Starbucks Case Analysis

Starbucks Case Analysis

Opinion on the ruling of the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in overruling Starbucks

In my opinion, the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations(NLRB) went too far in overruling Starbucks because it failed to consider other actions that the employees could have done to get fired. For instance, the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations argued that Daniel was fired unfairly because he supported the union, but he had incidences where he failed to hand out employee-to-employee awards and failed to communicate with management, hence affecting the overall performance of Starbucks (FindLaw, 2008). He was also failing to show up for work and giving his shift to other employees.

Employer leeway in setting standards for conduct, customer interaction, and attire in the workplace

An employer should have a high leeway in setting standards for conduct and customer interaction and less leeway in setting attire in the workplace. This is because standards for conduct and customer interaction are the company’s responsibility, and the company should be allowed to set them based on organizational structure and culture. Attire in the workplace contributes to the employee’s comfort in the workplace and provides them with a level of autonomy that allows them to be productive. Therefore, the company should only inform employees on whether they should wear formal or casual outfits and allow them to wear what they want as long as it meets the required dress code.

Impact of NLRB decision on Starbucks’ management of the stores

The NLRB decision does not unfairly limit Starbucks in the management of stores because it protects the welfare of employees, who are the main contributors to the company’s success. It also facilitates a good relationship between management and employees because management is aware of how it should treat employees, thus reducing employee turnover and enhancing collaboration between management and employees to boost growth and success.

View of the court’s decision

In my opinion, the court’s decision was unfair because it stated that three former workers should be reinstated and get compensated for the earnings they may have lost (Shepherd, 2008) without considering other factors that could have contributed to their firing rather than their role in supporting unions.

References

FindLaw. (2008). FindLaw’s United States second circuit case and opinions. Findlaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1600558.html

Shepherd, L. (2008). Judge finds Starbucks violated labor rules. The Seattle Times.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Starbucks Case Analysis

Read the three articles noted below about an actual union-organizing effort involving Starbucks in New York City:

Judge Says Starbucks Violated Workers’ Rights at NYC Stores
NLRB Orders Starbucks to Reinstate Two Workers, But Not a Third
Court Sides With Starbucks In Dispute Over Labor Union Pins
After reading all the articles and considering additional research, address the following questions (feel free to use supplemental authoritative resources in your response):

Do you think the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went too far in overruling Starbucks? Why or why not?
How much leeway should an employer have in setting standards for conduct, customer interaction, and attire in the workplace?
Does the NLRB decision unfairly limit Starbucks in the management of the stores? Why or why not?
What is your view of the court’s decision?
For additional details, please refer to the Short Paper and Case Study Rubric document.

Websites
https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.snhu.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=2e8a957b-74f3-43d3-b591-b0da341164dc%40sessionmgr4007&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=36646444&db=edb

https://ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=47388535&site=eds-live&scope=site
https://consumerist.com/2012/05/10/court-sides-with-starbucks-in-dispute-over-labor-union-pins/