Labor Board seeks unionization at Starbucks after lost election
The National Labor Relations Board seeks to order Starbucks to recognize a union at the Buffalo-area store where the union had lost an initial vote last year. This move is part of a larger effort by the labor board to scrutinize Starbucks' response to a nationwide union campaign.
In a complaint against the company on Thursday, the agency accused Starbucks of intimidating and retaliating against workers seeking to unionize. It might seem "aggressive" for the board to order the company to bargain at a store where the union didn’t win. But, Matthew Bodie, a former labor board lawyer says it is, within the normal range of remedies for such cases. He added, "The complaint sends a message."
Since December, workers at more than 70 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize and they have filed petitions to hold union elections at more than 150 additional cafes. Meanwhile, the regional office monitoring Buffalo issued a complaint two weeks ago accusing Starbucks of firing employees because they supported a union. The company has also been accused of promising benefits to employees as a way to discourage them from unionizing and intimidating workers who sought to unionize by subjecting them to surveillance and other illegal behavior.
Source: The New York Times
In a complaint against the company on Thursday, the agency accused Starbucks of intimidating and retaliating against workers seeking to unionize. It might seem "aggressive" for the board to order the company to bargain at a store where the union didn’t win. But, Matthew Bodie, a former labor board lawyer says it is, within the normal range of remedies for such cases. He added, "The complaint sends a message."
Since December, workers at more than 70 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize and they have filed petitions to hold union elections at more than 150 additional cafes. Meanwhile, the regional office monitoring Buffalo issued a complaint two weeks ago accusing Starbucks of firing employees because they supported a union. The company has also been accused of promising benefits to employees as a way to discourage them from unionizing and intimidating workers who sought to unionize by subjecting them to surveillance and other illegal behavior.
Source: The New York Times
Category
Employment Branding
Time Worked
Disaster Preparation & Response
Records & Reports
Compensation & Benefits
Mental Health Benefits
Background Checks
Family & Medical Leave
Learning & Development
Age
Contemporary Issues
Health Savings Accounts
Networking
Benefits
Employee Surveys
Employee Engagement
Risk Management
Workplace Culture
Drug & Alcohol Testing
What it is like to work in?
Dependent Benefits
Retirement & Recognitions
Pay Equity
Flexible Spending Account
Mentoring & Coaching
Firing
Hiring & Firing
Gender Identity
Educational Assistance
Eligibility Verification (I-9)
Vendors & Software
Work Life Integration
Sexualy Harassment
Workplace Wellness
Communicable Diseases
Employee Relations
Employment Law & Compliance
Employee Resource Groups
HR Software
Organization & Employee Development
Whistleblowing
Employee Conduct
Campus Placement
Open Enrollment
Unemployment Benefits
Consultation
Religion & Spirituality
Change Management
Termination
Retention
Tags
Article
Effective Ways to Stay Productive While Telecommuting
Remote working is not a new thing in the US but a lifesaver in the current situation when social di ...
What Why and How of Background Checks A Useful Guide for Staffing Agencies
Background checks are one of the pre-employment requisites to prevent bad hires. About 96% of emplo ...
Driver Jobs to Watch Out For
If you love being on the road, if you love driving with the wind rushing through your hair, if your ...
The Unionization Wave
From the peak of the pandemic in 2020 through the Great Resignation wave, unionization has been a ...
Comments