Today Starbucks went on trial in Manhattan, and I had the privilege of attending several hours of the proceedings today. On the way downtown, I noticed that a young woman on the subway seemed to be using a brown paper Starbucks bag as a purse. And it did make a pretty nice handbag! Starbucks's professions of concern for "corporate responsibility" are much like that: attractive packaging. In the trial that began today, the nation's leading purveyor of coffee-flavored milk drinks stands accused by the National Labor Relations Board of thirty violations of employee rights, especially firing workers for union organizing. Starbucks had seven lawyers present. The two fired workers in question-- Daniel Gross and Joe Agins, Jr., both IWW members -- were present. Gross wore a suit and looked sharp, as any activist appearing before a judge probably should. (Agins went for a less formal look -- a sleeveless muscle t-shirt.) Today both sides waded through the details of discovery; that is to say, the NLRB lawyers asked for documents from Starbucks, and the company's legal team whined about how "burdensome" it would be to get so many documents, because, since the turnover rate is so high, many of the relevant personnel files are now in storage. It is very difficult to get the files out once they go in, Stacy Eisenstein, one of Starbucks lead outside counsel, argued with a straight face. More incredibly, before the hearing had officially begun, she disputed the NLRB's contention that there was a union campaign going on when Gross and Agin were fired. If that is a major cornerstone of Starbucks's defense, the company could be in trouble, because the judge -- who seemed very fair-minded and interested in reaching reasonable compromises -- did not buy it, and allowed discovery based on the assumption that the date of the union campaign was relevant. (Also, there is ample public record of the campaign, including media coverage.) It will be interesting to see what happens. I can't be there for much of the rest of the trial, unfortunately, so I really hope other journalists and bloggers will go check it out. They are taking tomorrow off, and back in session Wednesday.

Comments (21)

1. ". On the way downtown, I noticed that a young woman on the subway seemed to be using a brown paper Starbucks bag as a purse. And it did make a pretty nice handbag! "

   And this relates to Starbucks...how?

   Ah, I am sure America is anxiously awaitng your next report how we can all be happy to pay $ 10 a cup of coffee....

   Its coffee, Liza...COFFEE!!!!!!

   AnotherZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzfrom Lizzzzzzzzzzzzza

   Posted by john maasch at 07/09/2007 @ 8:47pm

2. So, unions have driven the american auto industry to the edge of bankruptcy (to be fair, with a lot of help from the automakers)

   But, a barista union? Give me a break...........As if starbucks coffee weren't overpriced enough.....Looks like the same old story, no big business in America can be successful without attracting union organizers...

   Used to be that unions wanted to organize skilled workers, now, they go after the big $$, just like trial lawyers........

   Unions have come a long way in America, unfortunately, down a long way, that is........

   Posted by davebarlett at 07/09/2007 @ 9:51pm

3. hey dave, you hamsters are still poised to win big in 2009 right?

   I'm just trying to make sure nothing changed while I was at work today

   Posted by Will C. at 07/09/2007 @ 10:44pm

4. Not to diverge from this vitally important barista-slave issue, but....

   has anybody ponied up any cash for Ms vanden Heuvel so that "The Nation" doesn't go under from "HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN NEW POSTAGE FEES!!!!", yet?

   Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 09:08am

5. The same morons that think off shoring jobs to countries where labor, environmental, and quality regulations are virtually non-existent also want to criticize efforts to unionize in the service industry? Why did unions develop? Why did men and women (and probably children at one time) fight to organize? The same reasons exist today; and until greed, the arbitrary exercise of power, abuse and all the other facets of human nature are eradicated, then unions will be necessary.

   As for the idiotic ravings of the "libertarians": In a world ran by corporations, government power is the only counter balance. Unfortunately, our government, over the course of the past forty years, has been gradually, steadily moved to the right and into the pockets of corporate America. Labor--the vast majority of Americans--no longer has a seat at the table. This is 2007, not 1807. Pull your head out of your ass.

   Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 09:47am

6. I believe unions are a means, in fact THE best means in the workplace, to "peaceably assemble" (organize) and to collectively "petition for redress of grievances." It's no panacea for correcting injustice as I learned in the field of education when the forces of mediocrity and prejudice effectively excised my ass out even with a union rep "assisting" in my penultimate year of trying to "catch students being good" in an institution, schoolhouses of "dark sarcasms," which inquisitorily planes down to the lowest common denominator of compliant/coerced behaviors and boring, "conventionally wise" platitudes of "should and oughts" which are merely simplistic stop-gap solutions allowing for the next heny recess.

   Thanks. I obviously needed to rant there. But never fear friends, I'm choosing "better" over "bitter."

   Posted by lewwelge at 07/10/2007 @ 09:50am

7. "has anybody ponied up any cash for Ms vanden Heuvel so that "The Nation" doesn't go under from "HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN NEW POSTAGE FEES!!!!", yet?

   Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 09:08am

   Maybe the union workers will give back some cash at the Nation so little Miss KVH doesn't have to crack open the trust fund...

