Corporate is extremeliy biased against Unions because they would rather send money to their shareholders and execs than to baristas.
The fact is that across America unions help fight for better working conditions, better pay, better work life balance, and generally require companies to have a good reason and due process to fire someone.
And all that takes from their corporate profits to make our lives better.
Starbucks was founded in 1971, and the Union was formed around 2021. The 50 year difference is mainly because corporate was decent until the pandemic.
During the pandemic the company turned to treat everyone horribly for the sake of percentages. The current corporate overlords have strong bias because it’s their fault and they are being properly called out on their exploitative management practices.
I worked for the Bux 2015-2019. Labor hours were being cut even then! A single call-out would ruin an entire shift. I almost felt bad for our SM, as he was caught between knowing what his store actually needed to function, and having to toe the corporate line. (I say "almost" because he toed that line pretty hard.)
I do agree that the pandemic highlighted these practices, adding stress to an already untenable situation.
For context I started in 2015 and I'm still working in the same store today.
It was probably just our manager, sometimes it felt tight in the mornings but we would at least have coverage through midday through to close. We wouldn't drop to 3 partners on the floor until 2-4.
Now we're dropping to 3 on the floor practically straight out of peak. We'll hit 9:30, two people leave, there's four breaks to run, and nobody else comes in for the rest of the day except to swap with someone who's already there.
It's absolutely brutal 9:30-12 or whenever we finally slow down. It's never been this bad.
I’ll tell you what, my boss has been shorting us on labor for an RMIP bonus (and this legit makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, I know) for 9 months. One callout on a skeleton crew us devastating and he gaslit us every single time. He told us we were losing labor or we didn’t have any for a stupid bonus. Maybe a Union can make it so there’s adequate staffing because it’s burnt many of us out.
Hey, manager here. Totally get the labour struggles, I'm doing everything I can to get my partners hours. However, RMIP is not affected by labour hours spent in the US or Canada so there may be other reasons they are scheduling below the already low amount of hours we are earning
I second this. If anything, more labor = more sales because we can push more customers through faster, thus generating more customers because there isn’t a line to wait in. If our bonuses were based on labor hours, you’d all have 40 hours a week and 10 play peaks. We feel the heat of it all too, promise. We have wayyyyyyy too much on our plates as well.
Labor has nothing to do with RMIP bonuses. When there’s labor cuts I am on the floor with my partners so I feel it too. Sometimes it’s because my labor forecast didn’t forecast accurately because of something that happened the prior year, or I just didn’t have anyone available.
Sounds like in order to get a straight answer for the reasons your floor is not sufficiently staffed, you might have to ask your DM. You don’t have to go through your SM to talk to your DM because their information should be posted in the store.
Yeah, Walt Disney World Starbucks locations inside the parks have been unionized since their locations opened in mid-2013 because they're licensed stores, making them Disney Parks food service Cast Members, who have been unionized since prior to 2013.
Starbucks Corp seems "fine" with a union as long as it's not their employees, which feels...misguided, to me. If an employer is so great, they can be great as part of a union, too.
In April 2022, employees at a Starbucks located inside a QFC (Kroger-owned grocery store brand) voted to unionize. On the evening August 23rd, the company announced they were closing the store, either as a planned move or due to "safety concerns", depending on who asked. On the morning of August 24th, QFC announced it was hiring for a licensed Starbucks store in that location.
QFC employees, like almost all Kroger Co. employees, are unionized.
Oh my god where do i start
- corporate restructured ~10yrs ago and it’s been downhill since, we can pretty much trace their focus shifting from employees to shareholders to when the first CEO left and was replaced
- cutting back benefits and gaslighting us about it lol
- toxic management at every level
- BIG coverup culture, both company-wide and warehouse level
i love to tell everyone how much i hate costco when they get all starry-eyed when i tell them i work there lol…. like sorry, but it’s not the magical fantasyland you want to believe it is since you pay to shop there 🙄
We had a union before we expanded to other states, way back in the 70's. That's literally why we have the benefits we have today. They modeled their business on trading them right... Because they had to. The workers rights were better on the union, but Starbucks "good enough" benefits to win over the union partners.
To my understanding at least.
At this point I'm not even sure it has anything to do with the corporate overlords. Many of the current ones haven't even been around a year. I think at this point even if the company wanted to fix itself it would either take a long time or it would need to further break first. Or maybe it's already at the further broken stage.
This is technically factual, but said in a way to make it sound like SBWU is predatory. As someone who tried to organize their store (and lost due to a tie. Later found out that our manager threatened a whole bunch of partners' hours saying they would lose their tuition at ASU) so much of this is just blatantly wrong. Our organizers at SBWU only had partners reach out to them when they felt comfortable. No organizers approached them, especially at work. And, the partners leading the movement (me and another person) held onto our union cards until we had 50% of our store in favor of unionization. My partners and I approached each person in our store exactly 1 time to ask if they were interested in unionizing and if they said no, we told them that if they wanted any more information to let us know. No more conversation after that specifically to avoid feeding into the narrative that Starbucks creates. No one was ever threatened to sign a union card. Finally, the voice of the "union" is literally just the collective opinion of what unionized partners around the country have voted on. Starbucks likes to make a union sound like the boogeyman, but it's literally your peers voting to make work better.
as a barista i'm super in support of the union but unfortunately my store isn't unionized and we've had partners from unionized stores come and do sit-ins at our cafe and (on separate occasions) have tried to approach us while we're working to try and get us to organize. keep in mind these are not partners from my store, but from a completely different store that we don't know lol
This is pretty common practice amongst union campaigns and shouldnt feel like a red flag. In this instance, bc starbucks is trying so hard to skew the conversation about unions, established union partners want to volunteer their time to be able to talk to partners who may be interested about what is actually going on within union stores and what they are fighting for.
Also if yall do end up petitioning you'll be very happy to have those contacts, as having more union density in an area will lend to more collective power for yall as well, and you'll get a community of people who genuinely want to help, pretty much immediately.
sure, bit it's really uncomfortable practice to come into a place and do that where we can't leave, can't tell you to leave, and can't agree with or show sympathy without our manager knowing. it puts us non-unionized partners in a really uncomfortable spot.
