SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
People raise signs during the "Fight Starbucks' Union Busting" rally and march in Seattle, Washington on April 23, 2022. (Photo: Jason Redmond/AFP via Getty Images)
'Disgusting': Starbucks Threatens Trans Health Benefits as Union Celebrates 150 Wins
"If you're willing to play around with trans-inclusive care as it relates to unionization, not only do you not respect your employees, you don't truly don't recognize the humanity of your trans employees," said former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner.
Jun 15, 2022
Starbucks management has reportedly threatened employees with the loss of trans-inclusive health benefits if they vote to unionize their shops, drawing a formal complaint from workers as the union officially reached 150 election victories across the United States on Tuesday.
Just last month, Starbucks--which has offered trans-inclusive benefits since 2012--announced it would cover travel expenses for employees who obtain gender-affirming care out of state, a decision that came as a growing number of Republican-controlled state legislatures moved to pass anti-trans legislation.
"We feel powerless on a state level. Unionizing our store at least gives us something small to grab onto, that we can make our store a safe place."
But it now appears that Starbucks is trying to wield those health benefits as a weapon against union organizing, which has reached hundreds of the company's locations across the United States.
"Starbucks is telling its baristas that unionizing could jeopardize the gender-affirming healthcare coverage for transgender employees that the company offers, according to a complaint filed with the federal labor board," CNBC reported Tuesday.
Bloomberg, which first reported the complaint filed by Workers United, noted that "Starbucks Corp. managers in several states have told baristas that its vaunted transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits could go away if they unionize." The Workers United complaint alleges that Starbucks has engaged in unlawful coercion by "threatening employees with loss of benefits."
Neha Cremi, a Starbucks employee in Oklahoma--a state that has enacted a series of anti-trans measures in recent months--said that Starbucks "realizes that we as trans partners feel particularly vulnerable at this time" and is attempting to exploit that vulnerability.
"I think that in some cases they are willing to take advantage of that," said Cremi. "We feel powerless on a state level. Unionizing our store at least gives us something small to grab onto, that we can make our store a safe place."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, called Starbucks' latest union-busting tactic "disgusting."
Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner wrote on Twitter that she has heard from several baristas in Cleveland about Starbucks' threats against trans health benefits.
"If you're willing to play around with trans-inclusive care as it relates to unionization," Turner wrote, "not only do you not respect your employees, you don't truly don't recognize the humanity of your trans employees."
Starbucks has ramped up its aggressive anti-union push in recent weeks as workers in state after state have moved to exercise their collective bargaining rights, persisting in the face of management's ongoing campaign to slash benefits, cut hours, and shut down entire locations.
Last week, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz signaled that he has no intention of cooperating with unionized shops despite legal requirements to bargain in good faith. The National Labor Relations Board has accused Starbucks of violating federal law hundreds of times over the past six months, but the company does not seem deterred.
"We are in business to exceed the expectations of our customers," Schultz said during a New York Times event on Thursday. "The customer experience will be significantly challenged and less than if a third party is integrated into our business."
On Tuesday, Starbucks Workers United announced that the union has officially scored 150 election victories nationwide as organizing momentum continues to grow in the wake of historic wins in Buffalo in December.
"For context," the group noted, "there were ZERO unionized Starbucks stores six months ago."
Starbucks Workers United at Massapequa, New York recalled that when it first filed for a union election in February, just 60 other locations had done the same. That number is now in the hundreds--and the union has won an overwhelming majority of elections held thus far.
"Absolutely incredible," the Massapequa branch said. "So proud of everyone who has been part of this."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Starbucks management has reportedly threatened employees with the loss of trans-inclusive health benefits if they vote to unionize their shops, drawing a formal complaint from workers as the union officially reached 150 election victories across the United States on Tuesday.
Just last month, Starbucks--which has offered trans-inclusive benefits since 2012--announced it would cover travel expenses for employees who obtain gender-affirming care out of state, a decision that came as a growing number of Republican-controlled state legislatures moved to pass anti-trans legislation.
"We feel powerless on a state level. Unionizing our store at least gives us something small to grab onto, that we can make our store a safe place."
But it now appears that Starbucks is trying to wield those health benefits as a weapon against union organizing, which has reached hundreds of the company's locations across the United States.
"Starbucks is telling its baristas that unionizing could jeopardize the gender-affirming healthcare coverage for transgender employees that the company offers, according to a complaint filed with the federal labor board," CNBC reported Tuesday.
Bloomberg, which first reported the complaint filed by Workers United, noted that "Starbucks Corp. managers in several states have told baristas that its vaunted transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits could go away if they unionize." The Workers United complaint alleges that Starbucks has engaged in unlawful coercion by "threatening employees with loss of benefits."
Neha Cremi, a Starbucks employee in Oklahoma--a state that has enacted a series of anti-trans measures in recent months--said that Starbucks "realizes that we as trans partners feel particularly vulnerable at this time" and is attempting to exploit that vulnerability.
