’t come as a surprise.”
Starbucks’ legal woes are not unique to Michigan. The NLRB recently concluded an investigation of Starbucks in Minnesota after a union barista was wrongfully terminated at their Mall of America location. The barista was re-instated after union pressure and Starbucks has since settled those charges. In 2006, Starbucks settled a large case against it in New York involving the right to communicate about the union and terminations of union supporters. Finally, an administrative law judge in New York will soon announce a decision after a lengthy trial the NLRB prosecuted against Starbucks there involving over 30 counts of illegal anti-union activity.
The IWW Starbucks Workers Union is a grassroots organization of over 200 current and former employees at the world's largest coffee chain united for secure work hours and a living wage. The union has members throughout the United States fighting for systemic change at the company and remedying individual grievances with management. The SWU has been especially active in New York City, Chicago, the Twin Cities, and Grand Rapids.
Union baristas, bussers, and shift supervisors have fought successfully toward improved scheduling and staffing levels, increased wages, and workplace safety. Workers who join the union have immediate access to co-workers and members of the community who will struggle with them for a better life on the job.
###
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Starbucks baristas union drive comes at key time [City Pages]
The effort to organize local latte-slingers could hurt the ailing chain
By Matt Snyders
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."
Sunday, July 6, 2008
List of cities and countries that participated in the July 5th actions
Germany-35 Starbucks at Aachen, Berlin, Bonn,
Braunschweig, Bremen, Dortmund, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt/Main,
Münster, Stuttgart, Hamburg, München and Nürnberg
Japan
Taiwan
Vienna, Austria
Spain- Seville, Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia
Portugal
Dublin, Ireland
Cork, Ireland
Belfast, Ireland
Brighton, UK
London, UK
Burlington, VT, USA
Rochester, NY, USA
Birmingham, UK
Wroclaw, Poland (July 1st)
Santiago de Chile, Chile
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Italy
Norway
Serbia
Slovakia
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phoenix, AZ, USA
New York City, NY, USA
Boston, MA, USA
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Alameda, CA, USA
Chicago, IL, USA
Tempe, AZ, USA
Melbourne, Australia
France
Fresno, CA, USA
Moscow, Russia
Philadelphia, PA
Switzerland
Bern, Switzerland
Baltimore, Maryland
Christchurch, New Zealand
Ver mapa más grande
Braunschweig, Bremen, Dortmund, Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt/Main,
Münster, Stuttgart, Hamburg, München and Nürnberg
Japan
Taiwan
Vienna, Austria
Spain- Seville, Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia
Portugal
Dublin, Ireland
Cork, Ireland
Belfast, Ireland
Brighton, UK
London, UK
Burlington, VT, USA
Rochester, NY, USA
Birmingham, UK
Wroclaw, Poland (July 1st)
Santiago de Chile, Chile
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Italy
Norway
Serbia
Slovakia
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Phoenix, AZ, USA
New York City, NY, USA
Boston, MA, USA
Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Los Angeles, CA, USA
Alameda, CA, USA
Chicago, IL, USA
Tempe, AZ, USA
Melbourne, Australia
France
Fresno, CA, USA
Moscow, Russia
Philadelphia, PA
Switzerland
Bern, Switzerland
Baltimore, Maryland
Christchurch, New Zealand
Ver mapa más grande
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