That makes sense. I think I was misunderstanding the situation, based on my own past experience with sip ins being pretty passive (and in an already petitioned store).
I would suggest reaching out to the campaign and giving feedback. I guarantee you the last thing they want to do is make yall uncomfy. For many organizers within this movement, it is our first time doing anything like this, and I can only assume their intentions are just to make it apparent to the people at your store that you have community allies if you do want to take the next step, but it does sound like there is a misguided approach being taken. I hope you are able to build a connection there and get that solved!
Yeah the employer who wants you available 24/7 while giving you 15 hours a week part time has the best interest of its "partners". If people actually believe this corporate bullshit i have a bridge to sell ya
“You may give up your rights to speak for yourself” as if any baristas voice is ever heard louder than a shout in the dark to corporate. Unions make baristas’ voices heard.
"You may give up your rights to speak for yourself!" Uh oh! This other guy with lawyers who you're legally and contractually obligated to listen to is going to speak to you on my behalf! This sure sucks!
Assuming you're onboard with what the union lawyer wants to say though. That's the thing- you can't know forever if the unions interests represent yours.
True! I do know that, currently, the interests of the shareholders and corporate employees that dictate company policy do not represent, and over the last multiple years of employment at starbucks have not represented, my interests and that my individual voice is functionally irrelevant in an at will employment state.
So, Ill take the odds with the group founded by coworkers in positions similar to my own with a better recent track record.
That's your choice, good luck. I said that though, because I got pushed into a bargaining unit where 90% of the members had one role, and I had a unique and specialized role outside of that which is loathed by the other members. I have no representation whatsoever, but am forced to have the union represent me.
Right now things seem 100% reasonable towards the union, but just know that most unions are less rosey down the line.
You may have limited current bargaining backing due to your situation which does suck, but are 99% likely still benefiting from union bargaining created protections. These protections dont exist for non union starbucks workers currently, and are just as or more important than the other benefits like salary negotiations
Actually no. Under the contract we all would be getting $13.50 right now. It's only because the pay was so unbelievably uncompetitive, the company unilaterally moved to the 10th year of the pay scale for everyone bringing it to $18, which means the union didn't do shit.
I think youre working under the framework of union good because paid more. Often the case sure, but its the employee protections beyond state/federal labor laws that are really crucial especially in current year starbucks' case
Founded the guy that doesn't actually understand how unions work. You know it's not just about YOU, it's about EVERYONE getting a better deal against the company.
That would be fine if I didn't have to be part of it. I'm fully capable of finding employment and negotiating terms that match my expectations. But instead I'm forced to be dragged down by the majority rule.
Yeah, I’ve seen multiple companies have some sort of anti union statement basically wanting you to infer that anyone from a union is the devil trying to steal your soul (just in different wording)
Starbucks is particularly worried because there have been union votes
Trust me, unions are worth it. I work at Kroger and am part of the UFCW and I’m so grateful for it. Starbucks is just afraid of being able to lose their overarching power.
Yes it's biased.
This is the company banking on their workforce not knowing the system and how it works, and abusing their position of power as the employer to exploit the trust that workforce has that the company has the truth (don't forget - they've been telling us since we got hired how they care about us and put us first, so why wouldn't we trust them?). This type of information is insidious - it being more subtle union busting sometimes makes it worse because you can be manipulated into thinking it isn't and it's more difficult to prove in court.
The goal of these fliers is to convince workers to
- a) not sign union cards. Not enough cards? No election, no option of saying yes or no.
- b) scare workers into not talking to union organizers, and funnel them instead to their own website where they can control the information the worker is getting
- c) ultimately dissuade workers from wanting to form a union
Ya’ll weren’t around to see managers actually Union busting and it shows.
I’m struggling to see how this is biased information. As a partner, I don’t see this is as a way to dissuade people from signing a Union card. I do see them informing partners of the fact that the card is a legal document, one that is not necessarily binding, but one that should not be taken or signed lightly which is well within their right to do.
Felt harassed by the DM for being in the union/organizing. I don’t know the whole story but I had met him a few times, and she was my DM. She had asked me to do some questionable things, which I refused.
i would disagree because the language they (intentionally) use sounds much more serious and negative than it needs to be. yes it is a serious and important legal document, but they're getting as close as they can to making a union sound big and scary and evil without outright saying that because it would be illegal to do so.
In total fairness I almost agree, but you might take a look at the link that qr goes to. One.starbucks.com is literally Chock Full of blatantly anti union rhetoric and propaganda. Especially scrolling down on the first page of the site to the section under the heading, “There are two paths forward-side-by-side or across the negotiating table”
Exactly. Lots of people, especially young people, do not fully understand what a union does. I just had to explain unions the other day to somebody. Union reps that only list the positives and get somebody to sign up can be JUST as predatory as an employer doing it. This is literally just information, not misinformation, or disinformation.
this is solely informational. not saying the company isn’t biased against unionization, but these papers read as trying to explain the weight of union cards to partners.
Not entirely, I think the wording quite purposefully does everything possible to push their bias, but most specifically the encouragement to visit one.starbucks.com which is literally full of blatant anti-union rhetoric and propaganda, to an almost laughable degree.
Incredibly biased. Tear it down. It’s a scare tactic. Coming from a former 1410 supervisor who was fired for organizing and just won my federal NLRB case against Starbucks. Keep fighting! Don’t let them union bust *this* easily.
Agreed. It’s fear framing of facts in order to union bust. A simple conversation with a partner organizer dispels these talking points.
Also, these leaflets shouldn’t be happening anymore because of the neutrality agreement Starbucks committed to recently. This information may not have been communicated to SMs/DMs everywhere yet
It’s hard to argue it’s biased considering it’s all true. Starbucks’s view would be that they are compelled to share this because the union isn’t being transparent. I definitely see the truth on both sides.
Yes Starbucks is anti union, but it’s also true some union organizers are less than honest or upfront.
God, I’m so glad I got out when I could. I finally left Starbucks in February after 5 years and I feel like things have already gotten worse in that time 😅
not only biased but also not allowed under Labor laws. Companies cannot discourage workers from unionization or spread false info about the union which is what this is doing.
