Last week, I wrote about Jon Stewart and The Daily Show slamming the synergy between Starbucks and Morning Joe, now that the anti-union coffee giant is sponsoring this MSNBC show.  I jokingly suggested we wouldn’t see Morning Joe put Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz on the spot anytime soon about his company’s repeated attempts to quash unionization efforts, but the reason why goes way beyond (and probably explains) this corporate partnership.

Turns out Morning Joe has an anti-union agenda, as Media Matters documented.  In a recent episode, Morning Joe brought on everyone’s least favorite economic fearmonger Jim Cramer, who claimed that if the Employee Free Choice Act passed, Wal-Mart (whose employees are in dire need of a union to negotiate better health benefits, working conditions, and wages above the poverty line) would be cut in half.  Mika Brzezinski added unions “cripple the system that makes a company work.”  And then Andrew Ross “I Shit on Unions for a Living” Sorkin of the NY Times threw down the absured gauntlet, “Name a successful unionized company. Think. You’re going to go to [commercial] break before you come up with one. And that’s the problem.”

While no one at Morning Joe dared prove Sorkin wrong, Media Matters’ Jamison Foser could name two prominent examples of successful unionized companies off the top of his head: GE and UPS.  Both corporations allow workers to unionize, and both made enormous profits last year to the tune of over $18 billion and $3 billion, respectively.  GE, it’s important to remember, owns MSNBC (and thus Morning Joe) via NBC-Universal.  So one has to wonder if Scarborough and Brzezinski will face any repercussions for trashing their own parent company on air.

Foser wrote:

Does Joe Scarborough think NBC and GE are not “successful” companies? Does Mika Brzezinski think the unionized workers she no doubt interacts with every day are crippling her ability to do her job, or her employer’s ability to be successful?

Or is it possible that the anti-union rants from Morning Joe journalists has something to do with the fact that members of the National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians-CWA union have protested NBC-Universal?

Sorkin, you may remember, drew Keith Olbermann’s wrath last year for blaming the GM disaster on its unionized workers by erroneously claiming GM employees earned $70 an hour (they actually made $28 an hour, according to the Center for Automotive Research).

Though Sorkin sort of apologized to TPM after readers wrote in with a slew of other successfully unionized companies, where does that leave us?  I say we turn off Morning Joe entirely.  That would send a clear message we won’t tolerate the anti-union fearmongering expressed explicitly on the show and implicitly by the synergy between Morning Joe and Starbucks.  You can also sign the petition insisting Howard Schultz allow Starbucks workers to unionize.

On last night’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart ripped into the ugly synergy between Starbucks and Morning Joe. Apparently, Morning Joe is now “brewed by Starbucks.” And you know what that means, a hard-hitting interview in which Scarborough asks CEO Howard Schultz why the company antagonizes workers attempting to unionize and actively opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. Or maybe Scarborough would ask why Starbucks is willing to spend millions on legal fees to settle six labor disputes in the past three years, but pay employees an average of $7.75 an hour and preclude the majority of them from receiving healthcare. Think again!

Obviously, Morning Joe and MSNBC won’t be asking Starbucks tough questions anytime soon. That’s why we’ve taken it upon ourselves to Stop Starbucks and get the truth about this coffee giant out there.

Here comes my coffee spit take for the day.  Starbucks just settled its sixth labor dispute in the past three years!  According to the settlement, Starbucks must now allow Minneapolis-area workers to discuss unions and post union materials in break areas, and the company can no longer kick union sympathizers out of its stores.

This is a huge win for the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, an organization of over 300 current and former Starbucks employees — the David to Starbucks’ caffeinated, union-busting Goliath.  Though really, it’s a big win for all Starbucks employees, since unionization would enable workers to negotiate set hours, fairer wages and better benefits for everyone.

Angel Gardner, a Twin Cities barista and member of the IWW Starbucks Workers Union, said, “This settlement proves that Starbucks executives are not above the law and cannot block hard working baristas from making positive change.  How can Starbucks claim that it maintains a positive work environment when one labor case after another exposes its lack of respect for employees?”

As I’ve written previously, it’s deceptive for Starbucks to pretend to offer workers adequate wages and benefits.  The reality is Starbucks routinely prevents employees from working enough hours to qualify for the company’s health insurance, and the average barista earns $7.75 an hour.  Then, when workers attempt to remedy this problem by forming a union, Starbucks violates labor laws by firing or intimidating them, going so far as to actively oppose the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Minneapolis settlement is also a win for the Stop Starbucks campaign, which the Seattle Times and other recent press coverage have credited with pressuring Starbucks into supporting workers’ rights.  Join 15,000 who have signed the petition insisting Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz allow workers to unionize.  Then, enter the Stop Starbucks contest and get creative as you raise awareness about Starbucks’ anti-labor practices.

