Mon, Jun 19th, 2006

Starbucks First “Employees”

During the past few days Starbucks has been in the headlines. This time, about the threat of being sued for offering high-fat products…

But there is a back-story that isn’t being reported… I know Starbucks won’t talk about it… and it’s upsetting to watch things take place without all sides of the story being told…

starbucks_logo.jpgI was a Starbucks partner for over nine years. While the people who work for Starbucks aren’t perfect - and can make mistakes - the company is full of people who want to do the best for customers and the community. The attitude is, “let me know a mistake has been made and I will fix it.” I loved working at Starbucks. I would recommend it to anyone who is hard-working and believes in the company values.

The proud term for those employed at Starbucks is ‘partner.’ Choosing the term ‘partner’ was a conscious decision made early by the founders of the company. Together we were partners… building community, the company, and in serving the customer.

But now, Starbucks has its first employees. These are folks who don’t deserve the title of ‘partner.’

There are a few folks, working for Starbucks in New York City, who have been trying to form a worker’s union as part of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). They are working under the guise of providing better working conditions for their fellow Starbucks partners. They have a few members of their organization working at a few different Starbucks locations.

News reports portray this as “stores being unionized” (i.e. employees represented through the union with a bargaining agreement versus as individuals). That is incorrect. Starbucks does not have stores in NYC represented by a union. This message is marketing spin to give the illusion that the group is bigger than they actually are. (In fact, the pro-union folks are targeting stores with smaller staffs and fewer employees in hopes that it will be easier to obtain a majority vote to gain a collective bargaining agreement).

It seems, with the unionization process going slow, the group has decided to gain media attention by copycatting the ‘SuperSize Me” trend. Now they’re supporting a potential lawsuit against Starbucks because Starbucks is allegedly making employees and customers fat.

According to an recent article by Reuters, the union contends that Starbucks staff gain weight when they work at the chain because they are offered unlimited beverages and leftover pastries for free during their shifts.

I think the headline should read “Pro-Union Employees Steal Food From Homeless.” Leftover pastries are supposed to go to local soup kitchens and homeless shelters…Why are they eating them?

To warn unsuspecting customers of nutritional hazards, they are also asking Starbucks to list nutrition information - which is currently available online and in store brochures - on its menu boards.

The pro-union group states that they are about: a) increased pay and raises, b) guaranteed hours with the option of full-time status, c) an end to understaffing, and d) a healthier and safer workplace… These are great motives. If I felt that Starbucks employees were being exploited - I would join the union myself. There is a time and a place for unions.

Starbucks is a great place to work. Starbucks has been an industry leader in providing: comprehensive benefits for part-time employees, stock options, benefits for same-sex couples, and more… Starbucks managers even make special arrangements if they notice that a partner is going below the minimum number of hours-per-quarter required to maintain benefits. Starbucks is a company based on people-serving-people.

Additionally, Starbucks has a very open culture with accessible leadership. If you have a problem, you can contact Howard Schultz or Jim Donald (the CEO) directly. If there was something happening that “wasn’t right” they would fix it as quickly as humanly possible. So I’m not sure what true additional benefit a union could provide that partners don’t already have… This is neither the right time nor the right place for a union.

Unionization of Starbucks by this group is more about the greed of a savvy sales person with dollar-signs in their eyes than it is about truly helping the workers. Someone has calculated how much money could be made by collecting $35+ per month union dues from each Starbucks partner. The union is a money-making business with their own marketing campaigns, materials, and sales force. They are armed with the strategy of convincing partners how much better life could be if represented by their union.

Hopefully, in addition to pro-union messages, partners have access to real and factual information (from both sides). Union propaganda succeeded a few years ago in Canada. With a union’s promise of a “better tomorrow”, some Starbucks partners voted in a union in Canada. The union didn’t and couldn’t deliver beyond what Starbucks was already providing. Now the partners are stuck with a collective bargaining agreement they don’t want or need. Now they’re stuck paying union dues that do not provide additional benefit. But the union is making money.

Back to my original point… if I believed that these folks were being good partners to their co-workers, I’d call them that… Considering what they’re doing and what I believe are their true motives - they’re merely employees.


Similar Posts:

2 reactions so far ↓

  • (1) Robert Sanders // Feb 7, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    Just a few rebuttals.
    (please excuse my terrible grammar).

    It is my uneducated opinion that Starbucks began calling their employees “partners”, as a way to avoid using the term “employee”, which has a negative connotation.

    They treat you as an employee, and your experience with managers making special concessions to partners with fewer hours seems quite far-fetched.

    I have never experienced managers going out of their way for anyone, unless it means a higher bonus. In the years I’ve been working for the company, there has not been a single manager or district manager that has cared about the employees below them.

    It’s a sad state of affairs honestly. It seems that Starbucks, in their quest to have the most stores/market supremacy, have lost the guiding principals that made them a great company to begin with.

    Every year they get worse and worse.

    I do loathe the unions, but I agree with their ideas. I’ll be the first one to admit that understaffing is one of the keys to Starbucks profitability. It is also evidence that they are going against the “partner” ideal. If they cared so much about them, why abuse their hard work and dedication, by creating a hostile work environment?

    It makes no sense to me that a company with such high ideals, would abuse the ones who work the hardest for them at the lowest pay.

    Also having partners work close to the 40 hour limit, but not giving them full time status is insulting.

    I receive a lot of Starbucks newsletters and the one overwhelming thing I’ve noticed is that the “success” stories on the first and last page are of people that have no connection to the people doing the most work.

    How is someone who was hired as a manager or district manager going to inspire someone who started out as a barrista?

    Most likely these managers were trained by the people they were directing, which leads me to ask why they don’t promote from within as to retain top talent? Is it that hard to promote an employee who is qualified over someone who has no experience in the retail sector?

    Oh well, those are just some of my thoughts.

    Thanks for listening.

  • (2) Mark // Nov 14, 2008 at 9:23 pm

    “Hopefully, in addition to pro-union messages, partners have access to real and factual information (from both sides). Union propaganda succeeded a few years ago in Canada. With a union’s promise of a “better tomorrow”, some Starbucks partners voted in a union in Canada. The union didn’t and couldn’t deliver beyond what Starbucks was already providing. Now the partners are stuck with a collective bargaining agreement they don’t want or need. Now they’re stuck paying union dues that do not provide additional benefit. But the union is making money.”

    First off, please reference your “facts”. You write as to make it seem like all the Starbucks in Canada have been unionized. When the truth is that less than 10 stores have done so.

    Secondly, what are you basing your conclusion on that the unionized partners are unhappy with their agreement? You have provided to reference to that being the case. Did you call all the unionized stores and take a poll as to who was and who wasn’t happy with the union? Because anything short of that wouldn’t be enough evidence to make such a conclusion.

    I don’t think what the IWW is doing to Starbucks is just, but this blog can’t be considered credible on the issue in the least sense.

Leave a Comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>