Starbucks Chief, Howard Schultz, Talks of Nonunion Staff Benefits

The spokesman, paraphrasing Mr. Schultz, said the chief executive responded that when introducing a benefit, “we are not permitted by law to unilaterally give that benefit to the stores that voted for union while they are in collective bargaining.”

The spokesman said the topic of benefits arose from employees’ input at recent sessions with Mr. Schultz, and that the Starbucks chief had not provided examples of benefits he was considering or when they might be offered.

The comments were reported earlier by The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.

Experts on labor law said that companies were allowed to discuss the difference in benefits that union and nonunion employees received, but that they could not make an implied promise that employees would receive better benefits if they chose not to unionize.

Matthew Bodie, a former lawyer for the labor board who teaches law at St. Louis University, said the comments could be interpreted as undermining the so-called laboratory conditions required for coming union elections if they had been public, but not necessarily if they were expected to remain confidential. Mr. Bodie said the comments could still amount to evidence of an intent to bargain in bad faith by seeking to give union employees a worse deal than nonunion employees, which is also considered an unfair labor practice.

Wilma Liebman, a former chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board, said the timing of the potential benefits were questionable, since it was unclear whether they would have been added if not for the union campaign.

Article source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/13/business/starbucks-union-benefits-schultz.html