Yesterday I started writing about the Stop Starbucks viral spiral.    An extended piece that appeared in the LA Times today credited this campaign with undermining Starbucks’ recent multi-million dollar ad campaign, and then got into the crux of the matter:

The campaign against Starbucks was timed to coincide with the titanic congressional battle anticipated for organized labor’s major legislative goal: the Employee Free Choice Act, which would make it easier for U.S. workers to choose union representation.

Like most big businesses, Starbucks is opposed to the act. The coffee giant, which generates $10 billion a year in revenue, has joined forces with retailers Whole Foods and Costco in forming the so-called Committee for a Level Playing Field, which is backing what it calls a compromise plan.

“We stepped out to take an alternative position, and that makes us a target,” said Koster, the Starbucks vice president. “The video, for us, is a one-sided attempt at a lobbying campaign for the Employee Free Choice Act.”

The LA Times pretty much nails what’s going on here.  Starbucks, Whole Foods, and Costco are masquerading as progressive companies when the reality is they’re attempting to water down a landmark piece of legislation regarding workers’ rights.  It’s ironic Koster feigned offense and claimed Stop Starbucks is a “one-sided attempt at a lobbying campaign for Employee Free Choice,” considering how much lobbying Starbucks has down to taint this legislation.  And it’s a damn shame that a $10 billion-a-year company that pretends to treat its workers fairly will do whatever it takes to keep employees from unionizing.  It’s bad enough Starbucks terminates, discriminates, and violates labor laws.  Now the company is also going out of its way to hamper legislation that both President Obama and Labor Secretary Solis support.

Clearly we’ve touched a nerve, and not just Koster’s.  Go check out the debate brewing on the front page of the Huffington Post right now.   Sound off in the comments section and join us in this fight.

Since Brave New Films launched Stop Starbucks last week, over 50,000 people watched the video, “What do Starbucks and Wal-Mart have in common?” and 15,000 signed the petition insisting CEO Howard Schultz support his workers’ unionization efforts.  The latest video, “Starbucks’ Health Care Policy Is Sickening,” takes the Wal-Mart comparison even further, considering Starbucks insures less than 42 percent of its employees in the US — a rate lower than Wal-Mart.  Watch as a former Starbucks worker explains how Starbucks routinely precludes employees from working the 20 hours a week (or 240 hours per quarter) necessary to qualify for the company’s health insurance.

The shocking truth about Starbucks’ health care policy and anti-labor practices belie the company’s “progressive” veneer.  Give Schultz a call and tell him to quit his anti-union ways: (206) 318-1575.

You can also enter the Stop Starbucks contest, which caught fire last week when Boing Boing, Bloggasm, and others credited Stop Starbucks with undercutting the company’s recent multi-million dollar ad campaign.

And today, this campaign’s viral spiral caught the attention of the LA Times:

The Starbucks chief executive, who actively cultivates a socially progressive image, is in the cross-hairs of a new-media campaign designed to bolster union representation at the retail giant and beyond.

For five years, Starbucks has been the target of a limited but sometimes nasty unionization drive that has tarnished its reputation for high-minded benevolence.

But last week, Brave New Films in Culver City launched an ambitious “Stop Starbucks” offensive, including a website (StopStarbucks.com) featuring a four-minute video that was also posted on YouTube assailing Starbucks’ treatment of workers, along with a petition demanding that Schultz “quit following Wal-Mart’s anti-union example.”

By week’s end, almost 12,000 had signed the petition, and nearly 40,000 had viewed the video, organizers said.

The anti-Starbucks onslaught also featured a Twitter “hijacking” designed to undermine a Starbucks promotion in which contestants vied for prizes by submitting photos of themselves at Starbucks cafes. The virtual saboteurs forwarded the required “Twitpics” but hoisted signs blaring seditious mottos such as, “I want a union with my latte” or “Shultz makes millions, workers make beans.”

So far, however, Starbucks has stuck to what I’m calling “Starbucks Speak,” in which words mean the opposite of what the company pretends they mean.  More from the LA Times:

The new-media assault, say Starbucks officials, presents a distorted portrait of management’s collaborative relationship with its “partners,” a reference to the company’s 135,000 U.S. workers.

“Calling Starbucks a bad employer simply doesn’t ring true with the overwhelming majority of our partners,” said Jim Koster, Starbucks senior vice president.

Doesn’t the word “partner” connote equitable treatment?  A company should not fire, harass, or discriminate against its partners simply for partaking in union activities, nor should they go out of their way to deny partners enough hours to qualify for benefits like health care.  Koster and Starbucks officials obviously have another definition of “partners,” but what else would you expect from a company that offers workers an “Optimal Scheduling” policy with no set hours, a company that joined the “Committee for Level Playing Field” to lobby for a “compromise” on Employee Free Choice that would benefit employers at the expense of workers?

Give Schultz a call and tell him to support his workers’ right to unionize: (206) 318-1575.