Workers, Customers, and Community Members Concerned About Threats and Harassment at the Location

November 12, 2008

Minneapolis, MN- Baristas at a Starbucks coffee shop in Minneapolis walked off the floor Wednesday morning to present a petition to management, signed by more than 500 concerned customers and community members, demanding Starbucks hire a security guard to ensure the safety of its patrons and partners. Today's action marks the expansion of activity by the IWW Starbucks Workers Union to a second store in the Twin Cities after baristas at the Mall of the America started taking action for improved working conditions over the summer.

Store partners circulated an internal petition, compiling signatures from most of the store's employees, requesting a meeting to discuss the security situation. After receiving no productive response from either the store or district manager, the employees turned to the customers to prove their point.

"We hoped management would recognize the need to discuss these concerns with us, but when they refused to even hold a meeting, we knew more action was needed," said Aaron Kocher, a current store employee. "We can't work when we are constantly being harassed, threatened, and intimidated, or trying to protect our customers from the same mistreatment," he said.

Nancy Athanasselis, a regular customer known to everyone at the store,
was gratified to see someone finally doing something about the problem.

"The baristas are very busy running the store. It shouldn't be up to
them to take care of security problems, but that is what ends up
happening. If Starbucks is not going to look at the human aspect, they
should at least look at how much time they spend dealing with security,"
she said.

Since the beginning of 2008, there have been more than 500 police
reports filed for the immediate area surrounding Starbucks. On August
3, the McDonald's restaurant located two blocks south of Starbucks was
held up at gun point. On November 3, the Money Xchange less than one block from Starbucks was robbed at knife-point at 8:30 in the morning.

Christa worked for Starbucks for three years, but she was forced to
choose between self-preservation and her position: "I loved the people I
worked with, but there were problems. I can't tell you how many times
we had to clean up feces, urine, blood, or vomit from customers who came in drunk. One time a guy didn't want to pay an extra four cents for his coffee. He started screaming at me. He came back later with a friend and started photographing me, saying, 'That's the one. I'm going to kill her.' I'm not going to risk my life for $8.50 an hour."

Lean times and labor pains are tarnishing the coffee giant’s image.

By Liza Featherstone, Slate Magazine

October 29, 2008

Fall is pumpkin-latte season for those who can still afford to indulge, but for some Starbucks workers, it's been a season of discontent. The coffee giant has recently responded to hard times with scheduling changes that are likely to inflict misery on its employees. These policies seem sharply at odds with Starbucks' reputation for social responsibility but make sense in the context of the company's record as an employer. Curiously, the coffee retailer's benevolent image seems most fragile at the moment that the company's best days seem to be receding into the past...

Read full article: http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/saga/2008/10/29/starbucks-blues?page=0,0

Supporters of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union Took the Streets in an Energetic Display of Solidarity

October 27, 2008

New Orleans, LA- Starbucks Coffee Co.'s first national conference for managers held outside of Seattle and the first since the return of Howard Schultz as CEO, was rocked by a determined pro-worker demonstration here yesterday. In the midst of a worsening economic crisis, New Orleans residents rose up to demand respect for the work of Starbucks baristas and coffee farmers who are bearing the brunt of the downturn while company executives continue to rake in millions of dollars.

"We sent a strong message to Starbucks that New Orleans residents are thirsty for workers' human rights all across the country," said Travis Richey, a participant in the spirited demonstration. "Howard Schultz must face the fact that workers have the right to join the IWW Starbucks Workers Union as the company seeks to make baristas' jobs even more precarious."

Starbucks settles NLRB complaint of fired barista

By LAUREN SHEPHERD

NEW YORK (AP) — Starbucks Corp. has settled a National Labor Relations Board complaint with an employee who said he was fired this summer for promoting union activity.

The agreement marks the gourmet coffee chain's third settlement of an NLRB complaint alleging the company was attempting to dissuade employees from joining a union.

The settlement stemmed from a complaint filed in July by Minneapolis barista Erik Forman who claimed he was fired for encouraging workers to join the Industrial Workers of the World union.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Starbucks Workers Union/Industrial Workers of the World

Contact: Erik Forman, 608-695-8705

October 1, 2008

Starbucks Settles Labor Board Case Over Illegal Union-Busting in Minnesota

Fired Union Barista Reinstated to Mall of America Location after Union Pressure Campaign

Minneapolis, MN– The Starbucks Workers Union announced today that Starbucks has settled with the National Labor Relations Board on charges of anti-union malfeasance, ranging from interrogation of union activists, threats against workers, illegal firings, to surveillance of union activity. The settlement agreement comes in the wake of the reinstatement of IWW barista Erik Forman to the Mall of America location on August 31. Forman, a union organizer, was illegally fired on July 10 for allegedly “discussing a written warning with a peer.”

