Starbucks is facing new pressure from the Union campaign

More than two years after the campaign that unionized more than 350 Starbucks stores, the company is facing mounting pressure from union officials and activists who say it has illegally retaliated against workers and resisted contract negotiations.

Starbucks, which denies violating labor law, has responded with mixed signals about its willingness to engage with the union. Company announced early last month, the company announced it wanted to resume in-store negotiations with a union, only one of which has held bargaining sessions in the past six months. Still, the company continues to resist the union’s demand that some employees be allowed to participate remotely in bargaining sessions so that more employees can participate.

Starbucks has taken steps to address employee complaints about overwork in its stores. But they and the union have sued each other in a dispute stemming from social media posts about the war in Gaza.

a report on Starbucks’ labor practices, prompted by a shareholder vote and released last month, criticized the company for falling short of commitments it made to respect union activities, although it found “no evidence of an ‘anti-union playbook’.”

“There are green shoots of promising behavior right now,” said Jonas Kron, chief advocacy officer of Trillium Asset Management, which invests in advancing environmental, social and governance goals and has owned a roughly $31 million stake in Starbucks as of September. But, he added, there is also “going on with regard to behavior.”

Persistence in organizational efforts is a source of pressure on the company. The union campaign stalled in the second half of 2022, when the number of election registrations fell from more than 50 per month in the first half of the year to an average of twelve per month. The number of monthly registrations increased last year and averaged about 20 between October and December.

Other challenges are more recent. In late November, a coalition of unions, including the parent company of Workers United, which represents Starbucks workers, three candidates nominated for seats on the company’s board.

The coalition, known as the Strategic Organizing Center, is investing in the company and cited “potentially irreversible damage” to the Starbucks brand as a result of anti-union actions. It noted that the National Labor Relations Board had filed dozens of complaints against the company related to hundreds of allegations of illegal conduct, including a failure to negotiate in good faith.

Starbucks denies the allegations, noticing that it has proposed more than 500 bargaining sessions with the union, and the cases are still being litigated. The company has said it will review proposed board candidates and is “committed to constructive dialogue.”

Experts on governance battles said the campaign appeared serious. All three candidates have been senior administration officials, largely under Democratic presidents, and the coalition has attracted top firms to help in the fight.

“This is not a publicity stunt, I don’t think,” said Kai Liekefett, a partner at Sidley Austin who specializes in defending boards against shareholder campaigns. “They hired very sophisticated consultants.”

Mr Liekefett said a vote at Starbucks’ last shareholder meeting, in which investors backed a resolution pushing the company to order a review of its respect for labor rights, suggested investors could be open to a governance challenge that related to labor issues.

At the same time, actions by union supporters have attempted to exact an award from the members of the board of directors and the company for its attitude towards the unions.

Students at Georgetown University, Boston University and the University of California, Los Angeles, have waged campaigns to remove Starbucks stores from their campuses. Union supporters interrupted a forum at UCLA featuring Starbucks board member Andrew Campion to make fun of him for “whitewashing the injustices Starbucks employees face.”

A nonprofit organization was formed after a plea from union members in November withdrawn an award that names Mellody Hobson, the president of Starbucks, as one of the “25 Mentors of the Year.”

The non-profit organization Step Up, which focuses on on mentoring teenage girls and young women, said Ms. Hobson’s achievements identified her as a strong mentor, but that “the union’s outreach letter to Step Up sheds light on other concerns.” Ms Hobson declined to comment. Starbucks declined to comment on the campus campaigns and targeting of board members.

Starbucks recently announced a change that union members have long pushed for: making it easier for employees to temporarily block orders placed via cell phones when they face operational issues such as understaffing. The union raised the issue during a recent strike at dozens of stores.

Company told workers who, two weeks after the strike, their unionized supervisors and shift managers will soon be able to pause mobile orders using an iPad app. Starbucks said it had not changed its policy on pausing mobile orders, a key source of revenue, and that shift leaders still needed manager approval to do so. The company said it was simply adding technology to help stores pause orders more efficiently, and that the change had been in the works for months.

At other times the company was more confrontational with the union. Shortly after Hamas’s attack on Israel on October 7, the union’s official report on was expressed. above a photo that appeared to show a bulldozer breaking open a fence between Israel and Gaza.

Starbucks criticized the union for “advocating violence in the Middle East” and later sued the union for trademark infringement, arguing that union statements harmed Starbucks because many people confused the union with the company. The company said the lawsuit was motivated by a desire to ensure the safety of its employees, who were threatened by angry members of the public.

The union sued for defamation, saying the “solidarity post” was not allowed, that it was quickly removed and that no reasonable person could conclude that the union supported terrorism.

Laxman Narasimhan, who became CEO in March, has not yet set a clear course on union issues, although he is more likely to be conciliatory than his predecessor, Howard Schultz, according to two former Starbucks company employees familiar with the men’s mindset. Mr. Schultz appeared to view the union as a personal affront, the former employees said worked on defusing it support for it.

Starbucks declined to comment on any differences in approach between the current and former CEOs. Mr. Schultz, who left Starbucks’ board in September, did not respond to a request for comment on the matter.

In recent weeks, Mr. Narasimhan appears to have grown tired of the controversies that followed the union’s post and the company’s lawsuit, as groups and activists sympathetic to Israelis And Palestinians have announced a boycott of Starbucks.

In a letter To employees dated December 19, the CEO expressed concern about the “escalating protests” linked to global conflicts and noted that many stores suffered vandalism.

“We see protesters being influenced by misrepresentations on social media about what we stand for,” he said, adding: “Our position is clear. We stand for humanity.”