   IT'S COST OF DOING BUSINESS KATRINA!!! ALL BUSINESS HAVE TO PUT UP WITH IT...SHOULD WALMART CUSTOMERS PONY UP DONATIONS SO WALMART WORKERS COULD GET PAID MORE? OR DOES IT GET PASSED ALONG AS COST TO THE END CONSUMER?

   Maybe Corn will take a pay cut.

   The same progressive programs you want to install on the rst of us victims in the population feel that same ay about paying for that shit as you do for having to pay another raise in Postal Rates...Post Office...the same model for unikversal health care....

   Can you FINALLY see why we don't want the govt near us or our wallets?...no matter how good the "idea or program is"....

   Raise the cost of your rag..after all, wasn't it Clinton who said.."Raise the price of a Big Mac 25 cents..no big deal..."

   Or is it?

   Posted by john maasch at 07/10/2007 @ 10:02am

8. Labor--the vast majority of Americans--no longer has a seat at the table. This is 2007, not 1807. Pull your head out of your ass.

   Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 09:47am

   You are right..unions don't have a seat at the table...they no longer need to be there and are corrupt..thats why they can't exist in the real world..only in govt..(a good place for you, tho)..

   Pull YOUR head out of your ass....you are riding on a dead horse and wonder why no one is betting on you ...you have already lost at the starting gate..easier betting against you..that blurring in your eyes is the world passing you by..

   Extra cream in my latte please, and hurry up..

   Posted by john maasch at 07/10/2007 @ 10:07am

9. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/10/2007 @ 10:02am

   Well, I'm sure Ms vanden Heuvel would counter with charges of "unfairness to smaller publications", but I wonder if Time-Warner and the big Media guys were folded into this postage hike, if she would STILL object to it.

   If so, she would be guilty of hypocrisy, as it would be the equivalent of a "tax hike" and as she has no doubt said so many times in the past, "tax hikes don't hurt business".

   As far as the "Nation telethon" (or in this case, pop-up, when you try to go the "Nation" site), seems a bit odd that she wants contributions and doesn't merely raise the subscription rates. If someone supports "The Nation" with a subscription they would naturally absorb a subscription increase. If they don't, they're surely not going to "donate" to TN.

   So...why the plea for contributions...except as a PR stunt to make it seem as if TN is PBS and if they don't get your contribution, "we may go off the air and not bring you fine programming like 'Are You Being Served?'". And to make it seem as if it's some GRANDIOSE campaign to "save 'The Nation'"...that a subscription hike wouldn't engender.

   Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 10:08am

10. If The Nation has a value to its readers, they will pony up in the form of cost increases..it will have demand, like Limbaugh listeners..if not, the Nation will go the way of AIR AMERICA...

    and all the "Fairness Docrine" kvetching from the Franks of the cabal will not save it.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/10/2007 @ 10:10am

11. Posted by MASK 07/10/2007 @ 10:08am

    Katrina has fallen to the same pap she spreads on her rag and rants...and has run into the hypocrisy and "gafaws" from the real world regarding OUR money and the evil corporations(The Nation, I am sure is a corporation)...in other words...

    This issue makes my point about lefty loons, finance, and their economic models....everyone but "us", since we mean well and know better..we should be funded, for the better good, of course, that the Nation brings to society.

    Pathetic.

    Posted by john maasch at 07/10/2007 @ 10:15am

12. Posted by JOHN MAASCH 07/10/2007 @ 10:15am

    Well, JOHN, the mag has been around since the end of the Civil War days, so not expecting it to fold anytime soon. As you said, Ms vH can tap her own finances if absolutely necessary.

    But it is curious...that she feels the need to plea for donations, and not simply issue the "regretably we are being forced to raise our rates due to this unfair action by the USPS" statement?!?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 10:48am

13. Extra cream in my latte please, and hurry up..

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    Are you trying to come on to me again, you old fool.

    Unions are corrupt? How about ownership, management? You never address the issue of why unions developed. The reasons they were necessary are still with us and always will be. I don't advocate abolishing private property; I merely point out that without some balance in the market place our democratic traditions cannot survive. Too bad you and the other kooks and loons are too dim to recognize that without a strong, prosperous working class a free, democratic government is not possible.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 11:57am

14. Back on-topic....

    does anybody seriously think that when the History of American Labor Movement is written that...

    along side the "Haymarket Riot" and the "Battle of Blair Mountain" ....will be the Great Yuppie Coffee Trial of 2007?!?!?!

    Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 12:02pm

15. If The Nation has a value to its readers, they will pony up in the form of cost increases..it will have demand, like Limbaugh listeners..if not, the Nation will go the way of AIR AMERICA...

    and all the "Fairness Docrine" kvetching from the Franks of the cabal will not save it.

