Starbucks NLRB claim: Killing American business part #59344292

[HardDrive]

A union for baristas. Idiots have come up with some clever schemes to slowly destroy our economy, but this really is creative. Lets a take a job that a chimpanzee can do, and unionize them. I didn't think it was possible to unionize something so inane, but then I remembered that bag boys at the supermarket are unionized.

Might I suggest that you all brush up on your Mandrin? Nee how!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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

[serge944]

Since when is working at Starbucks a career?

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by serge944

Since when is working at Starbucks a career?

Welcome to the new American economy! Where you can't even find english speaking employees to make french fries, and when you do, the get the NLRB board on your a55 in support of their unionizing effort.

Commrades, lets us join arm in arm, and march forward (an strangely downhill) towards the future!

[Az911]

And BO is all for more unions

[red-beard]

Someone explain to me paying $4 for a cup of coffee? I do like expresso, but still? In Romania, every freak'n gas station has a super-automatic expresso machine and a monkey can push the button. Translated cost: $0.60 per shot

[Vipergrün]

Good, let it happen! Before long a cup of their (crap) coffee will cost 6 bucks. Maybe even more stores will close. Maybe Starbucks will close down.

[Az911]

Originally Posted by red-beard

Someone explain to me paying $4 for a cup of coffee? I do like expresso, but still? In Romania, every freak'n gas station has a super-automatic expresso machine and a monkey can push the button. Translated cost: $0.60 per shot

Cost doesn't matter when you are trying to be a cool trendy person

[Rikao4]

great a Union for Tabs stairwell failures .....
MENTAL MIDGETS with onion representation..
hard to decide who is a bigger idiot..onion rep or stairweel fall

Rika

[Superman]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

A union for baristas. Idiots have come up with some clever schemes to slowly destroy our economy, but this really is creative. Lets a take a job that a chimpanzee can do, and unionize them. I didn't think it was possible to unionize something so inane, but then I remembered that bag boys at the supermarket are unionized.

First, this is clearly politics. I think this thread is mis-located.

Grocery baggers have been unionized, along with every other supermarket job, for the last three generations. I guess I'm not sure why you would question that other than your general opposition to collective bargaining.

If you oppose collective bargaining, then you prefer that employers have the advantage in negotiations. Some people think that. I don't know why, but they do. If you were to prefer that workers and employers negotiate on an equal footing, you would allow the workers to unite for the purpose of bargaining collectively.

The United States of America (and all other progressive, "western" nations) allows collective bargaining so that workers can bargain with clout approximately equivalent to that of management.

I am stunned by this NLRB guy. Stephen Glasser. Bush "administration" NLRB appointees are not supposed to find violations by management. This is quite unusual. But.........

According to federal law (the one routinely ignored by Bush's NLRB appointees) and its historical interpretations (the ones not adopted by Bush appointees), taking disciplinary action against an employee for his or her union activity is strictly prohibited. This is the third such complaint against Starbucks, according to the complaint. Starbucks is the same company that a California court recently ordered to repay baristas $100 million in tips the company kept.

Keeping workers' tips. Violating federal law by terminating workers for union activity. If you're looking for a company to morally defend, this might not be the ideal one. If you're going to take the naive position that employers will do the right thing in the absence of labor unions and labor law....because the market will keep them honest....then you picked the wrong company and the wrong examples. Fooling people with a different example would be easier.

[idontknow]

Originally Posted by Superman

First, this is clearly politics. I think this thread is mis-located.

Grocery baggers have been unionized, along with every other supermarket job, for the last three generations. I guess I'm not sure why you would question that other than your general opposition to collective bargaining.

When did people become so content with staying on the bottom of the labor pool that grocery bagging became a career?

If you oppose collective bargaining, then you prefer that employers have the advantage in negotiations. Some people think that. I don't know why, but they do. If you were to prefer that workers and employers negotiate on an equal footing, you would allow the workers to unite for the purpose of bargaining collectively.

The problem I've seen with those ideals is that it gives all the workers the same level footing when bargaining. Those who perform well are locked to those who underperform and tend to become underperformers as well. At least they're getting paid well for it now though.

The United States of America (and all other progressive, "western" nations) allows collective bargaining so that workers can bargain with clout approximately equivalent to that of management.

I am stunned by this NLRB guy. Stephen Glasser. Bush "administration" NLRB appointees are not supposed to find violations by management. This is quite unusual. But.........

According to federal law (the one routinely ignored by Bush's NLRB appointees) and its historical interpretations (the ones not adopted by Bush appointees), taking disciplinary action against an employee for his or her union activity is strictly prohibited. This is the third such complaint against Starbucks, according to the complaint. Starbucks is the same company that a California court recently ordered to repay baristas $100 million in tips the company kept.

Which is why they fired him for his tardiness. Or are they no longer allowed to fire someone for being late to work multiple times?

Keeping workers' tips. Violating federal law by terminating workers for union activity. If you're looking for a company to morally defend, this might not be the ideal one. If you're going to take the naive position that employers will do the right thing in the absence of labor unions and labor law....because the market will keep them honest....then you picked the wrong company and the wrong examples. Fooling people with a different example would be easier.

I have no troubles with labor laws but do have troubles with labor unions insuring underperformers and slack offs cannot be reprimanded and employers are stuck with them.

ok

[CRH911S]

Just as there are underperformers at one end there are CEO raking in millions and running companies into the ground. Lest not forget so easily.
In the cases cited above we don't know enough to pass judgement. Three absences in a month is problematic but not enough, in my view, to inflict economic capital punishment. Usually, labor contracts require "cause" or "just cause" and generally seven questions must be asked and each answered in the affirmative. For example, was the employee made aware of the rule? Was the employee made aware that tardiness is not acceptable and how much time was the employee given to correct the problem? And so on....Discipline must be corrective in nature and not punitive.
But the problem, I think, SB is running into sounds retaliatory in nature and maybe not related to attendance at all.
In each of the examples the fired employee is actively engaged in union organizing. I'm sure someone somewhere, and not in a union capacity, was late more than three times and still had a job.
Isn't it a little elitist to demean service sector employment? Seems to me it is.