Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s suggestion that unionisation was unnecessary because the company does not “abuse” its people has been widely condemned by campaigners.
Mr Schultz was speaking at an event in Washington DC on Monday when he said he was “not anti-union” but did not personally believe they were necessary for Starbucks workers.
Some 143 Starbucks locations have voted to unionise since a store in Buffalo, New York, became the first of roughly 9,000 Starbucks locations to form a union in December 2021.
“I’m not anti-union,” Mr Schultz told the annual DealBook conference, “but the history of unions, and we have to talk about this, the history of unions is based on the fact that companies in the 40s, 50s and 60s abused their people”.
Mr Schultz, who appeared to suggest that unions were unnecessary because Starbucks did not “abuse” its people, continued by criticising unions as being “anti business” and a “third party” operator.
Many workers have called for unionisation to protect and guarantee better working conditions and pay, among other issues in the workplace.
“We’re not in the coal mining business, we’re not abusing our people,” said Mr Schultz. “But the sweeping issue in the country is that businesses are not doing enough and that business is the enemy”.
He continued: “We don’t believe that a third party should lead our people and so we are in a battle for the hearts and minds of our people”.
On social media, many pro-union campaigners and others criticised the Starbucks CEO for failing to understand the reasoning behind a unionisation movement at hundreds of Starbucks locations. As have workers at Amazon tried to ensure greater rights.
“The ‘third party’ he’s talking about doesn’t exist. He’s saying the actual workers shouldn’t advocate for themselves. Because they are ‘his’ people’,” argued Washington state congressional candidate Jason Call. “And there you have it, the corporate mindset in regards to worker organisation”.
An American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) member also wrote: “It’s a pretty simple concept. Starbucks employees have the legal right to vote on whether to unionise their workplace or not. Words spoken by Starbucks management are worthless. If Starbucks wants to avoid their workforce unionising, they must treat their employees better.”
Many others pointed to the phrase “not anti-union, but...” as a sign that Mr Schultz had not taken the issue of unions seriously.
The Starbucks CEO, who stepped down as chairman in 2018 before returning in April as the Seattle-based firm’s chief executive officer, has previously voiced opposition to unions and in November said he was “saddened and concerned to hear anyone thinks that is needed now”, as the Associated Press reported.
He has also described the workplace injury sustained by his father as a child as being “traumatic” and said that’s why Starbucks has benefits like health care, free college tuition, and parental leave.
Employees have however complained of inconsistent hours, poor training, understaffing and low wages, while the National Labor Relations Board found last year that Starbucks had unlawfully retaliated against two employees who wanted to unionise.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Starbucks toldThe Independent: “The facts here are once again being misrepresented by Workers United.“
“The truth of the matter is, as Howard said, Starbucks has a different view than the union. We believe we will do more together as partners working side-by-side rather than across a negotiating table.”
The spokesperson added: “We will bargain in good faith for those seeking third-party representation, and we will remain focused on building a future that offers the best possible Starbucks experience for our people and customers.”
