Starbucks Pride Strike Highlights Murky Rules for Labor Walkouts

The union clash over Pride décor at Starbucks Corp. cafes poses a broader test on free speech in the workplace, with the coffee giant accusing labor leaders of illegally spreading misinformation to workers.

The dispute underscores how vague federal labor law is on whether workers can strike over social issues that aren’t directly related to their job duties. The question has become more urgent over the past several years as companies and individual workers speak out on Black rights, LGBTQ+ inclusion, sexual harassment, and other issues once considered off limits in corporate America.

Workers at about 150 Starbucks stores went on strike this week, alleging that management had systematically curtailed Pride displays. The company vehemently denied the allegations, accusing the union of carrying out an “unlawful smear campaign” and filing a pair of complaints with the federal labor board that could end up altering the way such cases are handled in the future.

While the company’s argument is unlikely to find sympathy with the Democratic-controlled National Labor Relations Board, it adds a new layer to the debate over what types of workplace actions are protected, labor lawyers say.

And it adds a fractious element to the negotiations over the first labor contract with Starbucks Workers United.

“It’s a very novel argument,” said Anne Lofaso, a labor law professor at West Virginia University.

Leverage Game

For companies, the decision to speak out on social issues can have huge financial consequences. Bud Light was dethroned last month as the best-selling beer in the US due to conservative backlash over its partnership with a transgender social media influencer.

Anheuser-Busch lost $27 billion in market value as a result.

Even if Starbucks doesn’t win its labor board complaint, it’s a way to counter the union’s narrative—particularly to its left-leaning customer base—that the company doesn’t support LGBTQ+ rights, said Rebecca Givan, a labor and employment relations professor at Rutgers University.

From the union’s perspective, calling out perceived hypocrisy may be a way to gain leverage in negotiating a first contract, she said. Starbucks Workers United has accused the company of stalling negotiations; this could be a way to break the log jam.

“It’s about control, and the perception that management control has gone too far,” Givan said. “This is an issue that can expose how hollow some of Starbucks’ progressive rhetoric is.”

In its labor board complaint, Starbucks argued that the union peddled “maliciously and recklessly false statements” that amounted to unlawful coercion of employees. Starbucks also says the union violated its duty to fairly represent workers in collective bargaining.

In other words, Starbucks argues that the union poisoned the atmosphere so much that it will be unable to effectively bargain on behalf of workers—an assertion that would break new ground in labor law if argued successfully, said Sharon Block, director of Harvard Law School’s labor center.

But there are other obstacles facing Starbucks, said Block, who served as a Democratic NLRB member during the Obama administration. One of the biggest is that the company itself has resisted bargaining—making it difficult for Starbucks lawyers to argue that the union is the one standing in the way.

“You’re going to have a hard time as, like, a factual matter, proving that anything the union says is influencing bargaining, because the company is not coming to the bargaining table in any meaningful way,” Block said.

In the second complaint, Starbucks accused the union of misrepresenting benefits to LGBTQ+ employees, which it says are “industry leading.” The union has falsely said the company watered down benefits for LGBTQ+ workers, Starbucks said.

The company said this week it would issue clearer guidelines on store decorations, while at the same time chastising the union’s allegations.

“We can not and will not tolerate these deliberate misrepresentations being broadcast to our partners,” Starbucks said a statement, explaining its decision to file two unfair labor practice charges. “This is not what our partners expect or deserve.”

Eye of the Beholder

Not all strikes are created equal under US labor law. Walkouts that involve central terms of employment—wages and benefits, for example—are protected from retaliation.

It’s unclear whether the Starbucks strike would qualify.

If workers strike over tangential issues, defined as subjects that the employer isn’t required to bargain over, then employers are free to fire them.

Workers also lose protection if they engage in other unsanctioned activity, such as on-and-off work stoppages, refusal to do certain parts of their job while continuing to do others, or striking without formal support of their union.

But it’s not always clear whether the subject of a strike is a central term and condition of employment, legal observers said. One person could argue that Pride displays are an outside issue, while another could argue it relates to the workplace environment.

“They are part of Starbucks, and so it seems to me they should have the right to influence the character of the corporation,” Block said. “But the law is not quite there.”