Why Starbucks Is Being Accused Of Holding Back On Union Benefits

Starbucks Workers United has told CEO Howard Schultz that if he were to extend the pay raise and expansion of benefits offered to non-union workers to union ones, they would agree to it. This is the latest turn in a story that began in April, when CNBC announced that Starbucks was considering giving better pay and benefits to stores that have not voted to unionize. Schulz explained that American labor laws prevent Starbucks from unilaterally granting benefits to unionized locations.

It should be noted, however, that this is not strictly speaking true. The Wall Street Journal learned from Cathy Creighton, director of the Cornell University ILR Buffalo Co-Lab and a former attorney of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), that Schultz is correct in that he cannot enact a unilateral change. However, he is allowed to offer them additional benefits. Creighton went on to describe Schultz's offer to raise wages and expand benefits as a "a union avoidance technique." In other words, the idea is that by giving better pay to non-union workers, those workers might not think that a union is necessary to improve their working conditions. Of course, critics would raise the point that only the threat of a union brought about such considerations.