Rosa Pedraza
Feb 16, 2024 - 11:05

Union-backing shareholder requests Starbucks to disclose anti-union spending and approaches SEC

Labor union accuses Starbucks of failing to disclose costs of anti-union campaigns, estimated at $240 million, ahead of 2024 annual meeting.

A shareholder with the backing of a labor union has written a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, claiming that Starbucks has not been transparent about the costs associated with anti-union campaigns, which are estimated to be around $240 million.

The Strategic Organizing Center (SOC), a coalition of labor unions in North America, has called on Starbucks to fully disclose the total costs and liabilities related to these campaigns in order to ensure that shareholders can make informed voting decisions ahead of the 2024 annual meeting.

Efforts to unionize workers at the world's largest coffeehouse chain have been gaining momentum since late 2021, with workers staging a walkout during a promotional event in November as part of a strike organized by the Workers United union to demand improved staffing and schedules.

In response to the claims made by the Strategic Organizing Center, a Starbucks spokesperson stated that the company does not spend money on "anti-union activities" and remains in compliance with all current SEC and OLMS (Office of Labor-Management Standards) reporting requirements.

The annual meeting of Starbucks, where shareholders will vote on the composition of the company's eight-member board, is scheduled for March 13. The SOC, which nominated three candidates to the board of Starbucks in November, has highlighted that the costs in question include litigation, employee lost time, and liabilities associated with alleged labor law violations.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently agreed to hear Starbucks' appeal against a lower court ruling that required the company to rehire seven employees at one of its cafes in Memphis, Tennessee, who were determined by a federal agency to have been fired for supporting unionization.

The SEC has not yet responded to requests for comment on this matter. This situation is evolving, and it will be interesting to see how it unfolds in the coming months.