Labor Board May Force Starbucks To Reopen 23 Stores And Not Because They're Undercaffeinated

Because the NLRB believes they closed them to discourage unionization.

Dec 15, 2023

Over the past two years, there has been an ongoing battle between Starbucks and Starbucks Workers United, the union representing Starbucks workers (whom they call “partners”) at unionized stores — resulting in some pretty bad publicity for the chain that even sweet cream foam or the return of gingerbread lattes could not subdue. There’s not a lot that isn’t gross about hearing endless stories of workers being unfairly disciplined or fired for trying to unionize.

On Wednesday, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint that accused Starbucks of illegally closing 23 stores across the country, seven of which had already unionized, in order to repress union activity — and it wants the chain to reopen them. The matter will go before a judge this summer unless Starbucks takes care of this on its own. Oh, and the NLRB doesn’t want them to just reopen the stores, they also want Starbucks to compensate the employees for the wages and benefits they lost as a result of the closures.

Coincidentally, the very same day the NLRB issued the complaint, Starbucks put up a statement on its corporate website announcing that its board of directors had contracted with an independent third party to evaluate its “commitment to the principles of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining.” Surprise! The person they paid felt that while there was some room for improvement, their intentions were good.

“The assessment was direct and clear that while Starbucks had no intention to deviate from the principles of freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining, there are things the company can and should do to improve its stated commitments and its adherence to these important principles,” said board chair Mellody Hobson.

The assessment also “found” that “[w]hile 40% of current Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges filed against the Company center around discipline or discharge actions, disciplinary actions have been issued at a similar rate in both union and non-union stores.”

That sounds all fair and lovely, except for the fact that many people at stores that are in the process of unionizing (which they would count as “non-union stores”) are being fired for very stupid reasons. One worker was fired for “sexual harassment” for sending a coworker a picture of a Lana Del Ray album (warning, it is a picture of human female breasts, which are far more offensive than human male breasts even though they are the same body part). Other employees say they have been harassed by management over unionization efforts or told that they wouldn’t get promoted as a result of them. This is obvious union-busting.

I can personally report that when the unionization push first started in Buffalo, New York, Starbucks temporarily closed one of the stores near where I was in Rochester and it was a store that had just started looking into unionization.

Donate Just Once!

Who ever thought we’d be cheering for more Starbucks stores, right? We wouldn’t be, if the stores were being driven out of business by plucky independent coffee shops that make better coffee and pay their unionized workers a living wage — but that’s not what happened here. These workers deserve to have their jobs back and they deserve to be able to unionize.

Axios reports that Starbucks’ attitude towards organized labor has “softened,” after the famously anti-union CEO Howard Schultz was replaced in March of this year, and that they have more or less accepted that this is happening and they can’t stop it. Which, factually, is true.

Hopefully Starbucks will get its ass in order and reopen those stores and compensate their employees before they get dragged in front of a judge next summer. I’m sure their “partners” would appreciate that.

PREVIOUSLY: