That sounds exactly right. You can have a fluid or rigid relationship between employees and the company, but it then goes one way.

If employees get "hardcore" about creating limits on how the company can hire/pay/whatever, it obviously changes how the company engages with those employees as well.

To wit, if you force me to sign in blood for everything I have to give you, I am not going to give you anything else.

You're almost there.

This isn't the union failing to negotiate a good deal, or being sticklers about procedure and thus preventing union employees from getting what non-union employees are being given. Starbucks is deliberately using this as a way to sabotage the union, by refusing to even offer them the same terms as non-union employees. This is illegal.

What does it mean to "offer the same terms?" Presumably the unionized folks are getting some compensation benefit compared to non-unionized (otherwise, what's the point?)

Since the terms are already different, how do you compare if the union rate (no CC tips) is better than the non-union rate (with CC tips?)

The raises and tips that Starbucks was giving to the non-union stores, but not offering as options to the unionized stores.

What do you mean by "options". Was there an active negotiating going on at this time (maybe?)

Starbucks did not offer to negotiate these new benefits with the unionized stores. They rolled them out to non-union stores, then made a lot of noise about how they couldn't possibly give them to the union stores, because the union was preventing it—but they didn't actually engage in any negotiations with the union, offer the benefits, or in any other way show good faith.

It is painfully clear that this is a deliberate union-busting tactic on Starbucks' part. The only reason they gave any stores these benefits is in order to make the union look bad.

This is illegal.

I don't know labor law, but if you're right, it's completely ridiculous. I know for a fact that union employees are allowed to receive benefits and pay increases that non-union employees don't get. If the other side of the coin is illegal, then the law is insane.

Specifically because it's a union-busting tactic, employers cannot give benefits to non-union employees that are not at least offered to union employees.

Remember, the employer/employee relationship is an inherently unequal one. The freedom of the employer to do certain things is curtailed for the common good, in exchange for substantial power and economic advantages.

Having lawyers to bring about lawsuits is the leverage.

I'm really just shocked by this sentiment that being in a union somehow ops you into to getting illegally screwed around.