June 23 (UPI) — Today, thousands of Starbucks workers have initiated a strike, claiming that the company has prevented numerous stores from adorning decorations in honor of LGBTQ Pride Month.
The union representing the workers, Starbucks Workers United, has stated that over 3,000 workers at more than 150 stores are participating in the strike. They are demanding that Starbucks engage in fair contract negotiations with union stores and cease their unlawful anti-union efforts, which have negatively impacted Starbucks’ LGBTQIA+ workforce.
“By aligning themselves with other corporations that have withdrawn their support for the queer community when it is most crucial, Starbucks reveals that they are not as inclusive as they claim to be,” said Moe Mills, a Starbucks shift supervisor in Richmond Heights, Mo., in a statement. “We are striking with pride to expose the true nature of Starbucks and let the public know that we will not back down.”
In response, Starbucks issued a statement to UPI, stating, “While we respect the right of our partners to engage in lawful union activities without fear of retaliation, the information shared by Workers United contains inaccuracies and distracts from the ongoing process of good faith bargaining.”
In regards to collective bargaining with Starbucks Workers United, the company expressed commitment to progressing negotiations for a first contract. Starbucks emphasized the importance of approaching contract bargaining with professionalism and engaging in discussions regarding proposals from both parties.
Last week, Starbucks declared that there have been no changes in policy regarding Pride decorations and that local store leaders and employees may make their own decisions within the guidelines provided by the company.
However, the union claimed in a statement on June 13 that Starbucks has removed Pride flags from multiple stores and prevented workers from decorating stores.
The strike is also a response to Starbucks’ failure to engage in good faith bargaining with its workers. Notably, the National Labor Relations Board is presently prosecuting the company for its actions during the negotiations.
According to Starbucks Workers United, the NLRB judges have found Starbucks guilty of 161 federal labor law violations, including 19 unlawful discharges, in 15 out of 16 favorable decisions. The federal government is currently prosecuting Starbucks for approximately 75 complaints, which encompass over 200 charges and allege over 1,300 violations, including 77 discharges. This places the Coffee Giant among the worst labor law violators in modern U.S. history.
In an April 10, 2022 statement, CEO Howard Schultz stated, “The law provides our partners with the right to organize, while also protecting the right to work without a union… I do not believe that conflict, division, and dissension — which are often present in union organizing — benefit Starbucks or our partners.”
Thus far, Starbucks Workers United has successfully organized more than 8,000 workers in 38 states and the District of Columbia.
A report published by the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on March 27 concluded that Starbucks has conducted “the most significant union-busting campaign in modern history.”
The report criticized Starbucks for its aggressive and illegal anti-union campaign, which has been led by CEO and founder Howard Schultz. The Senate report highlighted Schultz’s public statements, the company’s communications to workers, and its obstruction of unionization activities as evidence of its vehemently anti-union stance.
In the United States, union organizing activities are protected by the National Labor Relations Act.
A statement on the National Labor Relations Board website emphasizes the Act’s intention to encourage collective bargaining by safeguarding workers’ freedom to associate.
According to the board statement, the NLRA protects workplace democracy by granting employees in private-sector workplaces the fundamental rights to seek improved working conditions and representation designation without fear of retaliation.