ON March 30, the National Labor Relations Board’s New York office delivered a stinging accusation against one of the city’s — and the nation’s — most popular retail outlets. The labor board charged that Starbucks, the ubiquitous coffee chain, committed 30 violations of law in the process of trying to ward off union activity at four Manhattan outlets.
This may be the latest salvo in a new kind of labor battle: union workers versus corporate do-gooders.
The allegations that the company fired employees who were supportive of unionization and threatened to fire others are more reminiscent of 1930s-era industrial management than of the carefully groomed culture of a company that wears its conscience on its recyclable coffee-cup sleeves.
“The N.L.R.B.’s complaint illustrates that this is a company with a profound disrespect for workers’ rights,�? said Daniel Gross (no relation), a union organizer who dished out frappuccinos and mocha lattes at Starbucks before being fired last August.
Mr. Gross and other union organizers are pushing Starbucks for higher wages and more hours, asserting that the $8.75 an hour that some Manhattan coffee clerks, or baristas, earn is too little. They also want the company to guarantee a minimum of 25 or 30 hours of work a week for many of its employees.
Starbucks strongly denies the charges, and says it will fight them in court. But Starbucks hasn’t suffered anything like the fate that has befallen Wal-Mart, another national chain known for its opposition to unions. While Wal-Mart has been rebuffed in its efforts to enter the New York City market, Starbucks doesn’t seem in danger of becoming a pariah.
To read the rest of this story, click here.