IWW Member Laid Off By Starbucks After Confronting CEO and Blogging About It

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.iww.org/en/node/4637

Submitted by intexile on Fri, 03/20/2009 - 5:35pm.

Chicago, IL (03-19-2009)- The Starbucks Coffee Co. informed outspoken union member and barista, Joe Tessone, yesterday that it was laying him off, just two weeks after he confronted CEO Howard Schultz over the company's squeezing of employees. Mr. Tessone's blog post on the encounter entitled, "Howard the Coward: The Day My Boss Ran Away" quickly became an Internet hit among fast food workers and their supporters (online at: http://www.iww.org/en/node/4618).

"When I heard Howard Schultz was in town, I knew had to get to the store and make my voice heard as a barista and union member," said Tessone, a 4-year veteran of the company with an excellent performance record. "He said he'd speak to me after his interview with the Wall Street Journal only to scurry through the emergency exit the first chance he got. I told Schultz that it was time to dialogue with union baristas and that too many of us we're living in poverty but he showed nothing but cowardice."

Shortly after his exchange with Schultz, Tessone was ordered into a one-on-one meeting with a Starbucks Regional Director rather than the store manager who would normally administer discipline. The director warned Tessone that he was out of compliance with Starbucks' new "Optimal Scheduling" policy which pries open baristas' availability to work without guaranteeing any work hours. The problem with the director's rationale: Tessone's availability was indeed in complete compliance with Optimal Scheduling requirements which are laid out in a written policy. The same rationale was erroneously deployed by Tessone's store manager yesterday when he was laid off.

"Starbucks' claim that I was out of compliance with the policy is a fantasy; I actually exceeded its requirements," explained Tessone. "I come to work on time and work hard everyday. It's clear that my attempt to speak with Starbucks' anti-union CEO and the escalation of union activity at the company is what caused my termination."

This isn't the first time that Howard Schultz lacked the fortitude to discuss Starbucks' animosity toward labor unions and its refusal to provide stable work hours to employees. In a remarkably similar situation in 2004, Schultz hurried out of a New York City Starbucks after union barista Daniel Gross challenged him to sit down at a table and talk face-to-face.


FULL story at link.

[Occam Bandage]

1. An employee was fired while attempting to publicly embarrass his employer?

I'm shocked.

[Hoopla Phil]

8. Wow. I'm shocked.

Bet the dumb-ass was shocked too. LOL

[Occam Bandage]

11. This is more or less the reaction he was looking for.

People like to try to follow in Rosa Parks' footsteps: find something you find oppressive and unfair, get it to treat you oppressively and unfairly, then call attention to your unfair and oppressive treatment, so that public pressure might change that oppressive and unfair something.

The difference here, as in so many other cases, is that the subject of this piece (unlike Ms. Parks) was clearly attempting to draw attention to himself in his actions. Ms. Parks was attempting to ride a bus. This tool was repeatedly engaging in ambush journalism; something that has no purpose but in media warfare. When you start trying to corner executives for interviews, start blogging negatively about them, and generally trying to kick up as much publicity as possible for your attempts to agitate, people may be left with the impression that you are not an innocent victim of an uncaring corporation, but rather that you are attempting to engage your employer in media warfare. While his cause may well be just, I think Starbucks is also justified in not continuing to offer both access and a paycheck to an employee who is attempting to embarrass the company.

[Hoopla Phil]

17. Sorry, I should have used the "sarcasm smiley". Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

[Luminous Animal]

24. Rosa Parks was an activist

and her action was planned as a response to the arrests of several black women on the buses. The boycott action had been planned for sometime and Rosa staged the catalyst.

[tkmorris]

25. His employer acted like a giant jackass

But I'm sure he'll be happy to know he has your support.

[Occam Bandage]

26. I don't see why I have to support either. Neither seem particularly worthy of it. nt

[Luminous Animal]

27. Yes, a union organizer...

who successfully helped unionize baristas in Chicago against enormous odds and whose opponent is a multi-billion dollar corporation with a well-funded anti-union arm. This is a person who has been working with other union members for the past four years to better their employment conditions and have been consistently mistreated by management is due no support for wanting to have a dialog with his multi-millionaire union-busting boss.

How dare he!

[TheWatcher]

39. Delete.

That wasn't worth it either.

[Artie Bucco]

2. Wobblies

Can't get more industrial than a coffee shop.

[Critters2]

4. Damn you!

:spray:

Now I have to buy that mini-laptop! I just spewed all over the big one!

[Artie Bucco]

15. A friend of mine went to a few wobbly meetings.

However, my friend is a Trotskyist; my friend described the wobblies of nothing but a bunch of upscale white guys who were busy trying to unionize Starbucks along with other businesses we associate with the proletariat. These guys were way too afraid to go into Dallas's heavily unionized areas particularly South Dallas's meat processing plants; along with a slew of factories and warehouses that are much more prone to unionization than service industry jobs. I myself work a unionized job though I am not in it, not a fan of the Teamsters. I do take pride in being one of the few college kids out there working a unionized job.

[Omaha Steve]

32. Like the Teamsters or not

They bargained for the contract that sets out the rules at your work place. Fan or not, you should consider joining.