    Posted by JOHN MAASCH

    It's funny, much of what is regarded as some of the greatest Western art was not marketable when it was made. I know that some of the finest films made were not big hits at the box office (the industry is so profit driven today that nothing but garbage makes it to the big screen). Merchants, peddlars have a place in our society, but it's not at the head of the table; they belong out back with the rest of the hired help.

    That, however, is not even the issue. The big money gets to write the laws, and, of course, they write the laws to favor them. It's called human nature; that's why a counter balance to purely market forces is an absolute need.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 12:05pm

16. Shut up, box of rocks. Your disdain for labor is well known. Stop attempting to appear objective; you're not.

    Posted by mtspence05 at 07/10/2007 @ 12:08pm

17. Any bets Starbucks will settle, that is compromise? Last year Starbucks was receiving bad press in its trademark battle against poor Ethiopian coffee growers. What wasn't stated was Ethiopia was functioning as a US marcher lord in the Horn against Al Qada (i.e., whomever Uncle Sam called AQ)in Somalia and former Congressman Richard Armey was Ethiopia's paid lobbyist. Starbucks buckled. Howard Schultz is a conflicted man, between fighting against the corporate image but feeling less than Davidic against the Goliath of Bush and company's New World Order.

    Posted by Sander Fred at 07/10/2007 @ 1:11pm

18. Shut up, box of rocks. Your disdain for labor is well known. Stop attempting to appear objective; you're not.

    Posted by MTSPENCE05 07/10/2007 @ 12:08pm

    Another Socratic rejoinder....heheh.

    Posted by Mask at 07/10/2007 @ 2:12pm

19. Ah, the anti-union scum are at it again!

    Dave: Unions have been organizing "unskilled" workers for more than 100 years, now, from the Wobblies organizing seamstresses and mill workers to the great industrial organizing campaigns of the 30's to restaurant, hotel and retail workers before and after World War II. The CIO was formed to organize on an industry-wide basis in opposition to the AFL's concentration on skilled tradesmen. It's because of industrial organizing that unions topped out at over 1/3 of the workforce in the 50's.

    Rio: And what from Ms. Featherstone's article indicated that these two guys were "not competent" to work at Starbucks, or did I miss the paragraph were she detailed the bosses' case for firing them for cause?

    John: Where to begin? The obituary for the labor movement has been written before, including in the late 19th century and the 1920's, the last time it looked like the capitalist party would never end. And if it such a dead horse, than why does the ruling class spend billions of dollars a year on anti-union consultants, lawyers and security firms? Why are thousands of people every year fired for trying to organize a union? Why does the right make sure they appoint rabidly anti-union types to the NLRB, OSHA, etc.? The fact is, the union movement in the U.S. is in horrible shape right now because (a) the leadership acts as an adjunct to the Democratic Party and will not do anything to embarass their elected "friends of labor", even after repeated betrayals (NAFTA, etc.) and (2) Ronald Reagan, rotting in hell as I write, opened the door to the most sustained attack on organized labor and the working class in decades with his use of the "permanent replacement" loophole to fire the PATCO strikers in 1981.

    As for The Nation, it is a non-profit corporation, I believe. It is also the most successful "journal of opinion" in the United States, with a readership that dwarfs the National Review, the Weekly Standard, etc., etc. The Nation Associates is a group of subscribers who also donate to the magazine on a regular basis. I'm not one, but as a subscriber, I have been invited to join a number of times. I'm sure that other journals of opinion, including some of the conservative ones that joined The Nation in campaigning against this target rate hike, will be hitting up their readers and regular donors for help, too (or in the case of the Standard, its moneybags owner, Mr. Class himself, Rupert Murdoch).

    Frei: "Why don't you pick on the abuses of US government workers by the federal government instead." Well, when some members of Congress tried to undo Bush's stripping 100,000+ federal workers of their union rights when they implemented Joe Lieberman's idiotic idea to amalgamate dozens of agencies into the Dept. of Homeland Security, the right claimed those Dems were soft on terror!

    "Or even worse, abuses of US citizens by the govermnment?" Excellent idea, but how did you miss the fact that the left, broadly speaking, has been leading the fight to defend civil liberties from the federal government? Heaven forbid anyone should try to make their job, where they spend maybe a third of their life, into a better working experience, though, or that anyone should support that struggle.

    "Leave Starbucks alone and focus on the real enemy. Big government - the big government most liberals want to give even greater control over our lives." Well, here I can agree with you somewhat. While I have no faith in the free market to not exploit workers or cheat consumers, I am no fan of huge government bureacracies sticking their noses into people's private lives, whether it comes to sex, guns, religous practices or how you raise your kids or organize your "family." But that doesn't mean all government programs, especailly universal ones like Social Security, are inefficient or intrusive. Hell, single payer universal health insurance should mean a far smaller health care bureacracy than our private-sector insurance industry currently foists on us.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/10/2007 @ 4:45pm

20. Mad, it's "effete" not "ephyte."

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/10/2007 @ 4:46pm

21. You're welcome.

    Posted by cka2nd at 07/11/2007 @ 12:43am