From yesterday’s MNB:
CNBC reports that during his most recent tenure at CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz “violated federal labor law by telling a barista in California who questioned the coffee chain’s response to union organizing to ‘go work for another company,’ a National Labor Relations Board judge has ruled.”
The story says that Schultz made the comment while on a “listening tour” of stores last year that seemed designed to deal with a growing unionization movement within the company. (More than 300 Starbucks stores in the US have now unionized, though none of them have yet come to a collective bargaining agreement with the company.)
CNBC writes that “Schultz had met with a group of employees from Starbucks locations in Long Beach, California, to discuss concerns about working conditions.” The employee, Madison Hall, suggested that “the company should engage in collective bargaining and sign a pledge not to interfere with union organizing, among other comments,” and “asked Schultz about allegations of illegal labor practices in complaints pending at the NLRB, according to the filings.
“Schultz responded that he had not come to discuss union issues and told Hall that ‘if you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company’.”
I commented:
Let’s be clear. Schultz and Starbucks can say all they want that the “listening tour” wasn’t designed to deal with union issues, but they’re only saying that because someone might equate “listening” with “negotiating.” But Schultz probably never would’ve com back for a third go-round as CEO, and never would’ve found himself in a Long Beach Starbucks, if he weren’t trying to nip the unionization movement in the bud.
To me, the broader issue that Starbucks never seems to have gotten is the fact that when people like Madison Hall speak up, it isn’t necessarily because they are malcontents. Often – especially in a company like Starbucks – it is because they like their jobs and feel invested in the company, which in this case they feel has not lived up to its stated values. Instead of dismissing such feelings, it makes a lot more sense to embrace them and use them to shape policy and narrative.
One other thing – I have a small tip for business leaders. If you say you’re on a “listening tour,” sometimes it is best to shut the hell up.
One MNB reader responded:
A few points:
- Madison’s questions or comments sound like someone who is an organizing leader.
2. This listener tour is too late.
3. In my many years of experience, generally when a group at a location support organizing, the most common reason is how they are treated by local management. If associates like and respect their local managers, they are at a low risk of organizing. Next on the list would be pay and benefit issues.
4. Companies such as Starbucks should have had tools in place to identify problem managers and company pay, benefits and promotion issues. Upward evaluations, attitude surveys, associate hotlines etc are some that are valuable, but only if the company is willing to respond and take appropriate action. BTW, I have used these successfully in both union and non union settings. Companies need shared values which include how associates should be treated. Managers who violate these values need to be counseled and if it continues, removed.
Companies like Starbucks with over 3000 stores have to understand a certain percentage of managers are creating a problem. They need to identify them, work to turn them around or if unsuccessful, remove them.
And another MNB reader wrote:
Suggesting that someone who’s unhappy with his employer should find another one seems eminently reasonable. Schultz didn’t fire the guy; he left the decision up to him.
A couple of things here.
Hall, I believe, was a union organizer. But still an employee. And this was designed to be a “listening tour” in which, by definition, Schultz was supposed to listen to employees. If you are a CEO, you don’t just get to deal with ther employees you want. You have to deal with the employees you have. Even – especially – if there is discontent in the ranks.
I agree that the tour came too late. And I agree that the systems ought to be in place to deal with cultural breakdowns. This does not appear to be the case.
I continue to believe that Starbucks’ employees largely are making a stink because they like their jobs and feel invested in the company, which they feel has not lived up to its stated values. Not only is it their right to speak up, but I would argue that it is their responsibility. After all, here is how Starbucks talks about its employees:
“We call our employees partners because we are all partners in shared success. We make sure everything we do is through the lens of humanity—from our commitment to the highest-quality coffee in the world, to the way we engage with our customers and communities to do business responsibly.”
“Partners” is the key word there. Some companies call them “associates.” But if companies really want employees to feel and act that way, then they have to accept the fact that management sometimes will be challenged to do better and be better. That’s the deal they made.
Unless, of course, “partners” and “associates” are just words.
The post Your Views: Partnership Agreement appeared first on MNB.
View Original Article
