DailyRadical

A series of emails by Starbucks <
http://online.wsj.com/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=
sbux > Corp. managers sheds light on the company's efforts to
thwart union organizing among its baristas.

The emails, which are part of a labor-dispute proceeding in
New York and were reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, open a
rare window onto the company's labor relations practices.
Labor experts not involved with the case said the activity is
not illegal. But the emails could prove embarrassing because
they show managers using variou s meth ods to identify pro-
union employees.

The Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW, has been trying
to organize workers at Starbucks since 2004 and has been able
to organize only several dozen at a handful of stores in New
York and a few other cities.

According to several emails, in early 2006, Starbucks
managers discovered that two pro-union employees in New York
were graduates of a Cornell University labor program.
According to an email, managers took the names of graduates
from an online Cornell discussion group and the school's Web
site and cross-checked them with employee lists nationwide.
They found that three employees in California, Michigan and
Illinois were graduates of the program and recommended that
local managers be informed.

The emails are exhibits in a pending case before an
administrative law judge in New York. Brandon Borrman, a
Starbucks spokesman, said most of the documents relate to
issues t hat we re already settled in a separate agreement with
the National Labor Relations Board, in which the company
didn't admit any wrongdoing. He said the claims in that case
were baseless but declined to comment on specifics, and said
disclosure of the documents violates a confidentiality order.

Referring to Starbucks employees as partners, he said: "We
honor the free choices of partners, and we strictly comply
with labor laws, including those for organizing activities.
It is unfortunate that a small group of activists continues
to misrepresent itself as speaking on behalf of more than
150,000 partners world-wide when it does not."

In the pending NLRB case in New York, the IWW has accused
Starbucks of committing about 30 labor law violations during
2005 and 2006. The union argues that the company's effort to
identify union supporters was part of a broader campaign of
unlawful activity, and it argues that the company discharged
t hree e mployees because they supported the union.

"What possible nondiscriminatory reason could Starbucks come
up with to scrutinize Cornell graduates working at the
company?" said Daniel Gross, a former barista in New York. He
alleges that he was fired in August 2006 because he is a
union activist, and his termination is a subject of the
pending NLRB case.

Workers at Starbucks often have higher pay and better
benefits than typical part-time food-service employees.
Starbucks in 2006 said its New York baristas typically start
at about $8.75 an hour. According to the Department of Labor,
the group that includes counter attendants, cafeteria
workers, food-concession workers and coffee-shop workers had
a median wage of $7.76 that same year.

The company emails show that managers have been fighting the
union since 2004. "Below is a summary of the recent
developments in New York City regarding our attempts to
thwart a potential union situation," begins an email dated
Oct. 29, 2004 by a Starbucks New York regional official.

In subsequent emails, managers identify whether an employee
is an "IWW supporter" and discuss when pro- union employees
will be reviewed and those that are "at risk" of being
terminated.

Taking action against an employee based on union sympathies,
such as firing an employee or directly asking if they support
the union, would be illegal, said Chuck Cohen, a former
member of the National Labor Relations Board and a partner at
Morgan Lewis & Bockius in Washington. But "employers
speculating about individual union sympathies is not
unlawful," he said.

Several times, managers expressed concern that emails could
turn up in a legal case. On May 13, 2005, a manager warned:
"Also, 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 prote cted u nder attorney
client privilege and is subject to full disclosure."

In an email the prior day, the manager suggested that
managers avoid "any specific language around 'union
avoidance,'" and added, "It's semantics but we really wan
[sic] to avoid any wording that suggests we engaged in
counter union activity."

In other emails, managers discuss employee relationships to
discern their union preferences. In one case, executives
sought information about a Halloween party employees
attended, and noted that a discussion about the union between
two employees ended in part because they "were attracted to
each other and this became the focus of their evening."

Write to Kris Maher at kris.maher@wsj.com <
mailto:kris.maher@wsj.com>

Starbucks Workers Union:

http://www.starbucksunion.org/