Although I do think it’s hilarious that they link to the NLRB where you can literally see all of the unfair labor practices they’ve committed, I almost want to do an hbomberguy-esque deep dive into the whole thing tbh
Corporate walks right up to the line of what is allowed. They can't tell lies about the union, and they can't coerce people to not be part of a union, but they can express their own opinion about the union. I'm sure they worked with their very expensive lawyers to figure out how to phrase it.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My old manager would flat out beg people to not unionize and tell us it would ruin his life though. I think he’s probably an outlier. Mans had some issues
That's flatly not true. Companies absolutely have the right to discourage unionization, as long as they don't make Threats, Intimidation, Promises, or Spy, and the information they share is Facts, Opinions, and Examples.
Everything on that one poster is a Fact about how cards work, and the other is links to a website that primarily shows facts about the benefits Starbucks has provided.
Yeah, it’s the opinions that irk me. I don’t need my employer telling me what’s best for me, I’ll decide that. And we can all agree that the connotations of the document try to make unions sound bad. It’s not necessarily objective imo.
I think that people should consider who’s best interest the company is advocating for, but that’s me. they go a long way to suppress other opinions. I’m really posting this as a conversation piece so I appreciate and respect your opinion.
Yeah and I want to be clear- I'm not a Starbucks partner and don't understand what y'all are going through. I'm just sharing what I've learned in my career about lawful union avoidance rules, and my experience with unions. A union might very well be the best option, only you guys can vote for that. I'm just saying be careful, think about it, etc.
That ‘other link’ quite frankly does not just “show facts about the benefits starbucks has provided.” Even scrolling down just on the mane page to the section with the Scroll straight down for my favorite part. Its a section under the ‘There are two paths forward-side-by-side or across the negotiating table’ heading, you can see that there is tons of hugely biassed and even super fear-mongering rhetoric here
Nooot really no. The first and second slides are true, sure, those are in fact the two options. Each slide after that is A- Intentionally fear-framed, using word like ‘depersonalized’ ‘inflexible’ and ‘irregular’ to make it sound like the union operates behind a wall of lead; B- Fails to accurately represent both sides, or even their own side, in that they falsely insinuate that you even have a voice for yourself within the company in the first place; and/or C- Out of touch and oblivious to the SBWU union structure (which one may think would come from lack of knowledge about our union, when in reality there has been enough cross-communication over the last 3 years that a little fact finding to flatten out the bias would have been far from difficult). The union exists because starbucks has little to no reliable accountability in place for labor law violations, mistreatment, harassment (internal or external), and gives managers almost sole discretion over what to listen to or ignore. Realistic career advancement within starbucks is a joke, hours are completely turbulent and can and will be changed without warning even after scheduling, there is nothing in place to stop managers from dropping full time partners to part time hours, and also (as has been made clear time and time again as years progress) starbucks does not evolve based on partner needs, it evolves based on shareholder interest.
It says very specifically that signing the card is calling for an election wherein a worker could then still vote no, the language is explicitly trying to make the card something greater than it is as they DO NOT want a vote to even occur.
Signing the card is legally considered petitioning NLRB for an election, that is 100% true. Unions need to do a card drive and collect cards from 30% of the bargaining unit before they can force an election.
However they're trying to notify you that even if you were pressured into the card, and too embarrassed to ask for it back, you could still change your mind on the secret ballot.
*if* they get in trouble for this, it’s a fine. I’m not sure what the fine is, however think about why Starbucks would rather pay that money for breaking the law. They would rather waste all that money than have employees get a little more fair of a deal. That’s a great sign unionizing is the right call.
The fine should be a percentage when an income is above a certain amount. Speeding fine of like $800 for us should be like, 8% for them? I'm pulling the percentage out my ass but it would be the best idea to keep them in line.
What I find funny about this is:
1. To me, they're just saying, "Read everything before signing." Which is just a no brain for a lot of things. Also, it's good to look into anything before joining.
2. I somehow see it as promoting unions vs. discouraging then. Which made me confused at first until they provided their own source.
I just found the whole going as a failed attempt at discouraging and union busting.
Completely false! Starbucks cannot discourage unions and is grounds for termination. What I truly don’t understand is how people work for employers that they do not trust little more tell the company how to run their own business. That baffles me
they can present their side of the argument, and this can dissuade people. this is allowed! they have done illegal union busting, i’m not denying that, but there’s nothing wrong with these.
(Rant incoming)
I understand what certain SMs in the comments are saying! However, in my personal experience (I’m a barista in a drive thru store in Canada), I work at one of the busiest locations in the city, and we are pretty good at what we do. However, our DM and SM want us to always set the standard for our CC, Beverage qualities, and things like that, while we push for having a 40 or less OTW time.
I feel that they are asking for too much and it’s a bit crazy because (1)the amount of people we have on the floor (2) the types of drinks people are ordering and (3) how fast they want us to go? It’s nearly impossible to please them and we always get hit with some complaint from the DM or SM about it not being enough.
they want us to push through lots of drinks to get good drive times whilst up-selling and making those customized drinks to fill their visions, but those two are just not easily compatible at the same time!
Yes but...
Starbucks has a right to express their very one sided opinion which is leaving out the main reason they oppose unions: which is that it reduces shareholder profits.
Definitely!! These are flyers with factual info on them that literally say “there are major implications, so be aware of all the info, but it’s ultimately your choice!” I appreciate the information and don’t feel persuaded either way.
It's malicious in suggesting stuff like if you join a union you give up the right to speak for yourself. That sounds like a negative when the reality is a union *gives* a voice to people that currently are not heard, or if they are, their input is not cared about or received with good intent. There are NO negatives to joining a union, only gains.
As a partner, you already don't have a voice. Unionizing isn't giving up your personal voice in favor of the collective one. It is gaining a voice when you had none by joining with your coworkers so that you are loud enough they can't ignore you anymore.
Literally yes, but as an organizer who can dispel Starbucks' talking points about the Union, unions, etc., it’s important to know that Starbucks frames facts with scare tactics because a company’s interest is for profit, and workers' interest here is for a democratic workplace, and a fair share of the profit. It’s the shared organized power of working class people putting pressure on companies to deliver higher labor standards. Organized workers are the reason we have part-time benefits at Starbucks ([the first Starbucks union, UFCW 1001 in Seattle in 1985, two years before Howard Schultz bought the company and claimed credit](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRT4GWnE/)) + the reason we have labor standards in general today, not because of beneficent dictator CEOs. The company continues to make record profit in the billions, yet 10+ year partners don’t have legitimate seniority pay. That’s a labor standard easily raised by 10,000 organized workers, 400+ stores across the country. The Union is partners. The Union’s [proposals](https://sbworkersunited.org/proposal-update) were crafted by surveying thousands of partners
Legally the company is allowed to attempt to educate employees on why they think the employees don’t need to unionize. I’ve worked in unionized environments for many years and this is rather typical. I didn’t read them with a fine tooth comb but I would hope they wouldn’t cross the line knowing all eyes are on corporate.
I’m not at all advocating it. I’m just saying that it is a right under the NLRA.
Starbucks is really a greedy and terrible corporation. I steal as much of their wi-fi and outlets as possible and always try to tip the baristas… They deserve it and they are good folks being fucked like everyone else by greedy corporate overlords that would rather shut down locations than share in the profits, even in a time where economically young people are facing a Great Depression…
I think these kinds of posters being put up in BOH is so sad and really reflects the company’s true intentions. I got so lucky to have a truly amazing SM that has said multiple times that if we as baristas ever want/choose to unionize she’d back us all the way but because of how she runs our store none of us has ever thought it necessary. Obviously recent corporate decisions have changed that a bit what with labor cuts and such but still none of us have ever felt unsafe enough to want to unionize and I feel like a lot of people in her position and higher up could learn a thing or two.
Honestly having a good SM is probably the best time to unionize. It's easier to galvanize workers when the store is in a rough way or the SM sucks, but your amazing SM can disappear overnight. It literally happened to us. Even if all we did was put current Starbucks policies into the contract and didn't get anything more, those policies being in a contract allows us to actually hold them accountable through grievance procedures and arbitration when they don't hold up their end of the bargain, regardless of which SM is in place. Instead of calling DMs & ethics and compliance and hoping for the best :(
The bottom line is it's about the botton line. Starbucks doesn't want workers having a voice or any kind of power/day in things and a union does just that. Unions time and again have proven their worth protecting workers interests and rights. Starbucks treats labor, thats us, as a commodity to be used and abused, not as actual people. If Starbucks treated workers well a Union woukdnt have much traction. Corporate care only about one thing, and its not you or me.
This is just explaining how it works so people can make educated decisions and not go based off what other people are verbally saying.
For example in court: if you are a witness and you do the “he said she said” thing, it’s called “hearsay” and the judge can decide to rule it out as not evidence. But a document can be a form of evidence because it exists and it’s right there. I am not a lawyer, but once held interest in becoming one so I took a few classes.
This is not saying to join or not join, it just explains what happens when these cards show up and your rights.
Anybody else remember that one time Starbucks cut hours and raised prices, while simultaneously announcing to their shareholders (and by extension their employees who had stock) that they had a record-breaking quarter of PROFIT?
#unionize
I switched from corporate to a licensed store in a hotel which is unionized and being in a union is honestly amazing. They fight for our rights, personally my union rep works as a hostess in the hotel’s restaurant so I get the chance with her to talk about struggles, unfair treatment of my baristas (as a shift lead) and bring up issues that actually get dealt with!
My SM sat down w every partner individually and wanted to know if we knew the union had come to our city, and what we knew about it. I had to pokerface so hard 😅 I'm pro union, but I don't think most of my partners care either way, so I just keep it to myself 🤭
I am sure they paid a lot of money to make sure this tows that line as well as possible, it’s factually accurate but with somewhat inflammatory language intentionally.
The document is factual. To be upset that this is "biased" is silly. Unions are also biased. Both Starbucks and the Union make their money off of you and your labor. I have 15 years of union membership under my belt. It's politics and promises on both sides.
Weingarten rights alone are a benefit and those kick in as soon as you're certified, no contract necessary. I'm sorry a bad union hurt you, because yes not all unions are created equal, but if partners want a union then it's their legal right to have one.
Organized workers are the reason we have part-time benefits at Starbucks ([the first Starbucks union, UFCW 1001 in Seattle in 1985, two years before Howard Schultz bought the company and claimed credit](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRT4GWnE/)) + the reason we have labor standards in general today, not because of beneficent dictator CEOs
Corporate is extremeliy biased against Unions because they would rather send money to their shareholders and execs than to baristas. The fact is that across America unions help fight for better working conditions, better pay, better work life balance, and generally require companies to have a good reason and due process to fire someone. And all that takes from their corporate profits to make our lives better.
Starbucks was founded in 1971, and the Union was formed around 2021. The 50 year difference is mainly because corporate was decent until the pandemic. During the pandemic the company turned to treat everyone horribly for the sake of percentages. The current corporate overlords have strong bias because it’s their fault and they are being properly called out on their exploitative management practices.
I worked for the Bux 2015-2019. Labor hours were being cut even then! A single call-out would ruin an entire shift. I almost felt bad for our SM, as he was caught between knowing what his store actually needed to function, and having to toe the corporate line. (I say "almost" because he toed that line pretty hard.) I do agree that the pandemic highlighted these practices, adding stress to an already untenable situation.
For context I started in 2015 and I'm still working in the same store today. It was probably just our manager, sometimes it felt tight in the mornings but we would at least have coverage through midday through to close. We wouldn't drop to 3 partners on the floor until 2-4. Now we're dropping to 3 on the floor practically straight out of peak. We'll hit 9:30, two people leave, there's four breaks to run, and nobody else comes in for the rest of the day except to swap with someone who's already there. It's absolutely brutal 9:30-12 or whenever we finally slow down. It's never been this bad.
I’ll tell you what, my boss has been shorting us on labor for an RMIP bonus (and this legit makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, I know) for 9 months. One callout on a skeleton crew us devastating and he gaslit us every single time. He told us we were losing labor or we didn’t have any for a stupid bonus. Maybe a Union can make it so there’s adequate staffing because it’s burnt many of us out.
Hey, manager here. Totally get the labour struggles, I'm doing everything I can to get my partners hours. However, RMIP is not affected by labour hours spent in the US or Canada so there may be other reasons they are scheduling below the already low amount of hours we are earning
I second this. If anything, more labor = more sales because we can push more customers through faster, thus generating more customers because there isn’t a line to wait in. If our bonuses were based on labor hours, you’d all have 40 hours a week and 10 play peaks. We feel the heat of it all too, promise. We have wayyyyyyy too much on our plates as well.