"I think that in some cases they are willing to take advantage of that," said Cremi. "We feel powerless on a state level. Unionizing our store at least gives us something small to grab onto, that we can make our store a safe place."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, called Starbucks' latest union-busting tactic "disgusting."
Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner wrote on Twitter that she has heard from several baristas in Cleveland about Starbucks' threats against trans health benefits.
"If you're willing to play around with trans-inclusive care as it relates to unionization," Turner wrote, "not only do you not respect your employees, you don't truly don't recognize the humanity of your trans employees."
Starbucks has ramped up its aggressive anti-union push in recent weeks as workers in state after state have moved to exercise their collective bargaining rights, persisting in the face of management's ongoing campaign to slash benefits, cut hours, and shut down entire locations.
Last week, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz signaled that he has no intention of cooperating with unionized shops despite legal requirements to bargain in good faith. The National Labor Relations Board has accused Starbucks of violating federal law hundreds of times over the past six months, but the company does not seem deterred.
"We are in business to exceed the expectations of our customers," Schultz said during a New York Times event on Thursday. "The customer experience will be significantly challenged and less than if a third party is integrated into our business."
On Tuesday, Starbucks Workers United announced that the union has officially scored 150 election victories nationwide as organizing momentum continues to grow in the wake of historic wins in Buffalo in December.
"For context," the group noted, "there were ZERO unionized Starbucks stores six months ago."
Starbucks Workers United at Massapequa, New York recalled that when it first filed for a union election in February, just 60 other locations had done the same. That number is now in the hundreds--and the union has won an overwhelming majority of elections held thus far.
"Absolutely incredible," the Massapequa branch said. "So proud of everyone who has been part of this."
Starbucks management has reportedly threatened employees with the loss of trans-inclusive health benefits if they vote to unionize their shops, drawing a formal complaint from workers as the union officially reached 150 election victories across the United States on Tuesday.
Just last month, Starbucks--which has offered trans-inclusive benefits since 2012--announced it would cover travel expenses for employees who obtain gender-affirming care out of state, a decision that came as a growing number of Republican-controlled state legislatures moved to pass anti-trans legislation.
"We feel powerless on a state level. Unionizing our store at least gives us something small to grab onto, that we can make our store a safe place."
But it now appears that Starbucks is trying to wield those health benefits as a weapon against union organizing, which has reached hundreds of the company's locations across the United States.
"Starbucks is telling its baristas that unionizing could jeopardize the gender-affirming healthcare coverage for transgender employees that the company offers, according to a complaint filed with the federal labor board," CNBC reported Tuesday.
Bloomberg, which first reported the complaint filed by Workers United, noted that "Starbucks Corp. managers in several states have told baristas that its vaunted transgender-inclusive healthcare benefits could go away if they unionize." The Workers United complaint alleges that Starbucks has engaged in unlawful coercion by "threatening employees with loss of benefits."
Neha Cremi, a Starbucks employee in Oklahoma--a state that has enacted a series of anti-trans measures in recent months--said that Starbucks "realizes that we as trans partners feel particularly vulnerable at this time" and is attempting to exploit that vulnerability.
"I think that in some cases they are willing to take advantage of that," said Cremi. "We feel powerless on a state level. Unionizing our store at least gives us something small to grab onto, that we can make our store a safe place."
Sara Nelson, president of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, called Starbucks' latest union-busting tactic "disgusting."
Former Ohio state Sen. Nina Turner wrote on Twitter that she has heard from several baristas in Cleveland about Starbucks' threats against trans health benefits.
"If you're willing to play around with trans-inclusive care as it relates to unionization," Turner wrote, "not only do you not respect your employees, you don't truly don't recognize the humanity of your trans employees."
Starbucks has ramped up its aggressive anti-union push in recent weeks as workers in state after state have moved to exercise their collective bargaining rights, persisting in the face of management's ongoing campaign to slash benefits, cut hours, and shut down entire locations.
Last week, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz signaled that he has no intention of cooperating with unionized shops despite legal requirements to bargain in good faith. The National Labor Relations Board has accused Starbucks of violating federal law hundreds of times over the past six months, but the company does not seem deterred.
"We are in business to exceed the expectations of our customers," Schultz said during a New York Times event on Thursday. "The customer experience will be significantly challenged and less than if a third party is integrated into our business."
On Tuesday, Starbucks Workers United announced that the union has officially scored 150 election victories nationwide as organizing momentum continues to grow in the wake of historic wins in Buffalo in December.
"For context," the group noted, "there were ZERO unionized Starbucks stores six months ago."
Starbucks Workers United at Massapequa, New York recalled that when it first filed for a union election in February, just 60 other locations had done the same. That number is now in the hundreds--and the union has won an overwhelming majority of elections held thus far.
"Absolutely incredible," the Massapequa branch said. "So proud of everyone who has been part of this."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.