Submitted on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 5:11pm
Message Preview
From: Your Name <
[email protected]>
To:
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected],
[email protected]
Subject: E-Mail Action: Tell Starbucks We're Not Backing Down on Martin Luther King Day!
Your Personal Statement
Howard Schultz
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Starbucks Corporation
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Schultz,
I urge you in 2009 to stop treating Martin Luther King Day like a
second-class holiday. Last year after grassroots actions from the IWW
Starbucks Workers Union, your company was forced to admit publicly that
Starbucks does not pay the same time-and-a-half holiday premium on Dr.
King's federal holiday that it pays on five other holidays.
After you declined to honor Dr. King's day in 2008, the Starbucks
Workers Union refused to back down and pledged to fight on toward 2009
in the great tradition of the civil rights movement.
Many baristas, like many people around the world, are deeply inspired
by Dr. King's message and example. Yet while Starbucks claims to
embrace diversity and respect Dr. King, you continue to treat Martin
Luther King Day as inferior to other federal holidays.
I join the SWU's call for Starbucks to honor the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr. and the baristas who work on the federal holiday
commemorating his birthday by paying the time and a half holiday
premium you already pay on several other federal holidays. I expect
your prompt attention to this matter.
Your Name
Your Organization
123 Your St.
Yousville, YO 12345 United States
Phone: (123)456-7890
Fax: (123)456-7890x123
Submitted on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 4:50pm
By Stephanie Basile; Photo By Liberte Locke
The SWU staged a New Year's Eve protest as part of the ongoing campaign for Hurst. In addition to demanding pay for Hurst, the demonstrators talked to customers about the union's struggle for secure work hours and respect on the job. For one of the demonstrators, Starbucks barista Henry Marin, it was his first public action as a member of the union.
The group of about 10 union members spent an hour demonstrating on a cold New Year's Eve, chanting outside the Union Square East store and holding signs bearing slogans such as "support Your Local Union Baristas," and the soon-to-be ubiquitous slogan "Where's Anna's Money?" Customers were encouraged to ask management this question inside. One customer reported that the manager he spoke to pretended she had no idea what he was talking about.
Where's Anna's Money?
When a person is sick and has to leave work early, and if that person happens to be a part-time hourly wage earner, she or he misses out on the remaining hours in that shift. Having no paid sick time, this and other precarious situations are of the type that Starbucks baristas are used to dealing with.
And thus, when Anna Hurst left work sick during a shift this past August, she already knew she'd have to deal with losing a few hours' pay. Never do people imagine, though, that their employer will then deny them an additional two weeks of work. Unfortunately, that's exactly what Starbucks did. After having to leave sick, Hurst called work the next day to find out her schedule only to discover that her name had been removed from the schedule for two weeks.
Submitted on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 4:29pm
Disclaimer - The opinions of the author do not necessarily match those of the IWW. The image pictured to the right did not appear in the original article, we have added it here to provide a visual perspective. This article is reposted in accordance to Fair Use guidelines.
Starbucks is to begin proceedings Wednesday in a third case in which it
allegedly fired a barista because of his union activities.
By Melissa Allison, January 6, 2009 - Seattle Times business reporter
The union lumps keep coming for Starbucks, which was thumped by the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) last month for unfair labor practices at
several New York cafes.
Last week, the company settled a separate NLRB dispute in Michigan and on
Wednesday is to begin proceedings there in a third case in which it allegedly
fired a barista because of his union activities.
All three cases were initiated by baristas affiliated with the Industrial
Workers of the World (IWW), a century-old union that has worked for several
years to improve conditions for Starbucks workers.
In New York, an administrative-law judge with the NLRB said last month that
work rules were unfairly imposed on employees who supported the union. The
coffee chain was ordered to give back jobs to three former workers and
compensate them for lost earnings. The company also must post notices informing
employees of their labor-organizing rights.
Submitted on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 4:39am
For Immediate Release:
Starbucks Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World)
Contact: Cole Dorsey- organizer IWW Starbucks Workers Union,
616-540-0243
Faced With Snowballing Legal Woes, Starbucks Settles Case Over Lawyer's
Illegal Interrogations of Union Workers
First Labor Board Settlement to Disallow Repeat-Offender
Starbucks From Denying Guilt
Grand Rapids, MI (Jan. 5, 2009)- Just days after Starbucks suffered a
decisive defeat in a lengthy Labor Board trial in New York, the embattled coffee
giant has settled a complaint from the National Labor Relations Board here over
the unlawful interrogation of baristas by a company lawyer. The Board
investigation was triggered by charges from the IWW Starbucks Workers Union that
alleged one of the company's anti-union law firms, Varnum, Riddering, Schimdt,
and Howlett, illegally interrogated baristas set to give testimony in a Michigan
Occupational Safety and Health Administration hearing. In addition to revealing
law-breaking from Starbucks' counsel, the settlement is significant as the first
where the Labor Board did not allow Starbucks to deny guilt--a sanction for
repeatedly violating the rights of baristas seeking secure work hours, a living
wage, and respect on the job. The company is still set to stand trial on
Wednesday in Grand Rapids on a separate count of illegally firing outspoken union barista, Cole
Dorsey.
Submitted on Wed, 01/07/2009 - 4:32am
Disclaimer - The opinions of the author do not necessarily match those of the IWW. This article is reposted in accordance to Fair Use guidelines.
By Moira Herbst - BusinessWeek, December 31, 2008
Starbucks (SBUX),
once the undisputed leader in premium-price caffeine fixes, has long
cultivated a corporate image for social responsibility, environmental
awareness, and sensitivity to workers' rights. Now that carefully
crafted reputation is under assault, thanks to a messy legal dispute
with a group called the Starbucks Workers Union (SWU) (part of the
Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW), which started recruiting
employees in 2004 and now claims 300 members.
The National Labor Relations Board found on Dec. 23 that Starbucks
had illegally fired three New York City baristas as it tried to squelch
the union organizing effort. The 88-page ruling also says the company
broke the law by giving negative job evaluations to other union
supporters and prohibiting employees from discussing union issues at
work. The judge ordered that the three baristas be reinstated and
receive back wages. The judge also called on Starbucks to end
discriminatory treatment of other pro-union
workers at four Manhattan locations named in the case. The decision
marks the end of an 18-month trial in New York City that pitted the
ubiquitous multinational corporation against a group of twentysomething baristas who are part of the Industrial Workers of the World.
The timing isn't ideal for Starbucks, which faces lower demand from the
recession, an overall loss of panache for the brand, and a sliding
stock price. "[The ruling] is a real thumb in the eye—a real gotcha
moment with potential for heartache," says Eric Dezenhall, chief
executive officer of Dezenhall Resources, a crisis management public
relations firm in Washington D.C. "I don't think it's a crisis, but it
hovers between [being] a nuisance and a problem."