Post by RedFlag32 on Jan 11, 2008 19:31:46 GMT
Emails reveal Starbucks spied on staff looking to establish union
The Independent
By Stephen Foley in New York
Published: 11 January 2008
Starbucks managers monitored internet chatrooms and eavesdropped on
party conversations in a covert campaign to identify employees
agitating for union representation at the coffee chain, internal
emails reveal.
The correspondence has come to light after a long-running legal
battle between the company and a union angry at being prevented from
organising among Starbucks' 150,000-strong army of "baristas" and
other employees.
The revelations come at a sensitive time, threatening to tarnish the
chain's public image just as its pioneering chief executive, Howard
Schultz, is trying to re-energise the company and attract customers
back to its coffee shops.
In one email exchange, managers sought information about a Halloween
party attended by employees, and reported how two people at the party
had a discussion about union organisation. The conversation ended,
one manager noted, because the two employees "were attracted to each
other and this became the focus of their evening".
Starbucks says it does not prevent employees from organising into
unions, they just don't want to. It has been fighting what it calls
"disruptive" activity by the Industrial Workers of the World union
since at least 2004, the emails make clear. "Below is a summary of
the recent developments in New York City regarding our attempts to
thwart a potential union situation," one three-year-old email begins.
The correspondence – leaked to The Wall Street Journal – came to
light just days after Mr Schultz returned to the post of chief
executive at the company he turned from a tiny Seattle business with
just four stores into a global phenomenon. He has promised to put
staff at the heart of a plan to revitalise the firm.
In a letter to employees and customers posted on the Starbucks
website after his appointment, Mr Schultz wrote how he had "brought
Starbucks to life" by hiring "an exceptionally engaged group of
partners (employees) who shared our excitement about building a
different kind of company. In doing this, we developed a culture
based on treating each other, our customers and our coffee growers
with respect and dignity."
Yesterday, a company spokesman said Starbucks abided by all labour
laws, such as those that ban a company for firing employees for union
sympathies. He said Starbucks was confident it would prevail in its
legal dispute with IWW supporters claiming wrongful dismissal. The
dispute "focused on enforcement of Starbucks dress code and [union
lapel] pin policies, and partner disciplinary actions", he said.
"These documents have been presented out of context and in vio-lation
of a judge's orders."
The emails show that managers monitored a Cornell university alumni
discussion board to identify employees that had graduated from a
labour programme at the university, and they discuss when identified
"IWW supporters" are next up for an appraisal and whether they might
be at risk of firing.
According to the WSJ, managers several times expressed concern that
emails could turn up in a legal case. In one 2005 email, a manager
wrote: "Not to sound too 007 here but I am going to ask that we
delete these messages after reading and stick to verbal conversations
as none of this is protected under attorney client privilege and is
subject to full disclosure."
The Independent
By Stephen Foley in New York
Published: 11 January 2008
Starbucks managers monitored internet chatrooms and eavesdropped on
party conversations in a covert campaign to identify employees
agitating for union representation at the coffee chain, internal
emails reveal.
The correspondence has come to light after a long-running legal
battle between the company and a union angry at being prevented from
organising among Starbucks' 150,000-strong army of "baristas" and
other employees.
The revelations come at a sensitive time, threatening to tarnish the
chain's public image just as its pioneering chief executive, Howard
Schultz, is trying to re-energise the company and attract customers
back to its coffee shops.
In one email exchange, managers sought information about a Halloween
party attended by employees, and reported how two people at the party
had a discussion about union organisation. The conversation ended,
one manager noted, because the two employees "were attracted to each
other and this became the focus of their evening".
Starbucks says it does not prevent employees from organising into
unions, they just don't want to. It has been fighting what it calls
"disruptive" activity by the Industrial Workers of the World union
since at least 2004, the emails make clear. "Below is a summary of
the recent developments in New York City regarding our attempts to
thwart a potential union situation," one three-year-old email begins.
The correspondence – leaked to The Wall Street Journal – came to
light just days after Mr Schultz returned to the post of chief
executive at the company he turned from a tiny Seattle business with
just four stores into a global phenomenon. He has promised to put
staff at the heart of a plan to revitalise the firm.
In a letter to employees and customers posted on the Starbucks
website after his appointment, Mr Schultz wrote how he had "brought
Starbucks to life" by hiring "an exceptionally engaged group of
partners (employees) who shared our excitement about building a
different kind of company. In doing this, we developed a culture
based on treating each other, our customers and our coffee growers
with respect and dignity."
Yesterday, a company spokesman said Starbucks abided by all labour
laws, such as those that ban a company for firing employees for union
sympathies. He said Starbucks was confident it would prevail in its
legal dispute with IWW supporters claiming wrongful dismissal. The
dispute "focused on enforcement of Starbucks dress code and [union
lapel] pin policies, and partner disciplinary actions", he said.
"These documents have been presented out of context and in vio-lation
of a judge's orders."
The emails show that managers monitored a Cornell university alumni
discussion board to identify employees that had graduated from a
labour programme at the university, and they discuss when identified
"IWW supporters" are next up for an appraisal and whether they might
be at risk of firing.
According to the WSJ, managers several times expressed concern that
emails could turn up in a legal case. In one 2005 email, a manager
wrote: "Not to sound too 007 here but I am going to ask that we
delete these messages after reading and stick to verbal conversations
as none of this is protected under attorney client privilege and is
subject to full disclosure."
