Senator Bernie Sanders accused Starbucks of running “the most aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the modern history of our country” when the coffee chain’s founder and former CEO, Howard Schultz, testified in front of a Senate committee in March. The latest figures from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) show just how aggressive that campaign has become as the board has continued issuing complaints and rulings against Starbucks’ response to unionization efforts. NLRB regional offices have issued 93 complaints covering 328 unfair labor practice charges against Starbucks since late 2021. Four NLRB board members, eight administrative law judges and two federal judges have issued 16 decisions ordering remedies for unfair labor practices by Starbucks, including the reinstatement for 23 fired workers, though some decisions have yet to be enforced, according to the NLRB. Despite the numerous NLRB rulings and complaints, Starbucks workers have alleged that Starbucks is continuing to violate labor laws in opposition to their unionization efforts. The union also successfully pushed Starbucks shareholders to approve a proposal for an independent review of the company’s labor practices earlier this year and is currently requesting that the International Labour Organization, a UN workers’ rights watchdog in Geneva, Switzerland, investigate Starbucks’ use of legal loopholes in opposing unionization in the US. Gwen Williamson worked as a shift supervisor at a Starbucks in Bellingham, Washington, for three years until she was fired in February 2023 for what she alleges is retaliation for her role in leading the union-organizing effort at her store, which voted to unionize in December 2022. She has filed an unfair labor practice charge in response to her termination, one of the dozens of Starbucks workers who have done so. Almost immediately after the vote, Starbucks started “selectively enforcing rules”, Williamson claimed, and she was served a termination notice. “They said that it was for attendance issues,” said Williamson. But the dates she missed were dates that her apartment had flooded. Williamson said that when she told her manager about the flood, the manager expressed empathy for her situation and did not say it was an issue. Williamson said that at the time she was essentially homeless and faced financial difficulties after her hours were cut after the union election victory. “Very early on, I was outed as the union leader and I think they were trying to build a case against me,” Williamson added. “People like me will get reinstated with back pay but Starbucks would rather take that hit to send a message instead of actually facing consequences. That’s, unfortunately, just the world we live in. It’s hard to deal with power imbalances like that. But ultimately, that’s what unions are for, attempting to rebalance that unjust hierarchy.” Starbucks denied allegations of retaliation and said that it implemented a management training program and established a labor relations team to support adherence to labor and employment law, claiming, “Starbucks maintains that the partner was dismissed for clear violations of lawful, long-established partner policies – not in retaliation for their participation in, or support of, any concerted union activities.” More than 300 Starbucks stores have won union elections since December 2021, covering more than 8,000 workers, but little progress has been made in bargaining a first union contract with Starbucks. On 18 April, NLRB region 19 issued a complaint alleging Starbucks’ anti-union website, One.Starbucks, had posted claims and statements that violate federal labor laws. “The website, it’s very clearly union busting, it’s one of the many tools the company has created and put into effect in order to dissuade workers from unionizing,” said Tyler Keeling, a barista at Starbucks for seven years and leader with Starbucks Workers United. When he first began unionizing his Starbucks store in early 2022 in Lakewood, California, Keeling said managers frequently pushed workers to go to the website and distributed anti-union flyers that prompted workers to go to the website. “I remember looking at the website, and just being like, Oh, this is very clearly an attempt to try to spread that seed of doubt the company is so desperate to place,” added Keeling. “All these lies Starbucks has put out, all of this misinformation that was put out to create miseducation and, frankly, fear, is finally being cut through and the law is finally catching up to Starbucks and their actions are having consequences.” Starbucks disputed the NLRB complaint and the union’s allegations about the website. “We believe the allegations made by Workers United and complaint filed by the NLRB lack merit and are another attempt to undermine our ability to share factual information and our perspective with partners so they can make an informed and balanced decision regarding union representation,” a Starbucks spokesperson, Andrew Tull, said in an email. In a complaint issued on 25 April, NLRB prosecutors alleged that Starbucks illegally refused and failed to bargain at 144 unionized stores. The board also requested a court injunction for immediate reinstatement of a fired Starbucks worker, Jaysin Saxton, in Augusta, Georgia. Saxton was one of the workers who testified in front of the US Senate in March 2023. Starbucks also recently informed workers they intend to close two of the remaining Starbucks locations in Ithaca, New York, after shutting down the third location in 2022, which workers have alleged was in response to union activity. All three stores had previously unionized, though Starbucks denied the closures were related to union activity, with the union filing for an injunction in federal court to halt the closures. Workers at Starbucks have continued actions, including strikes, to pressure the company to bargain a first union contract with Starbucks Workers United, as the union continues to file more union elections at stores. According to the union, Starbucks workers have engaged in 453 strikes so far throughout the course of the union campaign. Starbucks Workers United has also alleged that Starbucks has not responded to or offered counter-proposals to the union in bargaining. “Starbucks has had proposals in their hands for over seven months. Yet, the company has failed to agree, or even tentatively agree, to a single sentence in any one of our proposals, nor have they countered with a single proposal of their own,” said Michelle Eisen, a Starbucks barista from the Elmwood location in Buffalo, New York, and a national bargaining committee member. “These are not the actions of a company interested in bargaining a contract. These are the actions of a company doing everything possible to delay, and they will not succeed.” Starbucks disagreed with the NLRB complaints on bargaining, claiming the union hasn’t confirmed future bargaining sessions and blamed delays on the union. Starbucks has disputed or disagreed with all NLRB complaints and rulings issued against it over the course of the unionization campaign at the company. “Looking forward, we remain engaged and ready to bargain in-person with the unions certified to represent our partners according to longstanding NLRB precedent, and we continue to encourage all parties to apply current law in their approach to future bargaining efforts,” a spokesperson added.