- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
The coffee company says the union, Starbucks Workers United, is making people think it stands in solidarity with Palestine after the Hamas attack.
Starbucks is suing its union, Starbucks Workers United, after objecting to the group’s social media post in support of Palestine after the Hamas attack on Israel, according to an internal company note circulated Tuesday and obtained by The Intercept.
The company had previously condemned the post but is now upping the ante, planning to take the union to court. In a message from Executive Vice President Sara Kelly, Starbucks argued that the union’s use of the name Starbucks confuses customers, and that some customers took their anger over the SWU statement out on store employees.
The union’s post read “Solidarity with Palestine!” and quote-tweeted an image of a bulldozer breaking through the fence encircling Gaza. More than 9,000 workers at 360 stores have now voted to join SWU, which is affiliated with Workers United and SEIU, according to its website, but they have been met with stiff resistance from the company on a potential contract. The company previously sent SWU a “cease and desist” order threatening legal action and now plans to follow through with that threat. The message reads, with bolding in the original:
Shortly after October 7, Workers United posted a statement with an image of a bulldozer tearing down part of the Israel and Gaza border, reflecting their support for violence perpetrated by Hamas. Unfortunately, as violence against the innocent in the region continues to escalate, some people are mistakenly tying these remarks to us, because Workers United and its affiliates and members continue to use our name, logo and intellectual property. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of terrorism, hate and violence committed by Hamas, and we strongly disagree with the views expressed by Workers United, including its local affiliates, union organizers and those who identify as members of “Starbucks Workers United” — none of these groups speak for Starbucks Coffee Company and do not represent our company’s views, positions, or beliefs. Their words and actions belong to them, and them alone.
Starbucks did not immediately respond to a request for comment, nor did Starbucks Workers United. The full note is below, also with bolding in the original.
Message from Sara Kelly: Affirming Starbucks Position and Addressing Statements from Workers United
Partners,
I hope each of you are finding ways to take care of yourselves and your loved ones in this heavy time. In addition to the heartache we are all feeling during this moment, like many of you, I am also deeply troubled by the spread of misinformation and inflammatory headlines stemming from images used and statements made last week by Workers United.
Shortly after October 7, Workers United posted a statement with an image of a bulldozer tearing down part of the Israel and Gaza border, reflecting their support for violence perpetrated by Hamas. Unfortunately, as violence against the innocent in the region continues to escalate, some people are mistakenly tying these remarks to us, because Workers United and its affiliates and members continue to use our name, logo and intellectual property. Starbucks unequivocally condemns acts of terrorism, hate and violence committed by Hamas, and we strongly disagree with the views expressed by Workers United, including its local affiliates, union organizers and those who identify as members of “Starbucks Workers United” — none of these groups speak for Starbucks Coffee Company and do not represent our company’s views, positions, or beliefs. Their words and actions belong to them, and them alone.
The ongoing confusion from this misinformation has sadly led directly to incidents where angry, hurt customers are confronting partners in our stores and sending graphic and violent messages to partners in our Customer Contact Center (CCC). Our retail leaders and support teams are prioritizing partner care and safety, working to ensure every store and the CCC feels supported in de-escalating these situations.
It is in the best interest and safety of our partners and customers for Workers United to disengage from the dialogue and from misrepresenting Starbucks. Workers United’s actions risk putting partners from all stores, including both non-union and unionized stores, in harm’s way. On Friday, we contacted Workers United demanding they 1) immediately stop using our company name, logo and intellectual property, and 2) issue an immediate correction. This morning, they rejected that request. As a result, Starbucks will file litigation against the union in federal court, and we intend to pursue all legal options in defense of our partners and our company.
We will be in touch as we have more updates. Thank you for continuing to support one another, and for the work you do each day to create environments where everyone is welcome and feels a sense of belonging. Our actions have always been — and will always be — driven through the lens of humanity with our partners at the core.
link: https://theintercept.com/2023/10/17/starbucks-suing-union-israel-palestine/
archive: https://archive.ph/LdkJx
You must log in or register to comment.
Just more union busting. Can’t meet at the bargaining table and recognize the union proper, but can surely use anything to sue.
Injury to one is an injury to all. Solidarity with the people of Palestine.
Removed by mod
Unions were forced to start engaging in international politics when corporations started exporting labour to get around their influence. Now they either ensure everyone has rights or no one does.
Removed by mod
I’m extremely pro-union, but
, but
Instead they should be focusing on workers rights
Such as Palestinian workers rights to drinking water and not having their hospitals and homes exlploded, sounds like workers rights to me
Sometimes in politics you need to play the game in order to get something done. Thinking otherwise would be naive (and unproductive).
Removed by mod
Is there a Starbucks in Gaza that employs Palestinians?
Removed by mod
Haha you’re right. I can’t understand how one could be so self-righteous as a union social media worker to post stuff like this, thereby risking your own standing and making the union more vulnerable to attacks for no reason whatsoever.
International solidarity my ass. The SWU post changes nothing like all the lip service changes nothing. No matter if it’s on social media, voiced by politicians or yelled on the streets.
extremely pro-union
No, you’re not - if you were, you’d understand that labor organizing is inherently political, and that labor organizing that “stays in their lane” isn’t radical enough to actually represent the workers it claims to represent.
Exactly. This is like the white dude who forgot to switch twitter accounts and started talking about his concerns as an “African American “.
So taking a knee is bad? Cuz that’s right where your argument goes. The same has been said every time a celebrity talks politics. Really you don’t like their beliefs and want to shut them down.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
God I fucking hate Starbucks but I almost feel inclined to agree with them. Legally can people using the companies likeness go and making statements like this.
Removed by mod
This seems deluded to me. Obviously the people directing the marketing, design, employment practices, and operating procedures… you know … play a large part.
Removed by mod
By their request?
Did they actually vote on this issue, or is this just the decision of higher ups in the union? (As opposed to Starbucks position being decided by higher ups in corporate.)
Did you vote for every law congress passes or did you let your elected representatives do that? This is no different.
I understand that, but it’s like saying “the people” of the USA don’t support congressional term limits. We do vote for our representatives, but that doesn’t mean we share their view on every topic.
The point is that things have to operate in that way until someone much smarter than you and I someday comes up with something better. Up to now, this is the best humans have come up with.
True, but that doesn’t make it a proxy for how the people feel about something they haven’t been asked yet.
Removed by mod
Good. This is a simple fucking trademark case and the union is going to lose hard. A first year JV could win this.
This seems reasonable. A user could easily confuse them for an official account. A union social media really shouldn’t be making unrelated political statements in the first place.
unrelated political statements
I guess workers extending solidarity to other workers is a political statement, one simply can’t support other workers in unions across the world because it is “political”
Gonna take a wild guess and say if they did the same thing with Ukranian workers it magically would not be viewed by you as “political”
The tweet said nothing about supporting workers, it’s vauge, and it said nothing about the Israeli workers who were also effected by the conflict. It’s like tweeting “solidarity with the United States” without context. There are millions of people in the country, it’s unclear what/who you’re actually supporting if not the government itself.
The country is irrelevant, a union shouldn’t be making statements like this on behalf of workers who may not agree, especially if they’re going to include their company’s name in their title.
The fact that it’s vague kinda reveals people biases, no?
There is nothing wrong with the statement, the people taking offense seem to be the most biased without even realizing it.
Removed by mod
A union social media really shouldn’t be making unrelated political statements
Colonizers perpetrating genocide for the capitalist class is absolutely not unrelated to working-class organizing.
deleted by creator
