A small percentage of Starbucks employees went on strike Thursday, complaining of the corporation’s opposition to unionization. Inadvertently, strikers showcased the antiquation of unions and the need for a Colorado right-to-work law.

The unionized workers of Starbucks earn less than peers who aren’t bound by contracts and dues. Today’s unions can’t keep pace with modern market dynamics. Given this circumstance, joining a union should be 100% voluntary – as it is in 28 right-to-work states.

In Colorado, employees can force union membership by forming an “all-union” shop with approval of 75% of employees. A state that deregulates drugs and fancies itself the real Galt’s Gulch should not tolerate tyranny of the 75%.

The Starbucks strike involved about 100 of the company’s 9,000 shops. In Colorado, it took place at one location in Colorado Springs, Denver, Greeley and Superior.

The corporation wants to head off the early stages of a feeble movement that has unionized fewer than 3% of the chain’s stores. Workers at 57 Starbucks nationwide have voted down unionization.

The issue surfaced in Colorado Springs late last month when Starbucks corporate closed a store on South Nevada Avenue. Employees claim headquarters shuttered it because employees unionized in March. Corporate claims it closed the store over concerns for employee safety in a high-crime neighborhood.

In a better society the corporation could close a store for any reason. Authorities should force no one to sell coffee. We don’t live in such a free society. Section 8 of the 1935 Labor Relations Act prohibits employers from closing operations to avoid collective bargaining.

The National Labor Relations Board and federal courts occasionally grapple with cases like the Nevada Avenue Starbucks dispute.

Consider the case of RAV Truck and Trailer Repairs, Inc. The New York business laid off two workers and closed one of its operations in 2018 after employees unionized. The owner said the shop was losing money and its lease was up, claiming the layoffs and closure had no link to the union.

Former employees complained to the NLRB. The board ordered the company to reopen, reinstate employees and “make the separated employees whole for any loss of earnings or benefits,” and “to bargain with the Union upon request.”

A federal appellate court remanded the ruling back to the NLRB with instructions to reconsider. These regulatory quagmires should have no place in the 21st century, where innovation, creativity and technology constantly disrupt business-as-usual. Modern corporate executives and boards make instant, dog-fight decisions just to survive.

In contrast to today’s young adults, baby boomers and the World War II generation endured eras of grueling unemployment and stiff competition for any kind of work. Innovation and disruption were slow and favored the status quo. Employers held the cards and created demand for collective bargaining and minimum wages.

Today’s employers find themselves so desperate for employees they typically pay above minimum wage thresholds, which have quickly reached $12 to $15 throughout much of the country. Big tech firms voluntarily offer employees massages, gourmet cafeterias, laundry service and more.

Just this week, Centura Health announced $30,000 hiring bonuses for nurses. Signs at drive-throughs offer hiring bonuses, wages of $18-plus and “start today get paid tomorrow” arrangements. They’ll hire almost anyone willing to work.

Starbucks invested an additional $1 billion this fiscal year to improve pay and benefits to meet the market’s high valuation of labor. So far, the unionized workers have lost out on it.

“…workers are angry that Starbucks promised higher pay and benefits to non-union stores,” explains a Gazette news article. “Starbucks says it is following the law and can’t give union stores pay hikes without bargaining.”

Indeed, contemporary unions can harm employees. Maybe that’s why union membership among Colorado-based workers dropped from 11% in 2018 to a record low 6.5% in 2021.

Without masterful immigration reform or another baby boom – neither is likely – sustained labor shortages will replace the old bane of high unemployment. On the fly, as needed, employers will offer bonuses, benefits and wages above legal minimums or tenets of static union contracts.

Colorado’s Democratic legislature and governor aren’t likely to consider a right-to-work law. In recent years, they have expanded options for public sector unionization, a move to counter plummeting private sector membership.

Voters rejected a right-to-work ballot measure in 2012. Over 10-plus years, dynamics have changed. Voters have twice chosen to lower income taxes for employees, so they may be open to protecting them from compulsory and coercive unions.

When union contracts can’t keep up with market forces, they burden their members – as acknowledged on Thursday. Under these circumstances, the law should free all workers, public and private, from compulsory membership and dues. Maybe it is time to try the ballot again, in a serious effort to protect employees and their jobs.

Colorado Springs Gazette Editorial Board