What Workers Wear Today

Autonomous Control of Starbucks
Do you think the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went too far in overruling Starbucks? Why or why not?
It definitely appears that the administrative law judge and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) went too far in overruling Starbucks. The main reason is that Starbucks had initially made an effort to accommodate the NLRB. The former permitted its employees to wear a button denoting partisanship with that particular organization (DeMaria, 2009). Deciding how many buttons an employee could wear, or even deciding how Starbucks could determine its own policy about the appearance of its employees, is not within the scope of the NLRB. The NLRB and the aforementioned judge overstepped their boundaries by overruling Starbucks.
How much leeway should an employer have in setting standards for conduct, customer interaction, and attire in the workplace?
Employers should have a fair amount of leeway in setting standards for conduct, customer interaction, and attire in the workplace. In fact, they must have this leeway because the employee is actually representing the employer. A customer’s interaction with an employee becomes the most critical basis for his or her interaction with that company. Therefore, employers should dictate the nature of those interactions in terms of conduct and attire. The same way employees are trained how to conduct themselves with customers is the same way they require training in how wear their clothing. Attire certainly pertains to ornamentation on uniforms, which is essentially what buttons for any variety of organizations are.
Does the NLRB decision unfairly limit Starbucks in the management of the stores? Why or why not?
There are a couple of pivotal ways the NLRB decision unfairly circumscribes Starbucks in the management of its stores. Firstly, it limits the effect that Starbucks can have on its employees’ impact on customers. The way that employees can dress is conventionally within the limits of the employer. Facets of dress—much like a uniform—such as buttons are ultimately a reflection of that employer and the company as a whole. By effectively allowing Starbucks employees to wear more than one button denoting some aspect of the NLRB (DeMaria, 2010), that organization is letting Starbucks’ workers act as though they are in the midst of some labor dispute. Doing so is unfair to the Starbucks organization. Moreover, what the NLRB decision was actually doing was dictating the ability of Starbucks to create and implement policy for its own workers. The NLRB does not have that much of a vested interest in Starbucks to render such executive decisions, which are ideally made internally from upper level management. It is almost unheard of for an external entity to exercise that much sway for another company.
What is your view of the court’s decision?
It certainly seems as though the court made the correct decision in overturning the ruling of the NLRB (Moran, 2012). Starbucks is actually depending on its employees to represent its brand correctly to customers. It is necessary for those employees to maintain an appearance adhering to the standards of basic facets of dress and conduct. The U.S. appeals court that ruled in favor of Starbucks was simply ensuring that this organization was able to exercise its right to determine the nature of the interaction between its employees and customers. Significant points of variation between employees’ appearances and Starbucks’ expectations could affect a customer’s perception of the company altogether.
References
DeMaria, A.T. (2009). Judge says Starbucks violated workers’ rights at NYC stores. Management Report.
DeMaria, A.T. (2010). NLRB orders Starbucks to reinstate two workers, but not a third. Management Report.
Moran, C. (2012). Court sides with Starbucks in dispute over labor union pins. https://consumerist.com Retrieved from https://consumerist.com/2012/05/10/court-sides-with-starbucks-in-dispute-over-labor-union-pins/