This past Friday, workers at a Starbucks outside of Phoenix voted on unionization, resulting in a 25-3 confirmation of the motion. This made them the only Starbucks in the U.S. outside of New York to do so, and a spokesperson for Starbucks responded to the news by stating that the company "will respect the process and bargain in good faith," highlighting an apparent willingness to cooperate. The goals of the union include creating a stronger front through which to negotiate terms including benefits, safety protocols, pensions, pay, and others, and workers at this store expressed the difficulties associated with effects of the pandemic, especially the issue of being understaffed.
The election for the decision of whether or not to unionize was intended to occur a week before its actual date, delayed by a request by Starbucks for a review with the National Labor Relations Board in Washington D.C. Starbucks contested whether it was permitted for a single store to hold this type of election, stating rather that if a desire to unionize was present, that all branches in the store's district should vote. The decision of the Labor Relations board was to deny this request by Starbucks, seeing no issues at hand with the actions being carried out by the branch store in Mesa Arizona. The union organizers in Arizona believed this to be an example of "union busting," also claiming other tactics employed by Starbucks such as having upper level management shadow workers in order to ensure they aren't planning to unionize.
After the first two Starbucks stores in Buffalo New York recently motioned to unionize and successfully elected to do so, multiple other stores across the country are beginning to file petitions to the Labor Relations Board, wanting to similarly conduct their own elections. The actions of these stores and the growing interest in unionization within the company has solicited a response from executives, which have claimed that "the company functions best when it can work directly with its employees," clearly suggesting that they are opposed to the action of unionizing. This issue has led to certain recent conflicts including the firing of seven employees who drove a unionizing campaign, with Starbucks defending the firing by stating how they had opened a company store after the time it was supposed to close. Despite the historic decline in unions, it appears that within younger age groups they are becoming increasingly sought after. A second store in the area of Mesa has filed to conduct its elections, with results being confirmed on March 18th, and over a hundred stores (out of the 9000 nationwide) have already submitted their petitions to the Labor Relations Board. There are economic implications to this process too, as Starbucks shares have declined roughly 11% in the past year, harming its market value.
I think that there are challenges behind the unionization of individual stores across the nation, making it difficult for the overall company to regulate its employees and have separate dealings with the separate unions. Keeping in mind as well that a collective bargaining agreement is not a requirement, negotiations could be dragged out and cause decreased support and enthusiasm amongst union members. Given the store based nature of the current unions I do not see there being a large free rider problem, and instead to believe that early on there will be very active participation within the unions, and motions to conduct negotiations with the company management. Yet again however, with minimal success there could become a decentralization of the union or even a disbandment altogether. It is tough to say anything now, so it will be interesting to see how the situation evolves and how negotiations between the unions and Starbucks as a corporation go, as this could have significant implications for other major companies.
Sources:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/25/starbucks-restaurant-in-mesa-arizona-votes-to-unionize.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/arizona-starbucks-becomes-first-new-york-unionize-rcna17809
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/business/starbucks-union-vote-mesa-arizona/index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/02/25/arizona-starbucks-votes-to-unionize-in-first-such-victory-outside-new-york/?sh=2ad9e5df33ca
Questions:
Do you think that the newly formed unions can have successful negotiations with Starbucks?
Is it advantageous for stores to unionize?
Will employees in other companies potentially consider this more?
6 comments:
I think that the newly formed unions seem to be at least moderately successful so far, although only time will tell. I think it is advantageous for workers to unionize, as it protects them from exploitation and can grant them better working conditions. Obviously, Starbucks is against this, as for corporations, unionization may not be economically beneficial. However, I think that these corporations should remember that they rely on their workers, and their profit comes as a result of their labor, even though I understand how some individual stores being unionized while others aren't could pose a difficulty. Workers unionizing to protect their own interests is a good thing, at least in my opinion. I hope that other workers at large companies such as Tesla or Amazon are able to improve/protect their working conditions through unionization or other methods. I also think it's interesting how younger age groups are more interested in unionization, and I wonder if this will change things as the more young people enter the workforce.
I think that unions such as these might be effective in negotiations with Starbucks, which is good because that is the purpose of unions. However, Starbucks doesn't seem to be afraid to throw their weight around, considering the examples given in the article (firing seven workers who wanted to unionize, having management trail workers, and trying to delay the vote), so I don't think that they will be lenient in these discussions at all, and the union will have to try pretty hard to stay on their feet. Other employees of other large corporations should definitely work to unionize so that they are protected; Amazon (like mentioned above) is infamous for having many anecdotes of worker abuse, so unions would really be helpful to those working in that environment.
It is imperative that workers unionize. It is the only way that has been proven to help the working class seize what means of production they have. Furthermore I feel that currently laws that weaken unions such as removing legal protection of sit-in strikes, encouraging scab workers will diminish the effectiveness of these unions regardless if it is just a store based one. As for other company workers I do feel that if they see starbuck workers exercising their rights they will undoubtly do so as well. I do feel a concern however that companies like Amazon could hire scab workers, and I feel that the law prevents unions from dealing with these class traitors. I feel that if push comes to shove the workers should go above the law, and do whatever needs to be done to earn their rights unions give the workers the only chance to exercise this power. Hopefully America can see the rebirth of a stateless socialist political movement with worker unions and syndicates leading the movement.
I think it's possible for the newly formed unions to have successful negotiations with Starbucks, but unlikely. If 109 Starbucks stores voted on unionizing (NBC News), and only three have actually unionized, that is a sign that Starbucks wants little to do with unions. Obviously, the more minor the bargains from these unions, the more likely Starbucks is to agree. So, if the requests are not pay-based but requests to enforce mask-wearing at their locations, it is more likely that Starbucks would agree.
I suppose it's advantageous for stores to unionize, but in this case, it is surprising that Starbucks is the target of unionization. To my knowledge, Starbucks has been very kind to its workers in terms of benefits and deals. They established a partnership with Arizona State University in which "benefits eligible" employees can get a bachelor's degree from ASU for no tuition cost. They also offer medical insurance for eligible employees. While this could all be show and tell, it seems like Starbucks has a good reputation with its employees, and unionization is increasing but still rare. Excepting extreme circumstances, there seems little reason to unionize.
https://starbucks.corporate.asu.edu
https://www.starbucksbenefits.com/en-us/home/health-benefits/medical-dental-vision/
I think it is advantageous for stores to unionize because then they have more power in terms of negotiating with Starbucks. However, I think if they were able to unionize maybe by city rather than just by individual store, that would be even better because then they would have even more bargaining power as there would be more people in the union. However, if employees from individual stores can’t band together with employees from other stores in their city, I still think that an individual store union can work. I think being in a union will especially help them with their understaffing issue because they can maybe argue for either higher pay or more help and then the employees and Starbucks can negotiate and figure out a solution that makes everyone happy, or at least a compromise. I do think that this new unionization will prompt others to unionize if they’re successful. If a single branch of a big company can have a successful union, then other branches of big companies might try to replicate their success. However, if they’re unsuccessful, then I don’t think many more unions of individual branches would be created.
Post a Comment