Mar. 1, 2022 "Starbucks threatened to shutter stores over organizing, union claims": Today I found this article by Josh Eidelson in the Financial Post:
The labour group organizing workers at Starbucks Corp. has filed 20 complaints over the past week accusing the company of workers’ rights violations that range from a threat to shut down all stores in the Buffalo, New York, market to discriminatory enforcement of policies.
The complaints, filed with the Buffalo regional office of the National Labor Relations Board, represent an escalation of the sprawling legal struggle between Starbucks and Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union.
The group claims that the company illegally coerced employees during “effectively mandatory” anti-union meetings, while pro-union employees were barred from the sessions.
It also accuses Starbucks of enforcing rules on dress codes, language and COVID-19 quarantines in a way that discriminates against union-affiliated workers, and illegally restricting employees from talking to reporters. Workers United is organizing staff at more than 100 Starbucks locations.
“We’ve been clear from the beginning: Any claims of anti-union activity are categorically false,” Starbucks spokesperson Reggie Borges said in an email.
The Seattle-based company has said that it strictly adheres to U.S. labour law. The coffee chain’s North America president, Rossann Williams, told employees in December that “we do not want a union between us as partners,” but that the company respects the legal process and would bargain in good faith at the first store where the union prevailed in Buffalo.
Some of the complaints are similar to those recently filed by unions organizing at Amazon Inc. warehouses in New York and Alabama, which accuse the company of illegally coercing workers in anti-union “captive audience” meetings.
Workers United also accuses Starbucks of illegally terminating one of the union leaders at the first store it unionized in December. In a statement, the employee, Cassie Fleischer, said that the union is “now filing unfair labour practice charges to hold Starbucks accountable for their actions.”
Claims filed with the NLRB are investigated by regional officials. If they find merit in the allegations and are unable to secure settlements, then they can issue complaints that are considered by agency judges. Those judges’ rulings can be appealed to the labour board’s members in Washington D.C. and from there, into federal court. The labour board can order policy changes or the reinstatement of fired workers, but is restricted from fining companies for violations of the law.
Previous complaints filed by the union are still pending with the agency, including one over the firing of seven employees at a Memphis store — a group that included almost all of the union’s organizing committee at the location. Starbucks has said those workers were terminated for safety violations.
Starbucks threatened to shutter stores over organizing, union claims | Financial Post
Mar. 1, 2023 "Starbucks faces new front in its labour disputes: white-collar workers": Today I found this article by Josh Eidelson on the Financial Post:
Dozens of white-collar Starbucks Corp. employees and managers have signed an open letter protesting the company’s return-to-office mandate and its alleged union-busting, opening a new front in the battle over the avowedly progressive coffee chain’s treatment of its staff.
“We love Starbucks, but these actions are fracturing trust in Starbucks leadership,” the workers wrote in their letter, which was sent to senior executives and board members and will be posted on a website Wednesday.
“Morale is at an all-time low, and the brand reputation and financial value of this publicly traded company are at risk.” Both violating baristas’ unionization rights, and subjecting white-collar staff to an abrupt return-to-office mandate, the letter argues, reflect the same problem: “Not listening to partners.”
“We believe in Starbucks, we believe in its core values, and we call for a return to those values,” the white collar staffers wrote.
The collective activism by headquarters staff adds pressure on incoming chief executive Laxman Narasimhan to resolve the bitter dispute with Starbucks Workers United, the labour group which last year organized a few hundred of the chain’s 9,000 corporate-run United States locations. It could also be a precursor to eventual unionization efforts by white-collar Starbucks staff themselves, who argue the company has violated the values that are supposed to set it apart.
Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company has repeatedly denied violating labour laws and said that all claims of anti-union activity there are “categorically false.”
The letter was signed by about four dozen white-collar workers, who organizers said also represent others who withheld their names due to fear of retaliation. Starbucks employs about 258,000 people in the United States, with 248,000 of those at its company-operated stores, according to data released by the company. The remainder work in corporate support, store development, roasting, manufacturing, warehousing and distribution.
In January, Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz sent a memo requiring workers within commuting distance to return to the office three days a week. He told white-collar staff that baristas “are asking us to do the transformative work that I believe can only be done effectively when we are physically together.”
Employees say their protest letter emerged from online discussions over the past couple months that were triggered in part by Schultz’s January email. It also reflects long-running frustration by some white-collar staff with Starbucks’s response to the union campaign, which U.S. labour board prosecutors have alleged included illegal threats and terminations of around 50 activists. Workers United barista-activists and organizers have been advising the white-collar workers’ nascent efforts.
Starbucks’s business appears largely unaffected by worker morale and the union fight: The coffee chain’s results have been strong in recent quarters, excluding China, where a COVID-19 outbreak following the end of restrictions dented sales. North American consumers have proven willing so far to fork over more for their lattes and frappuccinos, while transactions have also climbed. The shares are up about three per cent this year, slightly trailing the gain of the S&P 500 Index.