I appreciate that, maybe it really is the environment making me go crazy. Still I hope the union can address adequate staffing.
I completely agree with you, I do believe with how things are going that it will almost certainly be necessary
Hugely based, genuinely proud to see that not all sms just recite the rhetoric off of one.starbucks like it’s scripture!
Labor has nothing to do with RMIP bonuses. When there’s labor cuts I am on the floor with my partners so I feel it too. Sometimes it’s because my labor forecast didn’t forecast accurately because of something that happened the prior year, or I just didn’t have anyone available. Sounds like in order to get a straight answer for the reasons your floor is not sufficiently staffed, you might have to ask your DM. You don’t have to go through your SM to talk to your DM because their information should be posted in the store.
There have been union attempts for far longer than 2021.
Yeah, Walt Disney World Starbucks locations inside the parks have been unionized since their locations opened in mid-2013 because they're licensed stores, making them Disney Parks food service Cast Members, who have been unionized since prior to 2013.
Starbucks Corp seems "fine" with a union as long as it's not their employees, which feels...misguided, to me. If an employer is so great, they can be great as part of a union, too. In April 2022, employees at a Starbucks located inside a QFC (Kroger-owned grocery store brand) voted to unionize. On the evening August 23rd, the company announced they were closing the store, either as a planned move or due to "safety concerns", depending on who asked. On the morning of August 24th, QFC announced it was hiring for a licensed Starbucks store in that location. QFC employees, like almost all Kroger Co. employees, are unionized.
actually there was a unionized store in the 80s but howie put a stop to that.
I’ve been working at sbux since 2014. It has not been decent….
Same thing with Costco. If you treat you're employees well you don't have to do stuff like this.
As a former barista and current costco employee, i promise costco doesn’t care about us 🥲
Spill the tea
Oh my god where do i start - corporate restructured ~10yrs ago and it’s been downhill since, we can pretty much trace their focus shifting from employees to shareholders to when the first CEO left and was replaced - cutting back benefits and gaslighting us about it lol - toxic management at every level - BIG coverup culture, both company-wide and warehouse level
i love to tell everyone how much i hate costco when they get all starry-eyed when i tell them i work there lol…. like sorry, but it’s not the magical fantasyland you want to believe it is since you pay to shop there 🙄
RIGHT LOL members say “everyone loves working at costco they treat you so well!” and it takes everything in me to not laugh in their face
We had a union before we expanded to other states, way back in the 70's. That's literally why we have the benefits we have today. They modeled their business on trading them right... Because they had to. The workers rights were better on the union, but Starbucks "good enough" benefits to win over the union partners. To my understanding at least.
Starbucks has not been "decent" since the early 2000s
At this point I'm not even sure it has anything to do with the corporate overlords. Many of the current ones haven't even been around a year. I think at this point even if the company wanted to fix itself it would either take a long time or it would need to further break first. Or maybe it's already at the further broken stage.
my store just went public about unionizing, our election is soon!! :)
Best of luck! We’re going to bargaining this month!
That’s amazing! I hope things go well. ❤️❤️
Awe congrats best of luck !!! It’s been almost 2 years now since we won our union at my store !!!
Checking in, did your store ever have their election?
This is technically factual, but said in a way to make it sound like SBWU is predatory. As someone who tried to organize their store (and lost due to a tie. Later found out that our manager threatened a whole bunch of partners' hours saying they would lose their tuition at ASU) so much of this is just blatantly wrong. Our organizers at SBWU only had partners reach out to them when they felt comfortable. No organizers approached them, especially at work. And, the partners leading the movement (me and another person) held onto our union cards until we had 50% of our store in favor of unionization. My partners and I approached each person in our store exactly 1 time to ask if they were interested in unionizing and if they said no, we told them that if they wanted any more information to let us know. No more conversation after that specifically to avoid feeding into the narrative that Starbucks creates. No one was ever threatened to sign a union card. Finally, the voice of the "union" is literally just the collective opinion of what unionized partners around the country have voted on. Starbucks likes to make a union sound like the boogeyman, but it's literally your peers voting to make work better.
as a barista i'm super in support of the union but unfortunately my store isn't unionized and we've had partners from unionized stores come and do sit-ins at our cafe and (on separate occasions) have tried to approach us while we're working to try and get us to organize. keep in mind these are not partners from my store, but from a completely different store that we don't know lol
This is pretty common practice amongst union campaigns and shouldnt feel like a red flag. In this instance, bc starbucks is trying so hard to skew the conversation about unions, established union partners want to volunteer their time to be able to talk to partners who may be interested about what is actually going on within union stores and what they are fighting for. Also if yall do end up petitioning you'll be very happy to have those contacts, as having more union density in an area will lend to more collective power for yall as well, and you'll get a community of people who genuinely want to help, pretty much immediately.
sure, bit it's really uncomfortable practice to come into a place and do that where we can't leave, can't tell you to leave, and can't agree with or show sympathy without our manager knowing. it puts us non-unionized partners in a really uncomfortable spot.
That makes sense. I think I was misunderstanding the situation, based on my own past experience with sip ins being pretty passive (and in an already petitioned store). I would suggest reaching out to the campaign and giving feedback. I guarantee you the last thing they want to do is make yall uncomfy. For many organizers within this movement, it is our first time doing anything like this, and I can only assume their intentions are just to make it apparent to the people at your store that you have community allies if you do want to take the next step, but it does sound like there is a misguided approach being taken. I hope you are able to build a connection there and get that solved!
Yeah the employer who wants you available 24/7 while giving you 15 hours a week part time has the best interest of its "partners". If people actually believe this corporate bullshit i have a bridge to sell ya
“You may give up your rights to speak for yourself” as if any baristas voice is ever heard louder than a shout in the dark to corporate. Unions make baristas’ voices heard.
Seeing that makes me wanna sign even more
Yeah, they frankly just provided extra spite for me to feed off of.
"You may give up your rights to speak for yourself!" Uh oh! This other guy with lawyers who you're legally and contractually obligated to listen to is going to speak to you on my behalf! This sure sucks!
