What makes you assume that this effort wasn't sanctioned by the company.?The "newswire press release" you reference was the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of pro-labor sentiments, of course. It will be up to the NLRB to decide if Starbuck was indeed guilty of labor law violations. My point is that it is hypocritical for companies--and I'm not just talking about Starbucks--to pontificate about their corporate responsibility efforts and then to exhibit a totally different attitude toward the rights of their employees. -- Dennis
What an incredibly well thought out piece of literature. Impartial, specific, fact based reporting. I expect you to go far in the world of journalism. Also, great use of language. I particularly like the way that you used the word 'axe'. Thank you again.
A an eleven year Starbucks partner, I can tell you that your position is so Union biased, and so incorrect that it is irresponsible reporting! The company has great values and treat partner very very well. Look at the benefits offered, even to part-timers. (DO YOUR RESEARCH!) A few individuals might make poor decisions in any organization (ref. ENRON?), however that does not speak to the VALUE SYSTEM of the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION! You should be ashamed that you regurgitated some newswire press release with your opinion sprinkled in, instead of doing REAL REPORTING!
What makes you assume that this effort wasn't sanctioned by the company.?The "newswire press release" you reference was the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of pro-labor sentiments, of course. It will be up to the NLRB to decide if Starbuck was indeed guilty of labor law violations. My point is that it is hypocritical for companies--and I'm not just talking about Starbucks--to pontificate about their corporate responsibility efforts and then to exhibit a totally different attitude toward the rights of their employees. -- Dennis
Thanks for the prompt respone. To negate my assertation, by asking, "What makes you assume that this effort wasn't sanctioned by the company?" does nothing more than ask a question. To this I reply, this is your article. Prove the statement you made with a fact or hard reference, or I can just as easily reply - What makes you assume that the effort was sanctioned by the company?
Here are excerpts from the Wall St. Journal article: "According to several emails, in early 2006, Starbucks managers discovered that two pro-union employees in New York were graduates of a Cornell University labor program. According to an email, managers took the names of graduates from an online Cornell discussion group and the school's Web site and cross-checked them with employee lists nationwide. They found that three employees in California, Michigan and Illinois were graduates of the program and recommended that local managers be informed."
The WSJ article continues: "The company emails show that managers have been fighting the union since 2004. "Below is a summary of the recent developments in New York City regarding our attempts to thwart a potential union situation," begins an email dated Oct. 29, 2004 by a Starbucks New York regional official. "In subsequent emails, managers identify whether an employee is an "IWW [Industrial Workers of the World, the union attempting to organize Starbucks workers] supporter" and discuss when pro-union employees will be reviewed and those that are "at risk" of being terminated."
The WSJ article sites the action of entry level managers, it says nothing of the actions of Executives. Again, there may be some managers that made bad decisons, but the corporate culture is neither defined by, nor denegrated by the actions of a few low level employees. Read your "Green Apron Book."
Comments
The soure
What makes you assume that this effort wasn't sanctioned by the company.?The "newswire press release" you reference was the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of pro-labor sentiments, of course. It will be up to the NLRB to decide if Starbuck was indeed guilty of labor law violations. My point is that it is hypocritical for companies--and I'm not just talking about Starbucks--to pontificate about their corporate responsibility efforts and then to exhibit a totally different attitude toward the rights of their employees. -- Dennis
Starbucks
What an incredibly well thought out piece of literature. Impartial, specific, fact based reporting. I expect you to go far in the world of journalism. Also, great use of language. I particularly like the way that you used the word 'axe'. Thank you again.
Irresponsible Reporting!
A an eleven year Starbucks partner, I can tell you that your position is so Union biased, and so incorrect that it is irresponsible reporting! The company has great values and treat partner very very well. Look at the benefits offered, even to part-timers. (DO YOUR RESEARCH!) A few individuals might make poor decisions in any organization (ref. ENRON?), however that does not speak to the VALUE SYSTEM of the ENTIRE ORGANIZATION! You should be ashamed that you regurgitated some newswire press release with your opinion sprinkled in, instead of doing REAL REPORTING!
Au Contraire
What makes you assume that this effort wasn't sanctioned by the company.?The "newswire press release" you reference was the Wall Street Journal, a bastion of pro-labor sentiments, of course. It will be up to the NLRB to decide if Starbuck was indeed guilty of labor law violations. My point is that it is hypocritical for companies--and I'm not just talking about Starbucks--to pontificate about their corporate responsibility efforts and then to exhibit a totally different attitude toward the rights of their employees. -- Dennis
To Ass-u-me...
Thanks for the prompt respone. To negate my assertation, by asking, "What makes you assume that this effort wasn't sanctioned by the company?" does nothing more than ask a question. To this I reply, this is your article. Prove the statement you made with a fact or hard reference, or I can just as easily reply - What makes you assume that the effort was sanctioned by the company?
Here are excerpts from the
Here are excerpts from the Wall St. Journal article: "According to several emails, in early 2006, Starbucks managers discovered that two pro-union employees in New York were graduates of a Cornell University labor program. According to an email, managers took the names of graduates from an online Cornell discussion group and the school's Web site and cross-checked them with employee lists nationwide. They found that three employees in California, Michigan and Illinois were graduates of the program and recommended that local managers be informed."
The WSJ article continues: "The company emails show that managers have been fighting the union since 2004. "Below is a summary of the recent developments in New York City regarding our attempts to thwart a potential union situation," begins an email dated Oct. 29, 2004 by a Starbucks New York regional official. "In subsequent emails, managers identify whether an employee is an "IWW [Industrial Workers of the World, the union attempting to organize Starbucks workers] supporter" and discuss when pro-union employees will be reviewed and those that are "at risk" of being terminated."
The article speaks for itself. -- Dennis
The Source
The WSJ article sites the action of entry level managers, it says nothing of the actions of Executives. Again, there may be some managers that made bad decisons, but the corporate culture is neither defined by, nor denegrated by the actions of a few low level employees. Read your "Green Apron Book."