Forman said, “Sadly, Starbucks has continued the legacy of illegal union-busting against the IWW that they initiated in New York City in 2004. We have shown that they won’t get away with it in Minnesota. The public is on our side. The law is on our side. We will keep organizing until we win justice for baristas.”

This is the third NLRB settlement Starbucks has entered into in its four-year battle with the Industrial Workers of the World, a labor union. Since the launch of the IWW campaign at Starbucks on May 17, 2004, the company has been cited in three states for illegal union-busting by the National Labor Relations Board. The company settled three complaints against it and is awaiting a decision by a judge in New York on more than 30 additional rights’ violations. Starbucks’ large anti-union operation is operated in conjunction with the Akin Gump law firm and the Edelman public relations firm. In Minnesota, Starbucks has contracted with unionbusting consultants Halleland Lewis Nilan & Johnson.

By LAUREN SHEPHERD
AP BUSINESS WRITER

August 29, 2008

NEW YORK -- A barista who said he was fired from Starbucks Corp. for helping to organize fellow workers into a union has been given his job back.

In a preliminary reinstatement agreement dated Aug. 14 obtained by The Associated Press, Starbucks said its firing of employee Erik Forman was "ill-considered and should be reversed."

Forman said he will start back at work on Sunday at the same Mall of America location in Minnesota that he was fired from in July.

When he worked there, Forman said he had been talking to employees at his own store and at other stores in the area about joining the Industrial Workers of the World union.

In an interview, Forman said although several other employees at the store were members of the union, "I was the most vocal and the most active."

Starbucks spokeswoman Tara Darrow confirmed that Forman was being given his job back but said his firing and reinstatement had nothing to do with his support for the union.

"We don't track our partners' involvement in those organizations," Darrow said.

Forman said he was fired July 10 after he received a "final written warning" for showing up half an hour late to work. The warning followed two prior instances of tardiness a year earlier. Once a final written warning is issued, an employee may be fired.

Forman said he had expected a warning after showing up late for work, but not a final warning. Some employees are given half a dozen or more warnings before receiving a final one, he said, adding that managers frequently choose not to give warnings to well-liked employees.

In the agreement, Starbucks called Forman's firing "an unfortunate series of events." Darrow characterized it as "a mistake."

Besides giving him back his job, Starbucks is also paying Forman about $2,000 in back pay, he said.

Forman said he believes Starbucks reinstated him partly due to pressure from the IWW and other Starbucks workers. His co-workers at the Mall of America store walked out of work the day after he was fired in protest and Forman said about 50 Starbucks employees in the area signed a petition asking the company to give him his job back.

Forman also said he filed an unfair labor practice complaint against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board the day after he was fired.

Darrow said the filing of complaint did not influence Starbucks' decision to re-hire Forman and that the company reviewed the situation at Forman's request.

Although Starbucks has asked him to voluntarily withdraw the NLRB complaint now that he has his job back, Forman said he still intends to pursue it.

"The law was violated," Forman said. "They haven't given me any guarantee that this will not happen again."

Robert Chester, regional director for the NLRB in Minneapolis, confirmed that Forman filed the complaint in July and said the office is investigating.

If the NLRB deems that a law was broken, it will attempt to negotiate a settlement between Forman and Starbucks. If they don't agree to a settlement, the case would then go to court.

In 2006, Starbucks entered into a settlement with the NLRB to resolve a complaint filed by New York City workers attempting to organize a union at a Starbucks store. In that settlement, Starbucks rehired two employees that had been fired and posted a notice in three stores for 60 days affirming the rights of workers to unionize under the National Labor Relations Act.

Starbucks also settled with the NLRB in a 2007 Grand Rapids, Mich. case that involved bulletin board postings and an alleged comment made by a manager that an employee said was threatening.

Darrow said Starbucks did not admit to any wrongdoing in either settlement agreement and that the company decided to settle the cases to save both time and expense for all parties.