[US] Anti-union CEO returns to Starbucks in wake of unionisation movement

[US] Anti-union CEO returns to Starbucks in wake of unionisation movement
23 Mar 2022

Howard Schultz consistently fought attempts to unionise Starbucks’ US stores and roasting plants from the time he bought Starbucks in 1987 to the time he stepped down as chairman in 2018. And now he is back, The Globe and Mail reports.

Mr Schultz was recently named Starbucks’ interim chief executive. In the past, he saw success in his anti-union fight but he never confronted any unionisation movement as big and fast-growing as the current one. Since December six US Starbucks stores have voted to unionise and at least 140 more in 27 states have filed petitions for union elections.

It is not yet clear how Mr Schultz will tackle the issue when he returns to the company in April.

“He took it really personally that his workers wanted to be part of a union, because he thought with him in charge they wouldn’t need it,” Pam Blauman-Schmitz - a retired union representative who worked to organise Starbucks’ first stores in the early 1980s - said. “He would say stuff like, `Maybe you need unions in the coal mines, but not at Starbucks stores.”

On March 16 Starbucks announced that its CEO of five years, Kevin Johnson, was retiring. The company chose Mr Schultz to serve as interim CEO until it finds a permanent replacement by this autumn. Mr Schultz (68) has held the honorary title of chairman emeritus since 2018, he is also rejoining the company’s board.

It is not yet clear if Mr Schultz will try to amp up the fight against unionisation. But Timothy Hubbard - assistant professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business - said he is well-positioned to do so.

“My sense is that if they want to shut down the unions, this is the best course of action,” Professor Hubbard said. “Schultz has what it takes to tackle a hard topic like unions.”

Mr Schultz reportedly has yet to respond to attempts to contact him through his website or his family’s foundation.

In a November letter to employees, posted just before the first unionisation votes at three stores in Buffalo, Mr Schultz said he had tried to create the kind of company that his blue-collar father did not have the chance to work for.

He recalled the “traumatic moment” his family had no income after his father suffered a workplace injury and cited that as the reason Starbucks has benefits like health care, free college tuition, parental leave and stock grants for employees.

“No partner has ever needed to have a representative seek to obtain things we all have as partners at Starbucks. And I am saddened and concerned to hear anyone thinks that is needed now,” Mr Schultz wrote.

However, to the many union organisers who complain of inconsistent hours, poor training, understaffing and low wages, Mr Shultz’s words fell flat.

“A lot of people felt like they were being lectured to by a disappointed father because they weren’t grateful,” Jaz Brisack - a Starbucks barista and labour organiser - said. 

Mr Brisack heard Mr Schultz speak at an employee forum in Buffalo last autumn.

Others report that they have seen outright anger from Mr Schultz over unions.

Ms Blauman-Schmitz claims that as soon as Schultz bought Starbucks in 1987, he reneged on a labour agreement that had been reached between the company and the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represented six Seattle-area stores and a roasting plant. Mr Schultz wanted a new contract with weaker benefits and job protections, Ms Blauman-Schmitz said. She has since retired from the union.

One day, she said, Mr Schultz spotted her passing out flyers in the roasting plant and rushed toward her, screaming and red in the face.

Mr Schultz soon swept the union out. In his 1997 book Pour Your Heart Into It, he described how a barista who opposed the union began a campaign to decertify it. By 1992, the union no longer represented the stores or the roasting plant. Mr Schultz took that as a sign that workers trusted him.

“If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union,” he wrote.

However, efforts to unionise Starbucks continued and the company continued to fight them. Starbucks had to reinstate fired workers or pay to settle labour law violations numerous times in the early 2000s.

Last year, the U.S. National Labour Relations Board found that Starbucks unlawfully retaliated against two Philadelphia baristas who were attempting to unionise. The NLRB said Starbucks monitored the employees’ social media, unlawfully spied on their conversations and ultimately fired them. It ordered Starbucks to stop interfering with workers’ right to organise and offer reinstatement to the two workers.

More recently, on March 15, the NLRB issued a complaint against Starbucks alleging that district and store managers in Phoenix spied on and threatened workers who supported unionising. The complaint says Starbucks suspended one union supporter and fired another.

Starbucks did not make anyone available to comment.

In a letter to employees in December, Starbucks North America president Rossann Williams said the company will respect the legal process and bargain in good faith. But the company insists its stores function better when it works directly with employees.

The outcome of the current unionising effort remains unknown. The number of stores that have petitioned for union elections is still only a fraction of Starbucks’ 9,000 company-owned stores in the US and more than 1,000 in Canada. And Starbucks has the resources to keep fighting; its annual revenue for 2021 was US$29-billion.

Mr Brisack - the Buffalo barista - said this unionising effort is also stronger than those of the past, which were thwarted by high worker turnover and resource-starved unions. Organisers now have the backing of Workers United – an arm of the two-million-member Service Employees International Union – and a union-friendly president in the White House. Mr Brisack said the pandemic further fuelled workers’ outrage.

The climate is also changing. Dan Cornfield - a labour expert and professor of sociology at Vanderbilt - said US polling shows growing public support for unions since the Great Recession. That’s a significant change from the 1980s when Starbucks first fought back unions.

“By taking an anti-union stand from the Reagan era, they are actually potentially jeopardising their customer base,” Professor Cornfield said.


