We Should All Be Concerned—and Angry—About What’s Happening at Compass Coffee

The coffee chain allegedly packed its union vote with dozens of dubious new workers. While it’s been met with public outcry, that strategy remains a bleak blueprint for future union-busters.

Photo by Krišjānis Kazaks on Unsplash

On July 16, 2024, workers across seven locations of Compass Coffee—a Washington, D.C.- and Virginia-based coffee shop chain—held a union election. It should have been a straightforward process. But as of now, the result is still up in the air: Out of 123 votes, more than 100 have been challenged.

Members of Compass Coffee United, the organizing committee, allege that many of the votes were cast by new hires onboarded only after the union began organizing. Restaurant Dive reports that when the union first filed to hold an election, on June 4, the company had 47 eligible voters. The number of people who did vote—123—is nearly triple that figure.

Multiple outlets have reported that some workers listed as eligible to vote in the union are executives, or otherwise hold positions that seem suspicious in the context of a coffee shop chain. “The company’s list of workers eligible to place a vote reportedly include government employees and various executives and CEOs of other companies,” reports Stephanie Maida in Tasting Table.

Compass Coffee’s CEO, Michael Haft, attributed these new hires to seasonal employment fluctuations, and doubled down on their eligibility. He also took umbrage with the number of challenged votes. “The union has apparently pursued a strategy of contesting all, or virtually all, votes against unionization,” Haft wrote to Restaurant Dive. “I am confident they will lose.”

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is now adjudicating whether the challenged votes will be counted. But no matter the eventual outcome, we should all be alarmed by what’s happening at Compass Coffee. It’s not just the brazenness of its CEO’s alleged actions—hiring nearly 80 employees (and this is a conservative estimate, since some of the new hires did not cast votes) to pack a union vote—that is concerning.

It’s that there are so few guardrails to prevent other business owners from taking similar union-busting steps—and that impacted workers have so much more to lose than the companies they’re up against.

No Accountability

As unionization efforts in coffee have multiplied in recent years, so have union-busting efforts. In the process, it’s become clear just how few repercussions companies acting illegally to quash unions face.

Starbucks is a good example. Despite being charged with hundreds of infractions by the NLRB for impeding the movement of its union—including firing seven workers at a Memphis location, retaliating against a minor for organizing in California, and withholding benefits from unionized stores—Starbucks has reportedly yet to pay any fines for its actions, beyond back wages for wrongfully terminated employees.

In the process, it’s demonstrated to countless other business owners that the “act now, apologize later” strategy works when busting unions. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court has made this strategy even more effective. In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, adjudicated in June 2024, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the standard for issuing an injunction—basically a ruling to stop alleged illegal action while an investigation takes place—is too low, removing one of the very few tools the NLRB had in its arsenal.  

This case specifically addressed the May 2022 injunction that reinstated a group of Starbucks workers in Memphis, known as the Memphis 7. “After a preliminary investigation into the Memphis firings, the NLRB asked a federal court in Tennessee for an injunction. The court granted the request and ordered Starbucks to stop interfering with its employees’ union activities and temporarily reinstate the Memphis 7,” Andrea Hsu reported for NPR.

A preliminary ruling on the matter came more than a year later. Starbucks was found to have violated federal law, but a judge ruled that two of the seven firings were deemed justified. Today, the NLRB is still reviewing the issue, which goes to show just how long litigation takes—and how those delays can deter workers from taking action.

A worker getting fired and then having to wait years to get their job back—if the ruling is in their favor—feels far more punitive to the worker than the company. Even if a judge determines that a worker was unjustly fired, the company still faces no risk because the NLRB cannot assess fines. The worker, however, might lose their entire livelihood in the process.

Lies? Up to You.

These outcomes aren’t just felt on an individual level. The lack of accountability companies face when engaging in anti-union actions has created a landscape of impunity, one where bosses and business owners feel free to contest the reality that workers report in their stores.

For example, Haft told Restaurant Dive that one reason Compass hired so many new workers was seasonal traffic upticks. “However, on June 19, Haft showed Restaurant Dive records indicating that foot traffic at Compass locations in downtown Washington D.C., including one union location, lagged behind June 2019 foot traffic by more than 50% on comparable days,” Aneurin Canham-Clyne wrote.

Restaurant Dive (which has done the most comprehensive reporting on this issue; head to their site to read more about the alleged hiring packing and the outcome of the union vote) also made a chart showing the number of employees allegedly working at each location post-hiring boom. One store had as many as 33 employees listed as eligible to vote during the union election.

I don’t live in D.C. and can’t personally attest to how busy each Compass location is. But I’ve worked in some of the busiest coffee shops in New York and have, at most, seen these stores staffed with about 15 people. As a former barista, I find it suspect that a store would be staffed with 33 workers—especially since this specific store, according to Compass Coffee’s website, is right by American University’s campus. You could reasonably assume that, in a location like this, foot traffic would go down during the summer months.

Of those 80+ new workers, the union alleges that many are not actual employees, but friends of the CEO and notable D.C.-area business people.  

“At Compass, the list of new employees included Tizzy Brown, a Washington-based federal affairs manager for Uber. Compass also brought on Elena Rosenblum and Cullen Gilchrist, top executives at food business accelerator Union Kitchen; Grant Sarvis, the CEO and founder of Poppy’s Bagels; and Graham McLaughlin, the president of Snacklins chip company, according to the union,” reports Ian Kullgren and Parker Purifoy for Bloomberg Law.

Brown confirmed to Bloomberg Law that she only participated in a training session and never worked a single barista shift. McLaughlin also confirmed to Restaurant Dive that he assisted in training but never worked a shift. The issue of hiring so many new “workers” even got the attention of Sen. Bernie Sanders, who tweeted: “Claiming that a lobbyist from Uber & CEOs from other companies are workers in order to rig a union election is totally absurd & disgusting. I strongly support Compass Workers and call on Compass Coffee DC to respect the rights of their workers to organize & end its union busting.”

The union and Compass agreed that to be eligible to vote, a worker “must average at least four hours a week over the 13 weeks preceding the election, meaning they need to work at least 52 total hours over that timeframe,” writes Canham-Clyne.

I’m not the only one to call this strategy brazen. In Bloomberg Law, law professor Michael Fischl called hiring so many workers “a one way ticket to a bargaining order.” And in Restaurant Dive, labor lawyer David Rosenfeld said he’s “never heard [of] an employer being this egregiously stupid.”

However, given the “act first, apologize later” landscape of labor law, I’m not sure this strategy is stupid. I’m more concerned that, if the allegations of packing stores with new hires are true, it sets up a precedent that other employers can engage in blatantly illegal and unfair practices without owning up to their actions, long after workers feel the ramifications.

That’s why this story should alarm us. We should be appalled at the statements and actions we’re observing. And we should be angry that our government institutions seem poised to make organizing even riskier for workers, all while absolving companies of any risk if they engage in illegal or questionable actions.

The workers at Compass Coffee remain optimistic, however. The 22 unchallenged votes were in favor of unionizing, and according to a letter signed by DC-area commissioners, shared on the Compass Coffee United Instagram page, 86% of workers signed union cards during the initial petition to organize. What the depth of reporting from Restaurant Dive indicates to me is that we’re getting more comfortable as a society challenging the lines (and lies) told to us by business owners. 

So if you want to do anything in support of Compass workers, continue paying attention—it’s what keeps the pressure on.