[Oak2004]

19. Do you know what an "industrial" union is, as opposed to a trade union?

The term "industrial union" has a very specific meaning, and it has nothing to do with big smelly factories.

An industrial union is one that organizes everyone who is an employee in a given industry, irrespective of the job they do. Lets imagine a hypothetical coffee shop that hires people to be baristas, coffee grinders, bakers, warehouse workers, and janitors. An industrial union would try to sign them all up in an organizing drive regardless of job description. The United Auto Workers is a well known example of an industrial union.

A trade union, on the other hand, organizes by skill. If our hypothetical coffee shop was organized by, say, The International Brotherhood of Coffee Grinders (an imaginary trade union), the union would sign up the coffee grinders and no one else. Well known examples of trade unions are the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the American Federation of Teachers.

The IWW is an industrial union. That does not mean that it only organizes in factories, it means that it tries to sign all the employees up, irrespective of job description, when it organizes a shop, even if the shop in question is a coffee shop.

A big part of American labor history is about the conflict between trade unions and industrial unions. You can't understand the half of it unless you know what the two terms mean.

[Artie Bucco]

20. I like the fact you are using a PSOE logo. The Spanish Civil War is an area of interest of mine

I have nothing against industrial unions and even before you mentioned I was aware of the difference. I was only making light of the fact that the Wobblies in Dallas are too afraid to go into areas of Dallas were black and brown people live and work, which also happen to be areas of heavy unionization. Texas is open shop and they could indeed gather i good pool of workers who are not in any union or perhaps recruit already unionized workers but they don't. Oh, and before you mention I am well aware of the IWW's anti-racist stance throughout it's history. Again to reiterate my criticism is of IWW members not the concept of industrial unions.

[Obamanaut]

3. WIth jobs going away every day, why would a person who has one

do something to jeopardize it?

[readmoreoften]

5. It's called a UNION.

Look it the hell up.

[Gabi Hayes]

6. really...did I just step into Bizarro DU, in which union members speaking out are RIDICULED for

exercising their rights?

sure, I know it's not "smart" to speak out against one's employer, especially in times like these

so EVERYbody just SHUT

UP!!!

let them treat you like they've always done, with ever increasing disregard for basic rights, civil/economic liberties

Long live the Corporation...there is no other god

[Hoopla Phil]

10. This guy went waaayyy over the line from exercising his right to

being a total dumb-ass.

[Gabi Hayes]

13. why don't you try exercising your right to READ what actually happened?

....or go shoot something?

let's just have everybody take the shit shoveled onto them

good little robots. that's what your masters want, isn't it?

'may I have some more, sir?'

[Hoopla Phil]

16. Sure you can have some more. He went looking for trouble and found it.

case closed. Perhaps you would like to offer him a job at your business?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Obamanaut]

30. A union issue, written on a union web site - no bias there. nt

[LeftyMom]

23. Seriously.

I'm sure there's some excuse why workers can't assert their opinions when times are good, too. Probably the plentiful supply of other jobs they could go apply for if they don't like the one they have.

[billyoc]

28. No, that's the regular DU.

:hi:

[QC]

37. It's the New & Improved DU with More Centrism! n/t

[Hoopla Phil]

9. Answer: Because he's a DUMB-ASS

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DainBramaged]

34. I assume you aren't a Union supporter?

:eyes:

[Hoopla Phil]

35. You assume wrong

[DainBramaged]

36. Well, your penchant for simpleminded answers leads us to believe otherwise.

[Hoopla Phil]

38. Glad I could set you straight on that.

[No.23]

7. I love the Wobblies.

Always have.

Always will.

[leftofthedial]

12. Howard and Me...

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

14. So, I imagine that the union is representing Tessone over his wrongful discharge, right?

They better be, or else what's the point of having a union?

[Selatius]

22. They say that he is "laid off" because they cannot fire union workers for no reason.

All employees who are without a union contract are considered "at will" employed. Basically, that means the employer can let you go for any reason, or no reason, but the trend has been to limit that power. For instance, you cannot be fired on account of things such as race, skin color, gender, national origin, or religion, and you cannot be fired for getting pregnant or for getting injured on the job as a result of the employer's own negligence, and there are other restrictions in place as well. That's all illegal, but employers still have broad powers to dismiss employees for anything outside of those restrictions. However, union workers in a unionized workshop are considered contractors, not "at will" employees.

The only way you can get let go if you are unionized, basically, is if you break the agreed-to rules, or if there is a valid reason to lay-off workers. If it turns out Starbucks' charges that he was outside of compliance with "Optimal Scheduling" policies was bogus, he can bring a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board. If they find a valid claim, they can make Starbucks give him his job back, through court litigation if necessary if Starbucks drags its feet. Courts, in general, frown on breaking contracts.

[wroberts189]

33. wow ..thx ...excellent info .. nt

[ColbertWatcher]

29. Howard, the coward, heed this warning: the internets always wins. k+r, n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

31. LOL Welcome To Reality Bub.

In what world would you expect to get away with such behavior towards the CEO and not be fired? What a dumbass.