Source: The Globe and Mail

(Quotes via original reporting)

Howard Schultz consistently fought attempts to unionise Starbucks’ US stores and roasting plants from the time he bought Starbucks in 1987 to the time he stepped down as chairman in 2018. And now he is back, The Globe and Mail reports.

Mr Schultz was recently named Starbucks’ interim chief executive. In the past, he saw success in his anti-union fight but he never confronted any unionisation movement as big and fast-growing as the current one. Since December six US Starbucks stores have voted to unionise and at least 140 more in 27 states have filed petitions for union elections.

It is not yet clear how Mr Schultz will tackle the issue when he returns to the company in April.

“He took it really personally that his workers wanted to be part of a union, because he thought with him in charge they wouldn’t need it,” Pam Blauman-Schmitz - a retired union representative who worked to organise Starbucks’ first stores in the early 1980s - said. “He would say stuff like, `Maybe you need unions in the coal mines, but not at Starbucks stores.”

On March 16 Starbucks announced that its CEO of five years, Kevin Johnson, was retiring. The company chose Mr Schultz to serve as interim CEO until it finds a permanent replacement by this autumn. Mr Schultz (68) has held the honorary title of chairman emeritus since 2018, he is also rejoining the company’s board.

It is not yet clear if Mr Schultz will try to amp up the fight against unionisation. But Timothy Hubbard - assistant professor of management at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business - said he is well-positioned to do so.

“My sense is that if they want to shut down the unions, this is the best course of action,” Professor Hubbard said. “Schultz has what it takes to tackle a hard topic like unions.”

Mr Schultz reportedly has yet to respond to attempts to contact him through his website or his family’s foundation.

In a November letter to employees, posted just before the first unionisation votes at three stores in Buffalo, Mr Schultz said he had tried to create the kind of company that his blue-collar father did not have the chance to work for.

He recalled the “traumatic moment” his family had no income after his father suffered a workplace injury and cited that as the reason Starbucks has benefits like health care, free college tuition, parental leave and stock grants for employees.

“No partner has ever needed to have a representative seek to obtain things we all have as partners at Starbucks. And I am saddened and concerned to hear anyone thinks that is needed now,” Mr Schultz wrote.

However, to the many union organisers who complain of inconsistent hours, poor training, understaffing and low wages, Mr Shultz’s words fell flat.

“A lot of people felt like they were being lectured to by a disappointed father because they weren’t grateful,” Jaz Brisack - a Starbucks barista and labour organiser - said. 

Mr Brisack heard Mr Schultz speak at an employee forum in Buffalo last autumn.

Others report that they have seen outright anger from Mr Schultz over unions.

Ms Blauman-Schmitz claims that as soon as Schultz bought Starbucks in 1987, he reneged on a labour agreement that had been reached between the company and the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represented six Seattle-area stores and a roasting plant. Mr Schultz wanted a new contract with weaker benefits and job protections, Ms Blauman-Schmitz said. She has since retired from the union.

One day, she said, Mr Schultz spotted her passing out flyers in the roasting plant and rushed toward her, screaming and red in the face.

Mr Schultz soon swept the union out. In his 1997 book Pour Your Heart Into It, he described how a barista who opposed the union began a campaign to decertify it. By 1992, the union no longer represented the stores or the roasting plant. Mr Schultz took that as a sign that workers trusted him.

“If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union,” he wrote.

However, efforts to unionise Starbucks continued and the company continued to fight them. Starbucks had to reinstate fired workers or pay to settle labour law violations numerous times in the early 2000s.

Last year, the U.S. National Labour Relations Board found that Starbucks unlawfully retaliated against two Philadelphia baristas who were attempting to unionise. The NLRB said Starbucks monitored the employees’ social media, unlawfully spied on their conversations and ultimately fired them. It ordered Starbucks to stop interfering with workers’ right to organise and offer reinstatement to the two workers.

More recently, on March 15, the NLRB issued a complaint against Starbucks alleging that district and store managers in Phoenix spied on and threatened workers who supported unionising. The complaint says Starbucks suspended one union supporter and fired another.

Starbucks did not make anyone available to comment.

In a letter to employees in December, Starbucks North America president Rossann Williams said the company will respect the legal process and bargain in good faith. But the company insists its stores function better when it works directly with employees.

The outcome of the current unionising effort remains unknown. The number of stores that have petitioned for union elections is still only a fraction of Starbucks’ 9,000 company-owned stores in the US and more than 1,000 in Canada. And Starbucks has the resources to keep fighting; its annual revenue for 2021 was US$29-billion.

Mr Brisack - the Buffalo barista - said this unionising effort is also stronger than those of the past, which were thwarted by high worker turnover and resource-starved unions. Organisers now have the backing of Workers United – an arm of the two-million-member Service Employees International Union – and a union-friendly president in the White House. Mr Brisack said the pandemic further fuelled workers’ outrage.

The climate is also changing. Dan Cornfield - a labour expert and professor of sociology at Vanderbilt - said US polling shows growing public support for unions since the Great Recession. That’s a significant change from the 1980s when Starbucks first fought back unions.

“By taking an anti-union stand from the Reagan era, they are actually potentially jeopardising their customer base,” Professor Cornfield said.


Source: The Globe and Mail

(Quotes via original reporting)