Starbucks Case Analysis Help
Starbucks Case Analysis
Instructions:-
Read the three articles noted below about an actual union-organizing effort involving Starbucks in New York City:
- Judge Says Starbucks Violated Workers’ Rights at NYC Stores
- NLRB Orders Starbucks to Reinstate Two Workers, But Not a Third
- Court Sides With Starbucks In Dispute Over Labor Union Pins
After reading all the articles and considering additional research, address the following questions (feel free to use supplemental authoritative resources in your response):
- Do you think the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went too far in overruling Starbucks? Why or why not?
- How much leeway should an employer have in setting standards for conduct, customer interaction, and attire in the workplace?
- Does the NLRB decision unfairly limit Starbucks in the management of the stores? Why or why not?
- What is your view of the court’s decision?
For additional details, please refer to the Short Paper and Case Study Rubric document in the Assignment Guidelines and Rubrics section of the course
Solution
Starbucks Case Analysis Help
Starbucks Case Analysis
Summary of the Articles
As per the first article, the judge ruled that Starbucks unlawfully offer restrictions to the worker’s union activities as well as fired three workers who were supporting the initiative. As such, Starbucks prohibited these workers from wearing union buttons, utilizing bulletin boards and they went a step further to restricting them from conversing about the working conditions and dynamics of unionizing. These acts are against employees’ rights granted by the National Labor Relations Association. It was the justified since the judge ordered Starbucks to restore/reinstate the employees back with pay. In the second article, NLRB Orders Starbucks to Reinstate Two Workers, But Not a Third, it indicates that NLRB ordered Starbucks to only reinstated two workers with pay but not the third. It is evident that the NLRB did not protect his behavior. The article further indicates that after the meeting of the Union, Iris Saenz pursued a regional president of Starbucks for approximately two blocks offering threats, discourteous comments, and derision. Lastly, the third article, Court Sides With Starbucks In Dispute Over Labor Union Pins, it indicates that Starbucks were successful in the fight to limit how many union buttons a worker can wear to one button.
Response
The judge did not go too far to in
his ruling on Starbucks. Arguably, Starbucks’ practices to lay off these
workers were unfair, and their
reinstatement was justified. Additionally, I
agree that Starbucks should be capable of setting a limit on the number of
buttons an individual worker can wear as a flare on their attire. Secondly, I assert that there should be a dressing code
that the company should implement and employees
at Starbucks adhere to the code within the professional environment of the
corporation. Evidently, a large degree of
flare can be a significant distraction to customers as well as fellow
workmates. I do not believe that the NLRB
decision would unjustly limit store management at Starbucks. I think
that the board only addressed its concerns as it pertains to the Labor
Relations since it is the board’s right
to do so. Conclusively, I agree that the
decision put forth by the court would captivate Starbucks on reinforcing on the
dress code of its employees. Furthermore, I
concur with the decision by the court to reinstate 2/3 of the employees.
References
Lynd, S., & Gross, D. (2007). Commentary: Solidarity unionism at Starbucks: The IWW uses section 7. WorkingUSA,, 10(3), 347-356.
Morran, C. (2012, May 10). Court Sides With Starbucks In Dispute Over Labor Union Pins. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from www.consumerist.com: https://consumerist.com/2012/05/10/court-sides-with-starbucks-in-dispute-over-labor-union-pins/