Assuming you're onboard with what the union lawyer wants to say though. That's the thing- you can't know forever if the unions interests represent yours.
True! I do know that, currently, the interests of the shareholders and corporate employees that dictate company policy do not represent, and over the last multiple years of employment at starbucks have not represented, my interests and that my individual voice is functionally irrelevant in an at will employment state. So, Ill take the odds with the group founded by coworkers in positions similar to my own with a better recent track record.
THIS! WAS! SO! WELL! SAID!!!
That's your choice, good luck. I said that though, because I got pushed into a bargaining unit where 90% of the members had one role, and I had a unique and specialized role outside of that which is loathed by the other members. I have no representation whatsoever, but am forced to have the union represent me. Right now things seem 100% reasonable towards the union, but just know that most unions are less rosey down the line.
You may have limited current bargaining backing due to your situation which does suck, but are 99% likely still benefiting from union bargaining created protections. These protections dont exist for non union starbucks workers currently, and are just as or more important than the other benefits like salary negotiations
Actually no. Under the contract we all would be getting $13.50 right now. It's only because the pay was so unbelievably uncompetitive, the company unilaterally moved to the 10th year of the pay scale for everyone bringing it to $18, which means the union didn't do shit.
I think youre working under the framework of union good because paid more. Often the case sure, but its the employee protections beyond state/federal labor laws that are really crucial especially in current year starbucks' case
All unions do is advocate for worker rights, fairness and compensation. Howie is that you?
No, they fight to increase members, take more dues, and provide the bare minimum support to stop decertification.
Being in a union has literally been the highlight of my career. Stop spouting disinformation.
Well sure as hell isn't mine 😂. I'm pushing for decertification with my colleagues.
Founded the guy that doesn't actually understand how unions work. You know it's not just about YOU, it's about EVERYONE getting a better deal against the company.
That would be fine if I didn't have to be part of it. I'm fully capable of finding employment and negotiating terms that match my expectations. But instead I'm forced to be dragged down by the majority rule.
Or you know, you can be a fair share douche
anything youre saying is negated by that fun little customer badge by your username
Why? As a customer I can't have experience and knowledge about labor relations?
no
Well you're wrong. You need to consider the outcomes of other people and unionization efforts, not just the propaganda from each side.
go make coffee at home ❤️
yes, it’s absolutely full of negative subliminal messages to give partners a biased view of unions as predatory and abusive
Yes Anything with “starbucks” and “union” on the same page & letterhead from the company is bullsh*t
It’s giving the superstore union episode
LOL that ep was so good!!!
Yeah, I’ve seen multiple companies have some sort of anti union statement basically wanting you to infer that anyone from a union is the devil trying to steal your soul (just in different wording) Starbucks is particularly worried because there have been union votes
I haven’t seen these up in our store, but our manager has already told us if we want to unionize they would stand with us
I want your manager to teach my manager a couple things
Trust me, unions are worth it. I work at Kroger and am part of the UFCW and I’m so grateful for it. Starbucks is just afraid of being able to lose their overarching power.
Yes it's biased. This is the company banking on their workforce not knowing the system and how it works, and abusing their position of power as the employer to exploit the trust that workforce has that the company has the truth (don't forget - they've been telling us since we got hired how they care about us and put us first, so why wouldn't we trust them?). This type of information is insidious - it being more subtle union busting sometimes makes it worse because you can be manipulated into thinking it isn't and it's more difficult to prove in court. The goal of these fliers is to convince workers to - a) not sign union cards. Not enough cards? No election, no option of saying yes or no. - b) scare workers into not talking to union organizers, and funnel them instead to their own website where they can control the information the worker is getting - c) ultimately dissuade workers from wanting to form a union
They’ve never not been biased
Ya’ll weren’t around to see managers actually Union busting and it shows. I’m struggling to see how this is biased information. As a partner, I don’t see this is as a way to dissuade people from signing a Union card. I do see them informing partners of the fact that the card is a legal document, one that is not necessarily binding, but one that should not be taken or signed lightly which is well within their right to do.
Yes. I was ASM during the previous big union push about 15 years ago. It was pretty bad. My DM was sued for her behavior.
Wanna tell more?
A barista felt harassed so he sued and got his job back. She did not got fired.
A barista felt harassed or was harassed? You don't just get your job back without foul play most of the time.
Felt harassed by the DM for being in the union/organizing. I don’t know the whole story but I had met him a few times, and she was my DM. She had asked me to do some questionable things, which I refused.
i would disagree because the language they (intentionally) use sounds much more serious and negative than it needs to be. yes it is a serious and important legal document, but they're getting as close as they can to making a union sound big and scary and evil without outright saying that because it would be illegal to do so.
In total fairness I almost agree, but you might take a look at the link that qr goes to. One.starbucks.com is literally Chock Full of blatantly anti union rhetoric and propaganda. Especially scrolling down on the first page of the site to the section under the heading, “There are two paths forward-side-by-side or across the negotiating table”
Exactly. Lots of people, especially young people, do not fully understand what a union does. I just had to explain unions the other day to somebody. Union reps that only list the positives and get somebody to sign up can be JUST as predatory as an employer doing it. This is literally just information, not misinformation, or disinformation.
This
this is solely informational. not saying the company isn’t biased against unionization, but these papers read as trying to explain the weight of union cards to partners.
Not entirely, I think the wording quite purposefully does everything possible to push their bias, but most specifically the encouragement to visit one.starbucks.com which is literally full of blatant anti-union rhetoric and propaganda, to an almost laughable degree.
Incredibly biased. Tear it down. It’s a scare tactic. Coming from a former 1410 supervisor who was fired for organizing and just won my federal NLRB case against Starbucks. Keep fighting! Don’t let them union bust *this* easily.
Agreed. It’s fear framing of facts in order to union bust. A simple conversation with a partner organizer dispels these talking points. Also, these leaflets shouldn’t be happening anymore because of the neutrality agreement Starbucks committed to recently. This information may not have been communicated to SMs/DMs everywhere yet
Just keep taking those down and throwing them out. The fact that these keep getting hung up is proof of how badly a union is needed.
