Much akin to Republican lawmakers and auto execs expecting union members to make large concessions in pay and benefits, now one newspaper company is doing the same.

The New York Times Company, owner of The New York Times and The Boston Globe, has taken the gloves off (and put on a pair of brass knuckles) in hard-line negotiations with its unions. The company is threatening to close The Boston Globe unless the newspaper's unions quickly agree to $20 million in concessions, the Globe reported on Friday, quoting union leaders.

While times appear to be tough at The Boston Globe, you might imagine that everyone was buckling down and making concessions. You would be wrong.

Forbes.com reports that The New York Times Company CEO Janet L. Robinson raked in $5,578,451 in compensation for 2008. This includes $1,552,603 in restricted stock awards, as well as a salary of $1 million.

Like the auto companies, these rich CEOs want the unions to take a bite of a shit sandwich rather then have to personally take a pay cut.

But some companies aren't in that position...because they won't allow unions at all.

In 1997, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote that he wanted workers “to believe in their hearts that management trusted them and treated them with respect...If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.” Whole Foods’ avowedly libertarian CEO, John Mackey, has compared the prospect of having unions at his stores to “having herpes.” An internal Whole Foods document listing “six strategic goals for Whole Foods Market to achieve by 2013,” obtained by Mother Jones, includes a goal to remain “100% union-free.”

How serious is Whole Foods about maintaining their "100% union-free" workforce? Serious enough to begin subtly threatening workers before President Obama was even inaugurated.

Shortly before the inauguration of President Barack Obama, the manager of a Whole Foods grocery store in the San Francisco Bay Area gathered his employees in a conference room for a chat about labor organizing. “This is not a union-bashing thing whatsoever,” the manager began, adding, however, that he’d called the meeting because Whole Foods believed Obama would sign the Employee Free Choice Act, legislation intended to ease unionization that was opposed by the company’s lobbyists. According to a tape of the meeting obtained by Mother Jones, the manager went on to imply that joining a union would lead to reprisals: “It’s interesting to note that once you become represented by the union,” he said, “basically everything, every benefit you have, is kind of thrown out the window, and you renegotiate a contract.”

How about Starbucks? Do they desire to stay as "100% union-free" as Whole Foods? You bet they do.

In December, a National Labor Relations Board judge ruled that Seattle-based Starbucks Corp. violated federal labor law by trying to stop union organizing at four Manhattan cafes. Starbucks is appealing the decision.

That trial, which took place between July and October 2007, produced a decision that reads at times like a reality-TV script, revealing Starbucks baristas and managers yelling at each other, mishandling blenders and cursing.

The National Labor Relations Board found on Dec. 23 that Starbucks had illegally fired three New York City baristas as it tried to squelch the union organizing effort.

Recall the previously mentioned quote from Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz:

In 1997, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz wrote that he wanted workers “to believe in their hearts that management trusted them and treated them with respect...If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.”

In the 1980s, Starbucks had unionized. Howard Schultz took over as CEO in 1987. By 1992, Starbucks was union-free.

Recently, outspoken union member and barista Joe Tessone attempted to confront CEO Howard Schultz about how the company treats employees. Two weeks later, the company notified Tessone that he was being fired.

Both Starbucks and Whole Foods are, of course, lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act. In fact, the two companies in league with Costco have unveiled "Committee for a Level Playing Field for Union Elections" which aims to offer a corporate-friendly alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act.

Who else doesn't support passage of The Employee Free Choice Act?

*Bank of America and AIG
*Burger King
*McDonald's

A new advertisement created by American Rights at Work attempts to counter anti-union propaganda by breaking down the beliefs of the large corporations who are lobbying against the Employee Free Choice Act.





As Kim Fellner, author of Wrestling With Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, Capuccino states:

Starbucks' and Whole Foods’ anti-union, pro-worker stance "is the essence of benevolent paternalism," says Kim Fellner, whose book, Wrestling With Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, Capuccino, praises many of the company’s other employment practices. “These are companies that want to do good by their workers, but want to decide what that good is, rather than letting the workers decide for themselves. And that’s a problem.”

The majority of people eligible to unionize actually desire to do so, contrary to what anti-union propaganda claims.

In a survey conducted in December 2006 by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, 58% of non-managerial working Americans indicated that they would join a union if they could.

Support workers. Workers deserve to decide for themselves what is good for them.