What in the hell …

From Starbucks. No surprise. I got this form letter from Sbucks after emailing them. When I get a chance I’m going to take a sec and write back in angry customer mode (since they adress none of my actual concern, which is that of illegal union busting). The last 3 paragraphs are the most relevant. They basically say “our workers don’t want a union” which means they are effectively denying that the demand exists for union recognition by some Sbucks workers. So how can they then claim they respect the right to organize? By lying, of course, as bosses do.

*

From: Customer Relations
Date: Aug 12, 2006 8:22 AM
Subject: Starbucks Coffee Company
To: Nate

Dear Nate,

Thank you for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

The heart and soul of Starbucks is our people, which is why we consider our employees partners. We continue to be committed to providing a flexible and progressive work environment, and treating one another with respect and dignity.

Starbucks believes that the employment package we offer is compelling and relevant to our partners. For more than 20 years, Starbucks has offered a generous wage and benefits package to eligible partners, including those working just 20 hours per week or more.. Approximately 85 percent of partners have health coverage, either through Starbucks or another source, such as school, military or as a dependent.

Additionally, the majority of our partners are eligible for ownership in the form of stock options, which makes them truly partners in the business.

Our work environment fosters open, two-way communication and has many ways for our partners to share their thoughts, opinions and concerns. We believe that the direct employment relationship that we currently have with our partners is the best way to help ensure a great work environment.

This has been confirmed in a recent partner survey in which the vast majority identified health benefits, opportunities for growth and development and a positive work environment as a few of the top reasons they choose to work for Starbucks. We have also received recognition from outside sources. Fortune magazine named Starbucks as one of “The 100 Best Companies to Work For” for the eighth time in 2006.

While Starbucks respects the free choice of our partners, we firmly believe that our work environment, coupled with our outstanding compensation and benefits, make unions unnecessary at Starbucks. We respect our partners’ right to organize, but believe that they would not find it necessary given our pro-partner environment.

We comply strictly with the laws and guidelines associated with union organizing activities. In fact, discipline and employment termination policies are applied consistently to all partners at Starbucks without consideration of their involvement in union activity. Starbucks takes very seriously its legal obligations and does not take action or retaliate against partners (employees) who express support for unions or take part in union activity.

In order to protect the confidentiality of our current and former partners, Starbucks does not provide specific details about any individual’s employment. Partner performance is addressed only after careful consideration of many performance factors and consistent application of company policies and procedures governing employment in keeping with our guiding principle of treating all partners with respect and dignity. Of course, we understand that partners who are separated will not always acknowledge their responsibility and may even try to rationalize their behavior by distorting the facts and publicly attacking the company. However, we trust that our record of fair treatment and positive partner relations speaks for itself and that the public will not be fooled by such baseless claims.”

Thanks again for contacting Starbucks Coffee Company.

Best regards,

Shawn H.

Customer Relations
Starbucks Coffee Company

*

My response, for kicks. Folk may also be interested in this, including a PDF copy of the NLRB settlement document.

“National Labor Relations Board Settlement Agreement, In The Matter Of: Starbucks Corportation” dealing with case numbers 2-CA-36394; 2-CA-36900; 2-CA-37020; 2-CA-37109.

The agreement includes more than US $2000 in backpay, IWW members who were fired for union activity got their jobs back (Sarah Bender and Anthony Polanco), the reversal of a policy that forbade the distribution of union literature on in stores, and stopping harassing union members for wearing union pins at work.

Dear Mr. or Ms. Shawn H. and Starbucks Coffee Company,

Thank you for your August 12th email in response to the concerns I raised in my earlier email. Unforunately, while I do appreciate your response, you did not answer my concerns. I may have been unclear.

My concerns are the firings of Starbucks employees Daniel Gross, Evan Winterscheidt, Joe Agins Jr., and Charles Fostrom. I request that Starbucks reinstate these employees. Since you did not deal with my initial concerns, I am not satisfied with how you have handled my concerns. I would like to report this to your direct supervisor. I request also that you inform me of the name, email address, and phone number of your direct supervisor. I also request that you tell me the name of the manager who terminated the four above named employees and that manager’s direct supervisor.

I am unhappy with your email because it is either misinformed, poorly written, or misleading. For example, you write in your email,”We respect our partners’ right to organize, but believe that they would not find it necessary given our pro-partner environment.”

