Starbucks target of new-media campaign by union

Starbucks a hub of union-busting and worker exploitation?

Say it ain’t so, Howard Schultz!

The Starbucks chief executive, who actively cultivates a socially progressive image, is in the cross-hairs of a new-media campaign designed to bolster union representation at the retail giant and beyond.

For five years, Starbucks has been the target of a limited but sometimes nasty unionization drive that has tarnished its reputation for high-minded benevolence.

But last week, Brave New Films in Culver City launched an ambitious “Stop Starbucks” offensive, including a website (StopStarbucks.com) featuring a four-minute video that was also posted on YouTube assailing Starbucks' treatment of workers, along with a petition demanding that Schultz “quit following Wal-Mart’s anti-union example.”

By week's end, almost 12,000 had signed the petition, and nearly 40,000 had viewed the video, organizers said.

The anti-Starbucks onslaught also featured a Twitter “hijacking” designed to undermine a Starbucks promotion in which contestants vied for prizes by submitting photos of themselves at Starbucks cafes. The virtual saboteurs forwarded the required “Twitpics” but hoisted signs blaring seditious mottos such as, “I want a union with my latte” or “Shultz makes millions, workers make beans.”

The new-media assault, say Starbucks officials, presents a distorted portrait of management’s collaborative relationship with its “partners,” a reference to the company’s 135,000 U.S. workers.

“Calling Starbucks a bad employer simply doesn’t ring true with the overwhelming majority of our partners,” said Jim Koster, Starbucks senior vice president.

The anti-Starbucks blitz is indicative of how some unions and pro-labor activists have begun to embrace new media. The Communications Workers of America, representing some 80,000 AT&T employees seeking a new contract, also has posted videos of its rallies on YouTube. It uses text messaging to keep its members informed.

“It’s a good way to spread the word and get people to participate and feel they’re part of something bigger as well,” said Peter O’Brien, organizer and executive board member of CWA Local 9510, based in Orange. “It goes viral pretty quickly.”

Most major unions boast extensive websites where workplace issues, political objectives and other concerns are thoroughly aired.

“New media is playing a central role in organizing workers in the service sector,’’ noted Harley Shaiken, a labor expert at UC Berkeley.

But employers also have well-developed Web presences and often work aggressively to refute what management views as misleading statements posted online.

“I don’t see the use of the Internet and social media as giving the unions a tremendous upper hand, though to some extent it does allow them to make initial contact with a wide variety of people,’’ said Nelson N. Lichtenstein, a professor at UC Santa Barbara. “The companies also have the same abilities.’’

Organizers say the Stop Starbucks campaign already has resounded through social networks on the Internet. The video was prominently displayed on the popular BoingBoing blog, along with various others.

“What happens with these things is that people watch it, send the link to friends, and you can see it build,” said Robert Greenwald, head of left-leaning Brave New Films. “Its a tool that doesn’t cost billions of dollars.”

-- Patrick McDonnell

Comments

[Jim]

OK, I'm a proud union member, but going after a company that has a reputation for treating is employees exceptionally well is stupid. It allows all unions to be portrayed as greedy organizations that care more about collecting more dues than how people are actually treated.

Let's instead focus our energies on companies that really *do* treat employees badly, where we can *improve* workplace conditions by moving in. Leave the companies that do OK without our intervention alone as examples to other employers about how they can avoid union tussles.

Anyone want to join me in unionizing Wal-Mart instead?

[Right To Work State]

Another money grab attempt by some lefties here in the people's republic of california

[Sabrina]

I've been in a number of Starbucks from Seattle to Malibu, and I think I can say their employees are NOT mistreated. Their part time employees actually get benefits! How many companies can say that. This is nothing but a ploy developed by people who are jealous at the success of Starbucks. Why don't they go after companies that really DO treat employees badly or better still focus on those companies who are causing Americans to LOSE jobs by shipping them all overseas?

[KK]

This is exactly the kind of aggressive socialism actions that are killing big and small companies all over. What is the point of owning a business and let your employees control you.

[David]

The unions are trying this at the wrong time. A couple of years ago when the economy was going strong, Starbucks was an easy target because of their expensive drinks, and the possible perception that they were awash in cash that they might have been holding back.

Last I checked, Starbucks closed an insane number of stores this year. I'm sure that the employees who still do have jobs are happy to be employed. They actually get benefits there. In contrast, I just lost my vision plan as a cost saving measure so that the institution I work at can keep the doors open. How many other companies paying part time wages are giving their employees medical and retirement benefits? I know that were I work, only full time employees are getting (now reduced) benefits.

[Ray]

Wow. I guess I'm going to have to start going to Starbucks more more often. Whenever these jackasses start targeting businesses like this, I just feel the need to support them. A job at a Starbucks isn't a career for most people. I think they're treated just fine. IT'S COFFEE NOT BRAIN SURGERY!!!!! It doesn't need to pay CEO wages.

[Chris W.]

My wife works in a Starbucks retail store, and she's pretty happy with the way she and her fellow employees are treated. Granted things were decidedly down when Jim McDonald was at the helm and Starbucks was trying to transform itself into MacDonalds, but it has steadily gotten better since the changes at the top have started to trickle down to the field. Obviously, in a pool of 135,000 people, there will be some that aren't happy and make their complaints (very) public, particularly in the age of Web 2.0, but the same thing could be said of a pool of 20 people.

This sounds like a union prospecting for a new revenue stream, and a pseudo-film company looking for buzz.

[jbeezz]

They may or may not be a good employer but they get t minimum of FOUR buck for a cup of coffee. They can afford to pay a living wage. But it's not just them that needs to be unionized. Unions are the only protection that the workers have especially in a right to be a slave state like Florida.

[Alan]

I agree with most others who've left comments. From everything I've always heard, compared to most companies in the same industry, Starbucks stands out for being especially good to their employees. I think this effort to smear Starbucks by film-makers and unions gives the whole union movement a bad name. Starbucks should be way way down on the priority list for unions targeting companies for unionization. There is far lower-hanging fruit out there.

[Pittsburgh Coffee Snob]

The Starbucks of today, and for the last 2 years is a VERY different company than the Starbucks of the 90's and early 00's.

The positive things about the company that immediately come to mind, and its reputation in the public mindset are NOT indicative of how the company treats its people, and approaches business today. I cant stress enough how vastly DIFFERENT perception is from reality on this subject. Those thoughts and ideas are holdovers from a time when there was truth in the company's message and mission.