Filter By Service Area
Filter By Title
Filter By Office

Resources

Not Just Chit-Chat: When Employers' Words Backfire as Opposition to Unions

Starbucks has once again found itself in the hot seat with the National Labor Relations Board, this time for remarks by its then interim CEO Howard Schultz. The Board found that those remarks violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

While addressing employee concerns related to unionization during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022, Schultz made demeaning comments that included calling an employee “angry” and dismissing an employee’s concern by suggesting she had not worked there long enough to be dissatisfied. He also stated, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.”

The Board viewed this comment as an implicit threat, implying that union supporters should quit and emphasizing that union activity conflicted with employment at Starbucks.

What's the moral of this story? Remember that it is unlawful for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to unionize. As such, choose your words carefully. When addressing employee concerns, especially regarding unionization, even subtle remarks can be perceived as coercive. For employers, responding without intimidation is crucial for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Aside from possibly violating the law, ill-conceived responses may also result in harm to employee relations instead of motivating loyalty from employees.

Also, a public forum may not always be the best strategy for opposing unionization. When in doubt, and before hosting a company-sponsored meeting, consult with legal counsel for lawful methods of opposition. 

Not Just Chit-Chat: When Employers' Words Backfire as Opposition to Unions

Starbucks has once again found itself in the hot seat with the National Labor Relations Board, this time for remarks by its then interim CEO Howard Schultz. The Board found that those remarks violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

While addressing employee concerns related to unionization during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022, Schultz made demeaning comments that included calling an employee “angry” and dismissing an employee’s concern by suggesting she had not worked there long enough to be dissatisfied. He also stated, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.”

The Board viewed this comment as an implicit threat, implying that union supporters should quit and emphasizing that union activity conflicted with employment at Starbucks.

What's the moral of this story? Remember that it is unlawful for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to unionize. As such, choose your words carefully. When addressing employee concerns, especially regarding unionization, even subtle remarks can be perceived as coercive. For employers, responding without intimidation is crucial for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Aside from possibly violating the law, ill-conceived responses may also result in harm to employee relations instead of motivating loyalty from employees.

Also, a public forum may not always be the best strategy for opposing unionization. When in doubt, and before hosting a company-sponsored meeting, consult with legal counsel for lawful methods of opposition. 

Not Just Chit-Chat: When Employers' Words Backfire as Opposition to Unions

Starbucks has once again found itself in the hot seat with the National Labor Relations Board, this time for remarks by its then interim CEO Howard Schultz. The Board found that those remarks violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

While addressing employee concerns related to unionization during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022, Schultz made demeaning comments that included calling an employee “angry” and dismissing an employee’s concern by suggesting she had not worked there long enough to be dissatisfied. He also stated, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.”

The Board viewed this comment as an implicit threat, implying that union supporters should quit and emphasizing that union activity conflicted with employment at Starbucks.

What's the moral of this story? Remember that it is unlawful for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to unionize. As such, choose your words carefully. When addressing employee concerns, especially regarding unionization, even subtle remarks can be perceived as coercive. For employers, responding without intimidation is crucial for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Aside from possibly violating the law, ill-conceived responses may also result in harm to employee relations instead of motivating loyalty from employees.

Also, a public forum may not always be the best strategy for opposing unionization. When in doubt, and before hosting a company-sponsored meeting, consult with legal counsel for lawful methods of opposition. 

Not Just Chit-Chat: When Employers' Words Backfire as Opposition to Unions

Starbucks has once again found itself in the hot seat with the National Labor Relations Board, this time for remarks by its then interim CEO Howard Schultz. The Board found that those remarks violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

While addressing employee concerns related to unionization during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022, Schultz made demeaning comments that included calling an employee “angry” and dismissing an employee’s concern by suggesting she had not worked there long enough to be dissatisfied. He also stated, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.”

The Board viewed this comment as an implicit threat, implying that union supporters should quit and emphasizing that union activity conflicted with employment at Starbucks.

What's the moral of this story? Remember that it is unlawful for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to unionize. As such, choose your words carefully. When addressing employee concerns, especially regarding unionization, even subtle remarks can be perceived as coercive. For employers, responding without intimidation is crucial for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Aside from possibly violating the law, ill-conceived responses may also result in harm to employee relations instead of motivating loyalty from employees.

Also, a public forum may not always be the best strategy for opposing unionization. When in doubt, and before hosting a company-sponsored meeting, consult with legal counsel for lawful methods of opposition. 

Not Just Chit-Chat: When Employers' Words Backfire as Opposition to Unions

Starbucks has once again found itself in the hot seat with the National Labor Relations Board, this time for remarks by its then interim CEO Howard Schultz. The Board found that those remarks violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

While addressing employee concerns related to unionization during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022, Schultz made demeaning comments that included calling an employee “angry” and dismissing an employee’s concern by suggesting she had not worked there long enough to be dissatisfied. He also stated, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.”

The Board viewed this comment as an implicit threat, implying that union supporters should quit and emphasizing that union activity conflicted with employment at Starbucks.

What's the moral of this story? Remember that it is unlawful for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to unionize. As such, choose your words carefully. When addressing employee concerns, especially regarding unionization, even subtle remarks can be perceived as coercive. For employers, responding without intimidation is crucial for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Aside from possibly violating the law, ill-conceived responses may also result in harm to employee relations instead of motivating loyalty from employees.

Also, a public forum may not always be the best strategy for opposing unionization. When in doubt, and before hosting a company-sponsored meeting, consult with legal counsel for lawful methods of opposition. 

Not Just Chit-Chat: When Employers' Words Backfire as Opposition to Unions

Starbucks has once again found itself in the hot seat with the National Labor Relations Board, this time for remarks by its then interim CEO Howard Schultz. The Board found that those remarks violated employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

While addressing employee concerns related to unionization during a companywide virtual meeting in 2022, Schultz made demeaning comments that included calling an employee “angry” and dismissing an employee’s concern by suggesting she had not worked there long enough to be dissatisfied. He also stated, “[I]f you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can work for another company.”

The Board viewed this comment as an implicit threat, implying that union supporters should quit and emphasizing that union activity conflicted with employment at Starbucks.

What's the moral of this story? Remember that it is unlawful for employers to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to unionize. As such, choose your words carefully. When addressing employee concerns, especially regarding unionization, even subtle remarks can be perceived as coercive. For employers, responding without intimidation is crucial for complying with the National Labor Relations Act. Aside from possibly violating the law, ill-conceived responses may also result in harm to employee relations instead of motivating loyalty from employees.

Also, a public forum may not always be the best strategy for opposing unionization. When in doubt, and before hosting a company-sponsored meeting, consult with legal counsel for lawful methods of opposition.