Skip to main content

Breaking: The Results Are In On Buffalo Area Starbucks Union Vote


Hold onto your horses readers.  For the third night in a row, we have late breaking news.

Just a few minutes ago, it was announced that results are in on the three union elections that have been underway at three different Buffalo area Starbucks.  The results:  Baristas voted to unionize at one location, voted not to unionize at a second, and results at the third location are not yet conclusive.

So that begs the question…who is going to declare victory?  For starters, Starbucks will likely claim victory that unionization efforts were defeated at one location (and possibly a second.)  I would suspect they use that to show that most employees do not see the need for unionization as the company would claim they already treat their workers fairly and pay them competitive wages.

However, that is somewhat of a hollow victory.  The unionization of at least one Buffalo area Starbucks marks the first successful unionization at a company owned location.  While both sides are asserting challenges to the third store where results are not conclusive, the union that will represent the unionized location have already stated they are going to challenge the results of the store that voted against unionization.  For all intents and purposes, this was a victory for organized labor.

Now, that leads to many who will wonder what impact (if any) this will have on other Starbucks (and similar retail workers) around the country?  As the saying goes…stay tuned.


For additional information:  https://www.wsj.com/articles/votes-to-be-counted-in-starbucks-union-drive-11639071187

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more