This statement is misleading. When you write “they would not find it necessary” you imply that there are not currently Starbucks employees organizing. As you and I are both well aware, there are Starbucks employees currently organizing. It is the right of Starbucks employees to unionize regardless of whether or not you or the company believes it is a good idea. If Starbucks is pretending that some employees are not currently asserting their right to unionize then it is impossible for Starbucks to be respecting the right of those employees to unionize. I would like to know which of the two is the case. Do you actually intend for me to believe there is no unionization drive (such that it makes sense for you to write that Starbucks employees “would not find it necessary” to organize)?

On the other hand this may be a matter of poor writing on your part. Is this the case? If so, I apologize if I am being unduly harsh. If this is so I would still like to speak with your supervisor about this matter as I do feel that Starbucks should be concerned with how its Customer Relations representatives portray the company.

Your email is also misleading when you write “We comply strictly with the laws and guidelines associated with union organizing activities. In fact, discipline and employment termination policies are applied consistently to all partners at Starbucks without consideration of their involvement in union activity. Starbucks takes very seriously its legal obligations and does not take action or retaliate against partners (employees) who express support for unions or take part in union activity.”

I hold this statement to be misleading because I am under the impression that Ms. Celeste Mattina, a Starbucks Regional Manager, signed a National Labor Relations Board settlement on March 7, 2006. I take this signing to be an admission on the part of Ms. Mattina, as a representative of Starbucks Coffee Company, of the existence of discriminatory practices against workers who were attempting to exercise their right to unionize.

Perhaps your statement is not intentionally misleading but rather is the product of your being misinformed. Were you aware of the March 7, 2006, settlement agreement and the events the settlement is a response to? If you were aware of them, then I would like to speak to your supervisor, as I am sure he or she does not want you deliberately misleading customers. If you were not aware of these events, then I would still like to speak to your supervisor, as you are misinformed about company practices. Being well-informed about the company is a cornerstone of Customer Relations service.

It may be that I am the one misinformed, that the March 7, 2006 settlement did not occur or that Starbucks did not authorize Ms. Mattina to sign the agreement. If so, please correct me as this is important information. If I am not misinformed, if these events did occur as I believe they did, then it is not the case that “Starbucks takes very seriously its legal obligations and does not take action or retaliate against partners (employees) who express support for unions or take part in union activity.” Rather, Starbucks does not take very seriously its legal obligations and does take action and retaliate against employees who express support for unions or take part in union activity.

Given that Starbucks has already retaliated against employees for their union activity in attempt to prevent them from organizing, I do not believe your claim that “discipline and employment termination policies are applied consistently to all partners at Starbucks without consideration of their involvement in union activity.” In the settlement of March 7, 2006, Ms Mattina agrees to reinstate at least two employees who were terminated for their union activity. Do you deny that these events occurred? Or do you believe that Ms. Mattina was acting in a fashion not representative of Starbucks Coffee Company’s policy? If the latter, please let me know if she has been disciplined and inform me of the name, email address, and phone number of Ms. Mattina’s supervisor.

Perhaps you meant to say that Starbucks has recently begun, after the NLRB ruling and settlement, to respect the right of employees for the first time. If this is what you meant then your email was unclear (another matter I would like to speak to your supervisor about with regard to how your writing ability reflects upon the company) and furthermore I do not believe this to be so. I believe that Starbucks disrespected the rights of employees to unionize previously, as evidenced by the NLRB settlement signed by Ms. Mattina, and I believe Starbucks is still not respecting the rights of employees to unionize. This is the reason for the termination of Daniel Gross, Evan Winterscheidt, Joe Agins Jr., and Charles Fostrom.

I will now reiterate my requests in order to avoid confusion and nonanswer to my concerns. I request that Starbucks Coffee Company reinstate Daniel Gross, Evan Winterscheidt, Joe Agins Jr., and Charles Fostrom. I also repeat my request that you send me the name and contact information for your direct supervisor, the name of the manager or managers who illegally fired the above named four employees, and the name of that manager’s or managers’ direct supervisor. Please resond as soon as you are able, as these matters do impact whether or not I will continue to patronize Starbucks.

Best regards,
Nate