The 64-day Starbucks strike came to a close on Wednesday, 21 September at the location on 874 Commonwealth Ave., Boston. The location has been unionized since June. At the peak of of the 24/7 action, multiple stores in the city joined in protest of lackluster working conditions and the unequal application of company policy to the disadvantage of unionizing stores and their organizers.

Chief among the complaints was the targeted enforcement of Starbucks’ “minimum availability rule,” which demands that employees clear their schedules for near-full time availability even if they are regularly receiving only part-time hours. The rule is an impossible ask and by itself a persuasive reason to unionize. The “minimum availability rule” effectively reduces what was already a sub-living wage to even less by barring part-time employees from securing paying jobs in the hours that Starbucks decides not to schedule them.

Companies like Starbucks favor draconian store policies like “minimum availability” because it theoretically deepens the pool of scheduleable labor. In practice, however, the policy produces a workforce living in such a state of precarity that a company can decimate its own labor pool. While some companies embrace the chaos (see the “high turnover” hell at Amazon), other companies try to soft pedal the policy through selective enforcement. In the context of union activity, “selective enforcement” translates to applying the policy to unionizing stores and organizing workers.

Selective application of company policy to unionized stores and organizing workers is plainly illegal, according to the National Labor Relations Act. On the other hand, there are ways to put the policy in place without putting the policy into writing — and this seems to be precisely the complaint of the workforce at the 874 Commonwealth Ave. Starbucks. In addition to concerns about racial insensitivity and a bruising management style, the workers allege that their unionized store and organizing workers were being targeted with cut hours and threatened with the “minimal availability” rule.

The corporate spokesperson for Starbucks denies that the rule was in effect at the time that the strike started and claims that the workers are returning to work as usual. Via GBH:

Starbucks denies any kind of retaliation against union activity and denies that the company ever implemented the hourly minimum policy at unionized locations, which would be illegal.

“Legally we are not allowed to change conditions of employment without bargaining,” Starbucks spokesperson Reggie Borges said. “The partners at this location are returning to work under the same conditions at the same time that they went on strike.”

Regardless, the workers at 874 Commonwealth Ave. are celebrating the fact that Starbucks has put into writing a commitment to not target union workers with the policy. Via the Boston Globe:

In a memo to workers released by Starbucks Sunday, the company also reiterated that the minimum availability rule cannot be unilaterally enforced at locations that unionized before July 11, including Commonwealth Avenue. 

With the strike behind them, the workers can now focus their efforts on contract talks with less fear of professional retribution for their organizing activity.