Baristas were walking off the job at unionized stores. Starbucks just served up a lesson on what happens when following the process takes a backseat to public relations.
This Week in Labor Theater
Nothing says “partners” like an alleged 2,000 baristas walking off the job over a dress code. It was probably a lot less, but the union uses a higher number for the media.
That’s what happened this week at Starbucks, where a new dress code policy requiring black tops and neutral bottoms under the iconic green apron sparked a multi-day strike at over 120 unionized stores nationwide.
The dress code policy changes themselves were pretty tame. Employees were issued two free branded shirts. The goal? Brand consistency and a refresh of in-store appearance as part of CEO Brian Niccol’s “Back to Starbucks” campaign.
But Starbucks Workers United (SWU) jumped on the rollout like it was a breach of human rights. Their claim? The company allegedly failed to bargain over the change, which, they argue, violates labor law.
Let’s Be Honest: It Was Never About the Shirts
This was never about fashion. It’s a pressure tactic.
Contract talks between SWU and Starbucks have gone nowhere for months. The roughly 570 unionized stores still lack a first collective bargaining agreement. Public interest is cooling, and legal setbacks are mounting. The union needed a spark.
Enter the dress code. It’s personal. It’s visible. And for the union, it was the perfect flashpoint. One barista called it dehumanizing, saying it made her feel like a “uniformed cog” in a corporate machine.
The issue wasn’t the fabric. It was the power play. The union saw an opening, and they took it.
So, Did Starbucks Miss a Step?
Maybe. If the dress code impacts represented workers’ terms and conditions of employment, it arguably should have been bargained, at least for unionized stores.
But here’s the real issue: the modern labor playbook is built to manufacture outrage from minor friction. Unions like SWU operate with one clear strategy: turn every operational change into a crisis. It doesn’t have to be big; it just must be loud.
For companies like Starbucks, navigating policies across unionized and non-unionized environments becomes a no-win game of legal and PR whack-a-mole.
In a statement, Starbucks blasted the union for the strike and urged it to return to the bargaining table. The two sides attempted to restart the negotiations in February, but those talks broke down over wage proposals and work conditions.
“It would be more productive if the union would put the same effort into coming back to the table that they’re putting into protesting wearing black shirts to work,” Starbucks said in a statement. “More than 99% of our stores are open today serving customers and have been all week.”
For Employers Watching This Play Out
Here’s what matters:
📌 Even small changes, like shirt color requirements, can trigger bargaining obligations in a unionized setting.
📌 Unions will weaponize minor issues for organizing and media leverage.
📌 Don’t mistake silence for consent; lack of bargaining is often the match, not the fire.
If you’re an employer with a union presence at some (but not all) locations, the Starbucks situation is a reminder: standardization without segmentation equals risk. Failing to tailor implementation to legal obligations can result in an unfair labor practice charge and a headline.
Final Sip
Starbucks is learning again that optics matter, process matters, and unions are desperate for relevance in today's climate.
Dress codes aren’t inherently controversial, but they become fuel in the context of a stalled organizing campaign.
The lesson for employers? Don’t get sloppy with the rollout. Don’t skimp on the legal process. Even seemingly “non-substantive” policies deserve procedural scrutiny. Because if you skip the process, someone else will script the story for you.
