Starbucks employees case study PDF

Preview

Summary

starbucks study...

Description

6-1 Case Study: Starbucks OL-318 Employee & Labor Relations 10/07/2021 Samantha Isabel

After reviewing all three resources for the Starbucks case study, I don’t feel that the administrative judge and the NLRB went too far in overruling Starbucks because I don’t agree with what Starbucks did in the first place. I don’t think they should have fired any of the employees because of them supporting a union. Why would employees supporting a union get fired for that if they’re performing at the workplace appropriately and working hard? Most importantly, it is unlawful for Starbucks to do that since they can’t fire or disciplined for an employee engaging in any union activities. “You can't be fired, disciplined, demoted, or penalized in any way for engaging in these activities.” (NLRB, 2021) If it wasn’t talked about during work time, then Starbucks shouldn’t of did that. Employers should have leeway when it comes to setting standards in conduct especially when employees are not wearing proper work attire and using vulgar language during customer interaction. An employer should be able to give a verbal or a written warning to an employee as acting appropriate in a workplace always is important as customers might not return if they are treated improperly or feel uncomfortable from an employee’s remarks. In the case study of Starbucks, Starbucks had a policy that allowed employees to only wear one. Although that was Starbucks rule, “An NLRB ruling said employees were not limited in the number of buttons they chose to pin to their uniforms.” (Morran, 2012) It was found true that Starbucks did wrongly fire two employees out of the three employees. The two employees were not just let go over the pins but also other union activities that they shouldn’t have been terminated for. However even

though I don’t agree with Starbuck’s policy, I do feel employees’ uniforms should follow the dress code that is required at the workplace. I feel that The National Labor Relations Board decision did not limit Starbuck’s management as Starbucks should be responsible for unlawfully firing workers for supporting union activity. The employees shouldn’t have been fired for wanting to openly talk about unions at the workplace as the supervisors didn’t allow employees to do certain things that wasn’t even related to talking about the union as well. “The ALJ also concluded that supervisors unlawfully prohibited employees from discussing working conditions, limited employees’ off duty access to stores and prevented employees from working from additional shifts from other locations.” (Wiley Periodicals, 2009) They should have allowed employees get other shifts from other stores as it could be easier for employees to work at stores closer to their home or other various reasons not for the wrong reasons of an employee wanting to discuss about unions. When it comes to the court’s final decision about Starbucks, I feel I understand both sides to the situation from the NLRB and Starbucks. I could see why Starbucks management wouldn’t want employees wearing so many pins causing a distraction with coworkers and customers but an employee wearing many pins shouldn’t matter if they’re doing their job correctly. If it’s not a safety issue, I don’t see why it would matter if a Starbucks employee wore many pins at once. I don’t think the NLRB took it far, but I could see why the court feels that they did and decided to rule that Starbucks employees are allowed to a one pin only policy. As I previously stated Starbucks should be able to have their own dress code policy that employees should follow at the workplace.

References:

Morran, C. (2012). Court Sides with Starbucks in Dispute Over Labor Union Pins. Retrieved from: shttps://consumerist.com/2012/05/10/court-sides-with-starbucks-in-dispute-over-laborunion-pins/

National Labors Relation Board. (2021) Your Rights during Union Organizing. Retrieved from: https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/the-law/employees/your-rights-during-unionorganizing

Wiley Periodicals. (2009). Judge Says Starbucks Violated Workers’ Rights at NYC Stores. Management Report for Nonunion Organizations (Wiley); Mar2009, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p2-8, 2p Retrieved from: https://eds-a-ebscohost com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? vid=1&sid=3f316bdf-d391-4cd4-a5a0-1f64a0f403ff%40sdc-v-sessmgr02...