Starbucks is under fire after a series of complaints allege the coffee retailer claims that trans employees could lose inclusive health benefits if stores vote to unionize.
A June 13 complaint filed to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in the U.S. claims that Starbucks has created a “coercive and hostile environment meant to intimidate and prevent its employees” from joining unionization efforts. In a copy of the complaint obtained by VICE News, the labour union Workers United alleges that threats to employees include “the loss of benefits (including the loss of gender-affirming healthcare for transgender employees) if they voted to be represented by a union.”
The complaint was supported by a series of similar allegations from Starbucks employees in Kansas, Oklahoma and Pennsylvania. Neha Cremin, a trans barista who works at one of the chain’s Oklahoma City locations, told Bloomberg that her manager informed her during a one-on-one meeting that she could lose her healthcare if her store were to unionize.
“Just know that if you unionize, when you are negotiating your benefits, you could gain, you could lose, or you could stay the same,” the manager allegedly said, adding, “I know, specifically, you have used the trans healthcare benefits.”
Cremin said the “veiled threat” was particularly egregious given the myriad attacks on trans rights in her state this year. In 2022 alone, Oklahoma has enacted three laws targeting trans people—including legislation preventing trans students from using the restroom that aligns with their gender identity and preventing non-binary people from having their gender listed on their birth certificates.
In a statement, Cremin noted the majority of her “co-workers are queer, and many of us rely on the transgender healthcare benefits.” She said this group is “uniquely vulnerable” if Starbucks were to pare down its healthcare plan in retaliation.
“Trans rights are labour rights.”
“Trans rights are labour rights,” Cremin said in a press release cited by VICE. “Our fight to make this state better for transgender people will also benefit all workers, and the current wave of unionization makes the workplace a safer place for transgender people. Many of us began working at Starbucks because it was the only realistic way we could think to afford transition-related healthcare.”
A second Starbucks employee in Pittsburgh who spoke to Bloomberg anonymously claimed that her supervisors said that forming a union would jeopardize her ability to get gender-confirmation surgery under its health plan.
Starbucks has offered trans health coverage under its employee plan since 2013, which was expanded in 2018 to include forms of surgery once considered cosmetic, such as facial feminization and breast augmentation. Earlier this year, the company announced that it would begin paying for travel expenses for employees who were forced to seek transition care out of state.
But Starbucks’ trans health coverage comes with an additional catch: employees are not eligible if they work fewer than 20 hours a week, meaning that they could lose access to care if their hours are cut.
According to Workers United, Starbucks has threatened to do exactly that. Its complaint alleges that, in addition to taking away employees’ shifts if they attempt to unionize, Starbucks has a history of “removing store managers following union activities” and “offering pay raises to non-unionized stores.”
More than 200 complaints have been lodged to NLRB regarding Starbucks’ alleged union-busting activities, as VICE reported. Not all pertain specifically to trans workers.
Starbucks has denied the allegations. In a statement to The Advocate, spokesperson Reggie Borges said that claims the company is intimidating trans employees is “not true” and added that “all partners enrolled in Starbucks healthcare will have access to these benefits.”
“In stores represented by a union, federal law requires good faith collective bargaining over all wages, benefits, and working conditions,” he told the LGBTQ2S+ news publication. “That means Starbucks cannot make promises or guarantees about any benefits. For example, even if we were to offer a certain benefit at the bargaining table, a union could decide to exchange it for something else.
“Simply put, it’s difficult to predict the outcome of negotiations, and each store’s negotiation may look different,” Borges added. “What we can say for sure, is that Starbucks will always bargain in good faith.”
And yet despite the company’s denials, Starbucks executives have vocally opposed unionization efforts. CEO Howard Schultz claimed in a speech delivered during an April town hall meeting that businesses across the U.S. are “being assaulted, in many ways, by the threat of unionization.” The same day as his remarks, a Starbucks employee was reportedly terminated after vocally supporting unionizing.
More than 100 Starbucks stores in the U.S. have voted to unionize in the past seven months, according to Workers United. The labour union, which represents about 86,000 workers, operates in both the U.S. and Canada.
Why you can trust Xtra
