Starbucks Strikes Back; Shutters Union Stores

Is Starbucks closing store locations in retaliation for union activity? That’s the question workers and industry observers are asking as the Seattle-based coffee giant scrambles to respond to a wave of union activity that is part of a larger trend at the retail level of corporate giants like Apple, Trader Joe’s, REI, Amazon and more. If the answer to the question is yes, it would be a violation of federal law under the National Labor Relations Act and subject to penalty by the NLRB.

Store closures connected to the union wave were identified earlier in May at Buffalo, NY locations. Via In These Times:

In May, the NLRB issued a wide-reaching complaint on behalf of unionized stores in the Buffalo, New York area that alleged upper management closed two stores shortly after the union drive began, an allegation that was among a list of over 200 labor violations. A federal court is currently holding a hearing on whether to issue injunctive relief based on that complaint.

More recently in June the same observation has been directed at an Ithaca, NY location. Via CNN:

Starbucks workers at an Ithaca, New York, store claim their location is being shut down in retaliation for their union activism.

The worker committee said it is filing an Unfair Labor Practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that Starbucks is making a "clear attempt to scare workers across the country," a press release from the Starbucks Workers United said.

Starbucks workers are skeptical of corporate claims regarding the closures. Via Food and Wine:

"Every decision Starbucks makes must be viewed through the lens of the company's unprecedented, and virulent union-busting campaign," Starbucks Workers United, the chain's national union organization, stated via email. "Starbucks claims that they are closing the stores because they are 'unsafe,' yet, the closing of the popular college town store in Ithaca, NY, followed a strike over unsafe conditions. Starbucks' response was not to fix the problem but to punish the workers who had recently unionized."

Leadership at Starbucks did not provide much insight or transparency regarding the decision. Via CNN:

On Friday, the [Ithaca] store's district manager held a meeting with the staff on Microsoft Teams to announce the store closure, Vitek said.

"I was shaking as I was hearing them say the news," Vitek said. "They didn't even explain in the call that it was a permanent closure. I got that in an email from the anti-union lawyer that Starbucks has."

A company spokesperson said Starbucks opens and closes stores as part of its regular operations. They did not comment on specific reasons for the Ithaca closure, or answer any questions beyond the statement.

Via the Guardian:

Evan Sunshine, a barista at the Starbucks in Ithaca that closed, sees the closure as a continuation of union opposition he experienced leading up to the workers’ election win.

“It was retaliation because we had the strongest union sentiments at our store,” said Sunshine. “It’s prime property – there’s just no reason for them to close. The rest of the reasons are all really minuscule – it didn’t make any sense.”

If the NLRB finds that store closures are a response to union activity, prosecution can follow. Via CNN:

"It's a violation of federal labor law to close a store because workers exercised their legal rights," Ian Hayes, an attorney for Starbucks Workers United wrote in a statement to CNN Business. "We ... have no doubt the NLRB will prosecute the company for this illegal union busting, and justice will be done."

The NLRB has also been active in responding to union busting in the form of retaliatory firings. Via the Guardian:

Starbucks has fired over 40 workers involved in union organizing efforts since December, many of whom are pushing for reinstatement through the National Labor Relations Board and have participated in protests of their firings.

Though the corporate coffee giant claims the closings are for “health” and “safety” reasons, many puzzle over the rationale to close profitable stores rather than address the health and safety concerns. What is clear, however, is that the financial health and safety of the workers at closed stores will suffer. Via the Guardian:

“We think it is insulting to claim they care about our mental and physical health, then threaten the financial safety of every single worker of this location,” the letter said.

The NLRB decision for the recent filing is pending. Stay tuned as this story develops.