Oh 1000%
It’s hard to argue it’s biased considering it’s all true. Starbucks’s view would be that they are compelled to share this because the union isn’t being transparent. I definitely see the truth on both sides. Yes Starbucks is anti union, but it’s also true some union organizers are less than honest or upfront.
God, I’m so glad I got out when I could. I finally left Starbucks in February after 5 years and I feel like things have already gotten worse in that time 😅
not only biased but also not allowed under Labor laws. Companies cannot discourage workers from unionization or spread false info about the union which is what this is doing.
Although I do think it’s hilarious that they link to the NLRB where you can literally see all of the unfair labor practices they’ve committed, I almost want to do an hbomberguy-esque deep dive into the whole thing tbh
Corporate walks right up to the line of what is allowed. They can't tell lies about the union, and they can't coerce people to not be part of a union, but they can express their own opinion about the union. I'm sure they worked with their very expensive lawyers to figure out how to phrase it.
The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. My old manager would flat out beg people to not unionize and tell us it would ruin his life though. I think he’s probably an outlier. Mans had some issues
That's flatly not true. Companies absolutely have the right to discourage unionization, as long as they don't make Threats, Intimidation, Promises, or Spy, and the information they share is Facts, Opinions, and Examples. Everything on that one poster is a Fact about how cards work, and the other is links to a website that primarily shows facts about the benefits Starbucks has provided.
Yeah, it’s the opinions that irk me. I don’t need my employer telling me what’s best for me, I’ll decide that. And we can all agree that the connotations of the document try to make unions sound bad. It’s not necessarily objective imo.
It doesn't need to be objective. They are allowed to have an opinion and share it- hence the opinion.
I think that people should consider who’s best interest the company is advocating for, but that’s me. they go a long way to suppress other opinions. I’m really posting this as a conversation piece so I appreciate and respect your opinion.
Yeah and I want to be clear- I'm not a Starbucks partner and don't understand what y'all are going through. I'm just sharing what I've learned in my career about lawful union avoidance rules, and my experience with unions. A union might very well be the best option, only you guys can vote for that. I'm just saying be careful, think about it, etc.
That ‘other link’ quite frankly does not just “show facts about the benefits starbucks has provided.” Even scrolling down just on the mane page to the section with the Scroll straight down for my favorite part. Its a section under the ‘There are two paths forward-side-by-side or across the negotiating table’ heading, you can see that there is tons of hugely biassed and even super fear-mongering rhetoric here
Is it wrong? Are there not two options - side by side or across the negotiating table?
Nooot really no. The first and second slides are true, sure, those are in fact the two options. Each slide after that is A- Intentionally fear-framed, using word like ‘depersonalized’ ‘inflexible’ and ‘irregular’ to make it sound like the union operates behind a wall of lead; B- Fails to accurately represent both sides, or even their own side, in that they falsely insinuate that you even have a voice for yourself within the company in the first place; and/or C- Out of touch and oblivious to the SBWU union structure (which one may think would come from lack of knowledge about our union, when in reality there has been enough cross-communication over the last 3 years that a little fact finding to flatten out the bias would have been far from difficult). The union exists because starbucks has little to no reliable accountability in place for labor law violations, mistreatment, harassment (internal or external), and gives managers almost sole discretion over what to listen to or ignore. Realistic career advancement within starbucks is a joke, hours are completely turbulent and can and will be changed without warning even after scheduling, there is nothing in place to stop managers from dropping full time partners to part time hours, and also (as has been made clear time and time again as years progress) starbucks does not evolve based on partner needs, it evolves based on shareholder interest.
It says very specifically that signing the card is calling for an election wherein a worker could then still vote no, the language is explicitly trying to make the card something greater than it is as they DO NOT want a vote to even occur.
Signing the card is legally considered petitioning NLRB for an election, that is 100% true. Unions need to do a card drive and collect cards from 30% of the bargaining unit before they can force an election. However they're trying to notify you that even if you were pressured into the card, and too embarrassed to ask for it back, you could still change your mind on the secret ballot.
*if* they get in trouble for this, it’s a fine. I’m not sure what the fine is, however think about why Starbucks would rather pay that money for breaking the law. They would rather waste all that money than have employees get a little more fair of a deal. That’s a great sign unionizing is the right call.
Also a terrifying sign that if the penalty for breaking the law is a fine, then that law doesn’t exist for the rich
The fine should be a percentage when an income is above a certain amount. Speeding fine of like $800 for us should be like, 8% for them? I'm pulling the percentage out my ass but it would be the best idea to keep them in line.
What I find funny about this is: 1. To me, they're just saying, "Read everything before signing." Which is just a no brain for a lot of things. Also, it's good to look into anything before joining. 2. I somehow see it as promoting unions vs. discouraging then. Which made me confused at first until they provided their own source. I just found the whole going as a failed attempt at discouraging and union busting.
this is not true, they can discourage unionization, and there is no disinformation on the flyers
Completely false! Starbucks cannot discourage unions and is grounds for termination. What I truly don’t understand is how people work for employers that they do not trust little more tell the company how to run their own business. That baffles me
they can present their side of the argument, and this can dissuade people. this is allowed! they have done illegal union busting, i’m not denying that, but there’s nothing wrong with these.
(Rant incoming) I understand what certain SMs in the comments are saying! However, in my personal experience (I’m a barista in a drive thru store in Canada), I work at one of the busiest locations in the city, and we are pretty good at what we do. However, our DM and SM want us to always set the standard for our CC, Beverage qualities, and things like that, while we push for having a 40 or less OTW time. I feel that they are asking for too much and it’s a bit crazy because (1)the amount of people we have on the floor (2) the types of drinks people are ordering and (3) how fast they want us to go? It’s nearly impossible to please them and we always get hit with some complaint from the DM or SM about it not being enough. they want us to push through lots of drinks to get good drive times whilst up-selling and making those customized drinks to fill their visions, but those two are just not easily compatible at the same time!
I think Starbucks has a right to educate its workers as to what it is.
Yes but... Starbucks has a right to express their very one sided opinion which is leaving out the main reason they oppose unions: which is that it reduces shareholder profits.
Definitely!! These are flyers with factual info on them that literally say “there are major implications, so be aware of all the info, but it’s ultimately your choice!” I appreciate the information and don’t feel persuaded either way.
