Starbucks Bucks Its Workers’ Labor Union

Even though more than 500 Starbucks shops had unionized by the end of 2024, it seems that the company’s management did not respect the new union very much. Unfortunately for the company, one implication that can be drawn is that the company’s management didn’t respect federal labor law very much too. For in not respecting its union enough to negotiate it on reducing employee work hours, the company violated federal law. The “smoking gun,” I submit, was that the management used dissimulation to respond to the government, rather than address the complaint directly.

On October 10, 2024, the “general council of the National Labor Relations Board filed a complaint . . . alleging that Starbucks made the scheduling changes in late 2022 and early 2023” without consulting and negotiating with the union.”[1] The complaint reads in part that Starbucks changed workers’ hours “without prior notice to the Union and without affording the Union an opportunity to bargain.”[2] As per federal labor law, Starbucks was required to give prior notice to the union and give it a chance to bargain, as well as to tell the union how the change in hours would impact the paychecks of the workers affected. In its written response, the company’s management ignored this requirement and instead defended a practice that was not against the law and the government was thus not in the government’s complaint.

Starbucks stated, “We continuously review operations decisions to optimally address business needs and customer expectations, consistent with the law.”[3] Indeed, doing so does not in itself violate federal law, but the statement does not address the complaint. Next, the company tried to obviate the complaint, again by not addressing anything that was illegal, by pointing out, “our decisions were made across our system, in unionized and non-unionized stores, and they were made without regard to organizing activity at Starbucks.”[4] Even if that were true, it does not address whether the management had informed the union and given it an opportunity to bargain in the cases of the unionized stores.

By not addressing the violations specified in the complaint, the company’s managers may either have been dissimulating by changing the terms of the dispute or trying to avoid lying by denying the specific charges. Either way, the mentality is sordid, and this in itself can be interpreted in line with the old adage, Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Where there is a devious mentality, there is likely to be a crime.

As a result of the violation, some employees lost the benefit of health insurance because they no longer worked enough hours per week. Therefore, the union’s lawyer said that damages could be more than merely the wages for the lost hours. A conservative estimate could be “north of $30 million.”[5] Lest this seem like enough of a disincentive for the management to begin to respect the union (and federal labor law), I submit that it is extremely difficult to change a company’s organizational culture.

Today, I went to buy a product at a Target store. The shelf was empty so I went to customer service, which the linguistically opportunistic management calls “guest” services. The employee was incorrect that I could not order the product online and have it delivered to the store; she was even wrong that the product was not in the back of the store. I went to a manager, who assured me that she would “coach” the employee.  In a tone of “you’re not getting it,” what I actually said was, “It was not just her mistakes; her mentality—her attitude—was terrible, and that can’t be coached away.” The manager didn’t say anything, but her facial expression was one of dismissiveness. Starbucks’ management at the corporate level needed more than coaching from the government.

1. Dave Jamieson, “Starbucks Could Owe Millions to Baristas Who Unionized,” The Huffington Post, October 11, 2024.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.

AI Facial-Recognition Software in China: Ethical Implications beyond Political Economy

By the 2020s, the Chinese government had made significant advances in applying computer technology to garden-variety surveillance. To do so, that government relied to a significant extent on Chinese companies, and this in turn encouraged innovation at those companies even for non-governmental applications. I contend that treating this as a case study in business and government, without bringing in the ethical and political implications is a mistake. The ostensive “objectivity” of empirical social science may seem like an objective for scholars, but I submit that bringing in political and ethical theory renders the analysis superior to that which political economy alone can provide.

David Yang, who teaches economics at Harvard, spoke on a panel on China on October 11, 2024 on why some Chinese companies were developing AI technology even though generally technological development tends to go on in democracies rather than dictatorships. The reason for the exception, he said, is that the Chinese government had been buying facial-recognition software from companies in order to improve surveillance of the Chinese. Ignoring the unsavory ethical implications of a more totalitarian surveillance, Yang characterized the relationship between the businesses and the government as a win-win. The purchases by the government gives the companies the financial incentive and wherewithal to innovate AI for other, purely commercial purposes, and the government can more easily “restore order locally from social unrest.” Characterizing political protests as unrest can be said to be taken from an autocrat’s handbook, which unfairly casts a negative glow on what in a democracy is seen as healthy. Omitting the ethical implications from relations between business and government generally is thus partial both with respect to wholeness or completeness and in the sense of being biased. Even though Yang tried to present the relationship between the Chinese companies working on facial-recognition and the Chinese government buying the finished products objectively, his omission of the ethical dimension resulted in an incomplete explanation and a pro-autocratic bias. Even though such a bias could be said to be in sync with Harvard’s police-state, the hegemony of social order as the top value in political theory is problematic.

To be sure, social value could come with a government’s use of facial-recognition AI technology. Dave Davies, an American journalist who ventured inside China’s “surveillance state,” has argued that the Chinese Communist Party was “trying to internalize control. . . . Once you believe its true, it’s like you don’t even need the policeman at the corner anymore, because you’re becoming your own policeman.”[1] Once we shift from political protests to criminal activity, it is easier for even a democrat to see the value in prompting people to police themselves so a visible police-state apparatus in public would not be as likely. This is the antithesis of the “invisible man” question: What would you do that is illegal were you invisible so no one would see you and you wouldn’t get caught?  Instead, we can ask: What wouldn’t you do that you otherwise would do if you thought odds were high that you would get caught by police using facial-recognition AI technology?

But even with this internalization of control within an individual, which admittedly does not reach the individual not wanting to steal or injure someone in some way, the loss of privacy in public can be reckoned as an ethical (i.e., undeserved) harm that outweighs the ethical benefit of internalized control. Ben Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, famously said that people who would trade privacy for more security deserve neither liberty nor safety. Of course, liberty is severely repressed in a dictatorship, and such a government can freely reduce people’s privacy with impunity in getting carried away with adding security measures. Ironically, such action by a pseudo-government can be observed at major universities in the States, including at Yale and Harvard, whose police departments do not have democratic legitimacy because the U.S. Constitution gives the police power to the state and federal governments rather than to even very wealthy private (“non-profit”) organizations.  

Whether in the United States or China, a republic (of republics) or an autocracy (or dictatorship), the human instinctual urge for still more control can manifest so easily in a sliding slope towards an excessively visible (and invisible), and thus impinging, police-state. The mind’s judgment concerning whether it has gone too far in this regard is susceptible to distorting itself or even suspending itself due to the allure of the pleasure of increasing control in a geographical area (or organization). In short, control is not easily internalized in people in whose discretion security measures lie. It is ironic that the internalization of control is easier when applied to individuals being controlled. An external check on the minds of the controllers is thus strongly advisable, lest we do not all wake up one day in a world in which we are surrounded by manifestations of passive-aggression and even unaccountable police brutality by people drunk with power from having the legal right to use lethal weapons. Cameras in public places are certainly superior to an overwhelming visible police presence in public places (and universities whose atmospheres are at least in principle academic in nature), but even with the ethical and practical value of internalized control, the unethical costs in terms of invasion of privacy should not be minimized or ignored outright. Achieving a policy that is balanced may not be easy, but I suspect it is best.

---

1. Dave Davies, “Facial Recognition and Beyond: Journalist Ventures Inside China’s ‘Surveillance State’,” NPR.org, January 5, 2021.