Comment by sokoloff

I'm clearly no expert in labor law, but isn't the entire point of unionization that the company has to negotiate significant changes in contract and benefits terms with the union? As a lay person, that seems like the first principles of what unionization means. The company can act directly with the workers in non-union locations and must work with the union in union locations; that seems to be what Starbucks is doing. (Now, are they being strategic and jerks about it? Yeah, probably, but they couldn't unilaterally impose these changes, even if seemingly beneficial to workers, without negotiations with the union.)