The workers behind the letter say the company’s anti-union efforts punish baristas who “challenge the status quo,” while arguing the return-to-office mandate harms productivity, morale, accessibility and sustainability.
“After Howard issued his edict, I definitely did not feel good working for Starbucks any more — it felt like I am working for a dictator,” said Starbucks app developer Peter de Jesus, one of the employees who signed the letter. “I feel like this is not the Starbucks that I signed on for.”
De Jesus said he hopes the letter will help show more white-collar coworkers that they aren’t alone in feeling unheard by management. “A lot of people just want to have their grievances and their demands aired, and hope for change,” he said. “If it doesn’t lead to any meaningful change, then the next step is obviously to think about possibly unionizing.”
Manager participation
The letter’s organizers and signatories include some managers, whose workplace advocacy comes with particular risk. Federal labour law guarantees most employees the right to take collective action about their working conditions, including unionization efforts. But that law excludes managers, instead leaving executives with sweeping authority to demand that they toe the company line.
“As a general matter, supervisors and managers have no rights under this law,” said former National Labor Relations Board member Wilma Liebman, who served as chair of the federal agency under President Barack Obama.
While companies are largely free to fire managers for complaining about working conditions, retaliation against them can still be illegal if it is done to interfere with hourly employees’ freedom to organize, Liebman said.
The labour board has ruled, for example, that it’s illegal to fire managers for refusing to engage in illegal conduct.
The employees behind the letter said that they hoped coming forward as a group would deter punitive measures against them. They also seek to help change the company’s course in ways that recent judges’ rulings and lawmakers’ letters condemning alleged union-busting have not.
“A lot of us are taking a stand in the hopes that the more people that take a stand, the less we have to worry about retaliation,” said engineering manager Cyril Bouanna, who works on tools including Starbucks’s mobile phone app.
The letter follows an internal survey last year that showed corporate staff’s faith in the company’s ethics and social impact fell to historic lows amid the union fight and return-to-office policies. Staff at companies such as Amazon.com Inc. and Walt Disney Co. have also pushed back against orders to return to the office after lengthy periods of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic.
—With assistance from Leslie Patton
Starbucks corporate workers protest return to office, anti-union push | Financial Post
My opinion: This reminds me of my Mar. 2021 blog post:
"#MeToo movement becomes #WeToo in in victim-blaming Japan"/ "Outrage as women in Japan told not wear glasses in the workplace"
Aug. 17, 2020 Saying: I found this on Facebook:
"You never look good when you are trying to make someone else look bad."- Unknown
Cham: Sometimes people need to be exposed for who they are hahah or maybe I should stop being petty
Tracy Au: There's a difference between trying to make someone look bad, and exposing them for who they are. It's like those #MeToo accusers and victims, they are plainly telling everybody about the perpetrators. They're not trying to make them look bad.
https://badcb.blogspot.com/2020/08/job-articles-wetoo-gender-gap-done.html
"Do unions at Starbucks mean the labour movement is picking up steam?"/ "Fight for unions at Starbucks at a crossroads one year after first wave of momentum"
"Workers at 100 U.S. Starbucks locations walk off the job in unionization push"/ "U.S. Starbucks staff begin three-day strike as contract talks sour"
COIN Canada, Children of Islamic Nations, is a registered Canadian Charitable Organization. It strives to uplift underprivileged children and women in areas of education and health in poor and developing countries. COIN is also at the forefront of helping in emergency relief at home and abroad.
Song: I was listening to CBC radio. "Susie Save Your Love" by Allie X ft. Mitski- a chill song to dance to.
The Chubb
Difference
With operations in 54 countries, Chubb provides commercial and personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance and life insurance to a diverse group of clients.
As an underwriting company, we assess, assume and manage risk with insight and discipline. We service and pay our claims fairly and promptly. The company is also defined by its extensive product and service offerings, broad distribution capabilities, exceptional financial strength and local operations globally.
Parent company Chubb Limited is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE: CB) and is a component of the S&P 500 index. Chubb maintains executive offices in Zurich, New York, London and other locations, and employs approximately 31,000 people worldwide.
If you've been trying to save money on your grocery bill by waiting until food is marked down to 50 per cent, get ready for some sticker shock on your next visit to a Loblaws-owned grocery store.
According to an email from Loblaw Companies Ltd. reviewed by CBC News, it will no longer discount perishable foods like meat, fruit, and vegetables by 50 per cent as they near their expiration date.
Bill VanGorder, the national advocacy chair for the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, said he's received many concerned phone calls from seniors across the country who have noticed the change.
"What we've been hearing is that because of the pressures of the cost of living … seniors have been depending on buying their perishable foods … when they reduce prices in the grocery stores," he said.
She said additional discounts will be made available on the Flashfood app, which offers deals on products otherwise destined to become food waste.
But for Duarte, this explanation still doesn't hold water.
"It wasn't costing them anything. Because once the food leaves the shelves ... it's garbage," he said. "Why try to squeeze another 20 per cent profit out of something you're going to dispose of?"
No comments:
Post a Comment