Omaha GMB

Stand Up for Sasha McCoy! Mother, Student, Starbucks Barista, IWW Unionist.

Last month, Tiffany White,an African American mother of two, and union leader and organizer with the Industrial Workers of the World Starbucks Workers Union, was terminated without justification from a New York Starbucks.

The practice of targeting female union members continues in Nebraska, with recent threats to union organizer Sasha McCoy. McCoy, also an African American mother of two,was recently threatened with termination when she reduced her availability at the 15th and Douglas Starbucks so she could return to school to pursue a B.S. in biology.

McCoy's new schedule meets all of the requirements outlined in the corporate scheduling policy. McCoy also spoke with representatives from Partner Resources, the H.R. branch of the Starbucks Corporation, who informed McCoy that her new availability met the company's requirements.

Despite her efforts to follow proper procedure, McCoy was told by manager Scott Creed that if she did not add an additional 30 minutes to her weekly availability, she would be terminated after four years of service to the Starbucks corporation.

"I feel like I am being targeted right now because I am part of the union," says McCoy. "My commitment to my job was never questioned until I joined the union. I'm a single mother working to put myself through college on my own so I can improve my life for my family. A company that claims to support women in the workplace is threatening to put me out of a job over half an hour. This has nothing to do with my availability and everything to do with my union."

On the 14th of August members of the Industrial Workers of the World Nebraska General Membership Branch confronted Creed with an Unfair Labor Practice charge, alleging intimidation to union members for his threat to fire McCoy. Two months ago, Starbucks settled three Unfair Labor Practice charges regarding anti union practices that had taken place at the 15th and Douglas and 72nd and Dodge Starbucks locations in Omaha.

Second Update on the IWW Open Harvest Workers Union Campaign

The Nebraska Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and the newly-formed Open Harvest Workers' Union have been engaged in a month long struggle to improve treatment and compensation of workers at Open Harvest Cooperative Grocery in Lincoln. On Monday, January 3rd, the Nebraska IWW met with the Open Harvest board of directors. We presented a list of 5 demands, which the board agreed to address. In fact, we left the meeting feeling somewhat optimistic, as the board declared at that meeting that the current grievance policy was not compliant with their policies on fair treatment of workers.

Subsequently the board ruled that the general manager was to formulate a new, compliant grievance policy. We considered this to be a small victory as one of our demands was the complete overhaul of the grievance procedure. We previously stated that the existing grievance policy was unfair and intimidating because it forced the worker, who may very well have a grievance with management, to address part of management - the general manager - with any grievance and the general manager is given the power to throw out any grievance he or she felt was without merit, instead of passing it on to a board of directors committee for review. We argued that a fair grievance policy should bypass management altogether and go to a "grievance committee", a committee which should include members of the board and at least one democratically-elected peer (a non-management worker).

Our impression following the meeting was that most of the board members were sympathetic to this proposal and the rest of our demands (in fact a couple even stated so in private to us after the meeting). Our other demands are as follows: the reinstatement of IWW member Andrew Losh until his grievance is reviewed by a grievance committee; that board positions be made available to workers (a growing trend with progressive co-ops); wage increases for workers (workers currently start out at minimum wage and are given little opportunity for advancement, our goal is a living wage and benefits for all co-op workers); and full-time hours/benefits made available to non-management workers (currently only management receive full-time hours and insurance benefits). For more on this meeting see this article: http://www.iww.org/en/node/5312

Unfortunately our optimism soon began to fade. All demands, except the first one, were not given a concrete deadline, all we asked was that progress be made; but we did set a one week deadline for our first demand - the reinstatement of IWW member, Andrew Losh. This deadline (Jan. 1, 2011) came and went, so we announced our intent to picket the co-op in order to further expose the problems at the co-op and to encourage swifter action from the co-op bureaucracy.

Nebraska Starbucks Workers Union demands reinstatement of unjustly terminated barista and organizer Tyler Swain

The IWW Nebraska General Membership Branch (GMB) files Unfair Labor Practice charging Starbucks Coffee Company with violating Labor Law.

Starbucks Workers Union (Industrial Workers of the World) contact: Samantha Cole (402)669-8479

Omaha- The Starbucks Workers Union is demanding the reinstatement of former employee and union member Tyler Swain after being unjustly terminated.

On Thursday December 30, 2010 Tyler Swain was terminated from his position as a shift supervisor by the downtown Starbucks store manager Scott Creed for ‘insubordination’.

Co-worker and union member Samantha Cole argues otherwise and says that the Starbucks Coffee Company has had a bulls-eye on Swain since they formed the Nebraska Starbucks Workers Union in August. Cole stated, “Tyler has always been a model employee and takes great pride in his job and his relationships he’s developed with our regular customers. Starbucks has been desperately trying to find a reason to get rid of Tyler since we went public with our union and started organizing our district.” She added that, “Customers have noticed and asked where he is. When I tell them that he was terminated they are surprised and say that he is always so friendly and never would have guessed he would be fired for being a bad employee. However, one customer who comes in on a regular basis and had made negative remarks to us when we went public with our union said ‘that’s what he gets for trying to start a union’”.

The Nebraska Starbucks Workers Union went public with their union and organizing drive on August 6th, 2010 by walking off the job and presenting then District Manager Jennifer Rojas with a list of demands which included increasing wages above poverty rates, an inclement weather plan for the district, consistent scheduling and fully stocked First Aid kit in the store as per OSHA regulations among other things.

Union member Sasha McCoy says that Starbucks has been focused on causing discontent among the workers at 15th and Douglas Starbucks by manufacturing lies about Swain. “Shortly after we presented Jenny with our list of demands and went public with our desire to organize a union, Starbucks has been actively trying to accuse Tyler of a number of unethical charges. The Human Resources Department was even accusing Tyler of sexual harrasment when there was nothing like that going on. These charges were absolutely absurd. They were trying to take the focus off of our demands and desire to organize a union and onto make believe charges against Tyler,” said McCoy.

