[shrike]

Starbucks did the same thing, arguing that -

“Wages and benefits are mandatory subjects of the collective bargaining process,” the company said. It rejects the union’s argument that it could offer the wage and benefit enhancements to unionized stores at any time.

The NLRB countered -

"...the NLRB said Starbucks violated labor law by offering raises and benefits — including increased training, career development opportunities, expanded tipping and even looser dress code policies — only to nonunion stores."*

Source: https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks-shortchanged..., @ https://archive.ph/CrZTh

[35208654]

Is there an update to this story? The story doesn’t cite what law the NLRB claimed was violated, only that doing what starbucks did interfered with their ability to organize. The final paragraph mentions that the case is yet to be heard:

>The regional complaint will be heard by an administrative law judge at the NLRB. Once a decision is reached, either side can appeal to the full National Labor Relations Board in Washington.

Full disclosure: I’m operating on logic, not an expertise on labor law. I am genuinely interested in expanding my understanding of labor laws and process.

[yardie]

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/starbucks-il...

Unfortunately, by reading the first article I'm paywalled from reading the second. But the NLRB judge found them guilty is in the first paragraph.

[35208654]

From reading the article you linked, it appears they violated the law by refusing to negotiate, not by giving non-union workers benefits that they didn’t give to union workers.

[firstlink]

The NLRB process is to first find the company guilty no matter what, and then look for convenient soundbite-ready justifications later.