Question

Summarize the text

Excerpt from Union objects to results of two Starbucks unionization votes
"Workers United, in objections filed with the National Labor Relations Board late
Thursday, said the company's intimidation tactics affected the results of voting at
two other stores where elections were being held, in suburban Hamburg and
Cheektowaga. In the objections, Workers United said Starbucks employees "were
subjected to a massive campaign of overwhelming psychological force from the
moment they publicly expressed the desire to form a union." Dozens of managers
were sent in to speak against the efforts in individual and group meetings with
employees, according to the filings. Workers were told they could lose benefits
under a union, and pro-union employees were spied on and saw their schedules
changed and hours reduced. The actions disrupted the "laboratory conditions"
considered necessary for a fair election, the union said.

Answer 1

The excerpt outlines Workers United's objections to Starbucks' alleged intimidation tactics during unionization votes in Hamburg and Cheektowaga, where employees faced psychological pressure and other adverse actions meant to disrupt fair election conditions. It also touches on historic and present challenges faced by labor unions in establishing fair representation and negotiations with employers.

Step-by-step explanation:

The text discusses the objections filed by Workers United with the National Labor Relations Board against Starbucks regarding unionization votes. It alleges that Starbucks employed intimidation tactics, leading to unfair elections in Hamburg and Cheektowaga. Workers faced a 'massive campaign of overwhelming psychological force', and pro-union employees experienced negative repercussions. These tactics disrupted the necessary 'laboratory conditions' for a fair unionization election.

Historically, businesses have often viewed unionization with mistrust, utilizing various strategies to impede labor unions, such as promoting open shops, employing strikebreakers, and creating company unions. Union supporters regard them as workers' defense against exploitation, while critics argue they can harm workers and firms in the long-run. Though illegal in the U.S. to discriminate against employees for union activity, repercussions are minimal, deterring union activity in contrast to more union-friendly countries like Canada.