Update on the IWW’s Open Harvest Campaign

Monday, January 3rd, the Nebraska Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) sat in on the Open Harvest board of directors meeting. We were given an opportunity to speak toward the end of the meeting and present our list of demands, which are as follows:

1. The reinstatement of employment for Andrew Losh, who was unjustly terminated for failing to meet an unspecified production quota. This quota was continually raised as Andrew’s production increased. His firing was preceded by two write-ups which were contested and ignored by his direct management. These write-ups were unjustified and have been provided as examples of management abuse of employees.

2. Overhaul of the grievance procedure. The current grievance procedure mandates that employees approach the general manager with their grievance. The general manager then decides if the grievance has merit and if so submits it to the grievance committee, i.e. a subset of the board of directors. Not only is this policy extremely intimidating to employees, considering that their grievance may often be with management – which the general manager is a part of, but it essentially gives the general manager veto power over employee grievances. We have asked that a new grievance procedure be implemented, one in which an employee can present their grievance directly to the grievance committee, which should include at least one of their peers – a rank and file worker, elected to the committee by their peers (currently the grievance committee is only four executive board members).

3. Board positions be made available to employees. Currently Open Harvest restricts employees from being on the board of directors – this is not common to all cooperatives, in fact many now allow their employees to take part in this important aspect of running the store. By barring employees from running on the board, a rigid top down hierarchy is ensured, like you would find in any for-profit grocer. As a democratic union, we feel that workers should be allowed to take part in the democratic process of managing and maintaining the coop. Some board members expressed concerns that this may present a conflict of interest. The IWW rebutted this claim by pointing out that the board is comprised of members who have an interest in the store’s prices and at least one supplier is on the board – in these respects there is already a conflict of interest. The best way to manage the coop is to get input from a variety of perspectives: members, consumers, suppliers and workers.

4. A living wage for employees. Open Harvest starts its workers at minimum wage and many employees are kept near this level of pay indefinitely. We find it hypocritical for a store which espouses the ethic of fair trade to pay its workers poverty wages. We think those who work at Open Harvest should also be able to afford to shop there and pay their bills, afford adequate housing, etc. Eating healthy organic food should not be a privilege reserved for the wealthiest in our society. Open Harvest should not simply compare its pay to that of local for-profit businesses. The member owned coop must hold itself to a higher ethical standard.

5. More hours be made available to employees, especially those who want full time benefits. Open Harvest circumvents having to provide non-management employees with benefits by restricting their hours to below full-time (less than 36 hours a week). In contrast management receives a benefits package. We think a progressive coop should certainly be ahead of our nation as it slowly stumbles toward providing health care coverage for all.

A one week deadline was given in which we expect our first demand to be fulfilled and definitive progress to be made on the other four demands. If these demands are not met by January 10, 2011 at 12:00 PM we will escalate our campaign to the next step which may include pickets, boycotts or strikes and the filing of an unfair labor practice with the National Labor Relations Board.

Two of our demands were being addressed at the meeting before we even had a chance to speak. One being coop policy L2 which pertains to treatment of staff, included in L2 is the absurd grievance policy; the other being policy L3 which pertains to pay and benefits of staff.

Due to our efforts, the grievance policy was addressed and ruled by the board to not be in compliance with policy L2, which states that employees must receive a fair and thorough review. They agreed that it was indeed intimidating to require approaching the general manager about grievances.

Unfortunately the board ruled that employee compensation was compliant with their policy L3, as that policy dictates that Open Harvest’s employee pay should be comparable to other local area grocers, such as Trader Joe’s, Russ’s Market, Super Saver, etc. Obviously this neglects the fact that Open Harvest is fundamentally different from these for-profit businesses. As a member-owned coop, it does not operate solely to make profits and is also held to higher standard of ethics by its member owners and patrons. The board did state however, that it is planning to review L3 next month and there was some support for holding Open Harvest to a higher standard. We are hoping the pressure we have put on them will expedite this process and get the employees a livable wage as soon as possible.

Letter to all Open Harvest patrons, members and workers:

Some of you may have heard the hubbub about the recent firing of Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) member, Andrew Losh, from Open Harvest Cooperative Grocery. Losh was reportedly fired for not meeting an unspecified work quota that was continually raised as his production level did. He also reported several instances of worker mistreatment by the management. His firing and the subsequent campaign being waged by the IWW to have his job re-instated has highlighted some incongruencies in the practices and overall ethos of Open Harvest.

In their mission statement Open Harvest claims to stand for a number of progressive values: sustainable agriculture, equal opportunity employment, and support of local producers. Conspicuously absent from this litany of values is a dedication to providing a livable wage and benefits to workers, workplace democracy and other worker rights issues. As many progressives will agree, democracy is a fundamental value; democratic management mustn’t be limited to the political sphere, it should extend to all arenas of social life including the workplace. Judging from the practices of Open Harvest this is not a value they share. In fact, Open Harvest does not allow workers to have a voice in the workplace or allow them to be on the board of directors, thus ensuring a top-down hierarchy in the work environment that you would expect to find in any mainstream grocery store; this is not typical of cooperative grocers. Another value I would suspect many patrons and members hold is the belief that all workers should receive benefits and a livable wage. Again, Open Harvest does not seem to be dedicated to this value. The average entry-level wage for workers at Open Harvest is the nation’s minimum allowed: $7.25 per hour (via secret worker poll) and Open Harvest circumvents having to provide benefits by making sure that all non-management employees work under what is designated to be “full time”. To further illustrate the situation of inequality it should be pointed out that the Open Harvest management does receive benefits.