When Howard Schultz returned to Starbucks as interim CEO this spring, he announced worker-friendly policies such as 100% cover for workers’ college tuition and expanded medical benefits for part-time employees. However, when he resigns next year, his third round of leading the world’s largest coffee chain will be marked by his anti-union It will be defined primarily by its stance and questionable union-busting tactics.
Starbucks yesterday hired Laxman Narasimhan, who previously headed health and hygiene maker Reckitt Benckiser, to replace Schultz starting in April, with Schultz remaining on Starbucks’ board of directors and Narasimhan after the transition is complete. He announced that he would serve as an advisor.
Howard Schultz’s pro-worker, anti-union rhetoric
What a change in management will do to Starbucks employee relations, which have deteriorated in recent months since the Buffalo, N.Y. barista launched a successful grassroots organizing campaign. It’s too early. More than 220 Starbucks stores have already voted to unionize in less than a year.
Meanwhile, Starbucks has taken steps to counter its efforts to organize Starbucks workers in what the National Labor Relations Board called “a series of illegal tactics.” For example, they fired union organizers and closed stores during union campaigns. And by overseeing these measures, Schultz changed his legacy forever.
Schultz has always sought to present himself as a leader who deeply cares about the people who work for him. In 2019, he told CNN how his decision to provide health care benefits to Starbucks baristas was inspired by an old conversation with a worker who had AIDS. my Our entire lives have been trying to make decisions and do the right thing through the lens of humanity, even if it’s not in our financial interest,” Schultz said.
In 2018, on the “Masters of Scale” podcast, Schultz shared how both customers and baristas (who Starbucks calls “partners”) react to leadership decisions at Starbucks’ weekly executive meetings. I imagined what to do. “I quietly, quietly ask myself all the time: Will this decision make our customers and partners proud? ” explained Schultz.
No such consideration appears to have been made when it comes to Starbucks’ response to its unionization efforts. The union, Starbucks Workers United, has accused the company of engaging in hundreds of unfair labor practices to quell the movement. never stopped being a leader inexternal force“We do not believe that a third party should lead our people. “We are fighting for the hearts and minds of the people,” he said at the New York Times Policy Forum in June. In an interview, Schultz was asked if he could “accept the union” and replied, “No.”
Today, with American support for unions at a 57-year high, it is hard to imagine Schultz being remembered for the way he has long sought to present himself. It’s also worth noting that the story, and by extension the story of Starbucks, has always been flawed as a generous employer who benefits from sheer goodwill.
According to a 2019 Politico report, Starbucks’ much-touted health insurance for part-time employees wasn’t actually introduced by Schultz. I inherited that policy. Politico explains that Starbucks employees had actually obtained their insurance the year before “by joining the National Food and Commercial Workers Union and negotiating contracts.”