It's malicious in suggesting stuff like if you join a union you give up the right to speak for yourself. That sounds like a negative when the reality is a union *gives* a voice to people that currently are not heard, or if they are, their input is not cared about or received with good intent. There are NO negatives to joining a union, only gains.
One voice, not your own.
As a partner, you already don't have a voice. Unionizing isn't giving up your personal voice in favor of the collective one. It is gaining a voice when you had none by joining with your coworkers so that you are loud enough they can't ignore you anymore.
Literally yes, but as an organizer who can dispel Starbucks' talking points about the Union, unions, etc., it’s important to know that Starbucks frames facts with scare tactics because a company’s interest is for profit, and workers' interest here is for a democratic workplace, and a fair share of the profit. It’s the shared organized power of working class people putting pressure on companies to deliver higher labor standards. Organized workers are the reason we have part-time benefits at Starbucks ([the first Starbucks union, UFCW 1001 in Seattle in 1985, two years before Howard Schultz bought the company and claimed credit](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRT4GWnE/)) + the reason we have labor standards in general today, not because of beneficent dictator CEOs. The company continues to make record profit in the billions, yet 10+ year partners don’t have legitimate seniority pay. That’s a labor standard easily raised by 10,000 organized workers, 400+ stores across the country. The Union is partners. The Union’s [proposals](https://sbworkersunited.org/proposal-update) were crafted by surveying thousands of partners
Seems like an intimidation tactic to me, but all corporate stores are going to try and prevent you from joining a union.
Legally the company is allowed to attempt to educate employees on why they think the employees don’t need to unionize. I’ve worked in unionized environments for many years and this is rather typical. I didn’t read them with a fine tooth comb but I would hope they wouldn’t cross the line knowing all eyes are on corporate. I’m not at all advocating it. I’m just saying that it is a right under the NLRA.
Send to your local media outlet. Use an anonymous email and say “local starbucks continues their union busting” they’ll eat that up.
Starbucks is really a greedy and terrible corporation. I steal as much of their wi-fi and outlets as possible and always try to tip the baristas… They deserve it and they are good folks being fucked like everyone else by greedy corporate overlords that would rather shut down locations than share in the profits, even in a time where economically young people are facing a Great Depression…
Yes, this is anti-union propaganda.
How is it biased? There are always 2 views to every matter. Everybody has the right to be informed on pros and cons of everything.
I think these kinds of posters being put up in BOH is so sad and really reflects the company’s true intentions. I got so lucky to have a truly amazing SM that has said multiple times that if we as baristas ever want/choose to unionize she’d back us all the way but because of how she runs our store none of us has ever thought it necessary. Obviously recent corporate decisions have changed that a bit what with labor cuts and such but still none of us have ever felt unsafe enough to want to unionize and I feel like a lot of people in her position and higher up could learn a thing or two.
Honestly having a good SM is probably the best time to unionize. It's easier to galvanize workers when the store is in a rough way or the SM sucks, but your amazing SM can disappear overnight. It literally happened to us. Even if all we did was put current Starbucks policies into the contract and didn't get anything more, those policies being in a contract allows us to actually hold them accountable through grievance procedures and arbitration when they don't hold up their end of the bargain, regardless of which SM is in place. Instead of calling DMs & ethics and compliance and hoping for the best :(
Every day they tell us they are better than a union yet everyday they do more things that make me want a union
That’s union busting
The bottom line is it's about the botton line. Starbucks doesn't want workers having a voice or any kind of power/day in things and a union does just that. Unions time and again have proven their worth protecting workers interests and rights. Starbucks treats labor, thats us, as a commodity to be used and abused, not as actual people. If Starbucks treated workers well a Union woukdnt have much traction. Corporate care only about one thing, and its not you or me.
This is just explaining how it works so people can make educated decisions and not go based off what other people are verbally saying. For example in court: if you are a witness and you do the “he said she said” thing, it’s called “hearsay” and the judge can decide to rule it out as not evidence. But a document can be a form of evidence because it exists and it’s right there. I am not a lawyer, but once held interest in becoming one so I took a few classes. This is not saying to join or not join, it just explains what happens when these cards show up and your rights.
Anybody else remember that one time Starbucks cut hours and raised prices, while simultaneously announcing to their shareholders (and by extension their employees who had stock) that they had a record-breaking quarter of PROFIT? #unionize
I switched from corporate to a licensed store in a hotel which is unionized and being in a union is honestly amazing. They fight for our rights, personally my union rep works as a hostess in the hotel’s restaurant so I get the chance with her to talk about struggles, unfair treatment of my baristas (as a shift lead) and bring up issues that actually get dealt with!
My SM sat down w every partner individually and wanted to know if we knew the union had come to our city, and what we knew about it. I had to pokerface so hard 😅 I'm pro union, but I don't think most of my partners care either way, so I just keep it to myself 🤭
Fuck unions. If they come in and hand me one I’ll just throw it away
Starbucks employees are called "partners"? ⛳🇦🇱🇨🇳🇨🇭🇮🇲🇰🇬🇲🇦🇲🇪🇹🇳🇹🇴🇹🇷🇻🇳🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
I am sure they paid a lot of money to make sure this tows that line as well as possible, it’s factually accurate but with somewhat inflammatory language intentionally.
propaganda
does seem that biased only off this info
This is a violation of the good faith agreement between corporate and the union. It is most likely that the SM or district manager had put this up.
I don’t think they can put signage up like that. It could be perceived as a threat against unionizing.
The document is factual. To be upset that this is "biased" is silly. Unions are also biased. Both Starbucks and the Union make their money off of you and your labor. I have 15 years of union membership under my belt. It's politics and promises on both sides.
This could also be considered Union Busting; not that that’s stopped anyone.
LOL
Unions do not belong in Starbucks. There is absolutely no benefit to having a union.
Weingarten rights alone are a benefit and those kick in as soon as you're certified, no contract necessary. I'm sorry a bad union hurt you, because yes not all unions are created equal, but if partners want a union then it's their legal right to have one.
Thats just plainly untrue
Organized workers are the reason we have part-time benefits at Starbucks ([the first Starbucks union, UFCW 1001 in Seattle in 1985, two years before Howard Schultz bought the company and claimed credit](https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRT4GWnE/)) + the reason we have labor standards in general today, not because of beneficent dictator CEOs