Everyone has a story. What's yours?
 Linda Thomas
twitter: @TheNewsChick
About Linda
Linda is the morning news anchor and features reporter for KIRO Radio. This is her local news blog, with an emphasis on social media, technology, Northwest companies, education, parenting, and anything else that grabs her attention.

If you have a news tip or story idea, I'd love to hear from you...

To leave a voice message for Linda about any of her stories call toll free 1-855-251-2363

Follow Me on Pinterest


theochocolate2.jpg
Theo Chocolates, in Seattle, disputes a labor group's report that claims the company fired, discriminated against, and penalized employees who wanted to unionize. (Linda Thomas photo)

Theo Chocolates is bitter about unionizing, labor group claims

February 14, 2013 @ 6:23 pm (Updated: 12:33 pm - 2/15/13 )

A Seattle-based chocolate company known for using fair trade cocoa beans is unfair to its workers, they claim.

A report from a labor group says the company doesn't deserve its "Fair for Life" certification because it tried to prevent workers from unionizing a couple of years ago.

The International Labor Rights Forum, a Washington D.C.-based non-profit, made a case study out of the Theo Chocolates company.

It says that in 2010, Theo Chocolate workers contacted the Teamsters union about organizing because they said they were overworked and some had been injured on the job.

The company reportedly hired a consultant to meet with workers to tell them why unionizing was a bad idea.

"Management actively campaigned against worker organizing efforts using professional union avoidance consultants, intimidation, and discriminatory treatment of workers based on support of the union," says Judy Gearhart, executive director of the labor rights group.

"Theo management learned that the Theo workers were attempting to form a union. To the workers' surprise, management responded with hostility, intimidation and retaliation.

Rather than view the workers' desire to form a union as a positive step toward a more mature labor-management relationship, Theo management viewed the efforts as a personal affront and a challenge to the company's business model. Top management, including CEO Joe Whinney, confronted union supporters and spread an anti-union culture through emotional manipulation, guilt, intimidation, fear and derogatory accusations about unions in general."

The company has responded with a letter "Setting the Record Straight" refuting the report.

Theo Choclates CEO Joe Whinney says in bold type, "I want to be clear that the accusations contained in this report are false. At no time has Theo fired, discriminated against, or penalized employees based on their activities or preferences around unions."

He says the report is flawed and adds, "Executive and salaried employees elected to take pay cuts to ensure no jobs would be lost during the recession, and that hourly employees' wages would be protected and maintained at pre-recession levels."

By LINDA THOMAS

More from Linda Thomas

MyNorthwest.com - Purpose of Comments statement
Bonneville Media encourages site users to express their opinions by posting comments. Our goal is to maintain a civil dialogue in which readers feel comfortable. At times, the comments can descend to personal attacks. Please do not engage in such behavior. We encourage your thoughtful comments which: have a positive and constructive tone, are on topic, are respectful toward others and their opinions. Bonneville reserves the right to remove comments which do not conform to these criteria.

Comments (19)


  • Add A Comment

  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Speak like socialists.
    February 15, 2013 5:18 am
    They are just emulating what they see and hear from The Oval Office.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • po_guy wrote...
    Unions S*U*C*K
    February 15, 2013 5:42 am
    anyway. A company should be able to run it's own enter[rise the way it wants to, without a bunch of LAZY scum trying to unionize so they do not have to (AARGGG!!!) WORK!!!!!
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Labor and Capital are equally important
    February 15, 2013 7:19 am
    Capital supplies the tools, the opportunity to work, and creates the markets for finished products. Capital is essential, and deserves respect.

    Labor picks up the tools, does the work, and creates the finished products for the market. Labor is equally essential, and deserves respect.

    In a free country where workers are non-indentured, it is not an outrageous concept that labor and management would negotiate and discuss issues that affect the symbiotic business relationship between management and labor. To the great disappointment of many, we don't live in a society where the employer actually *owns* the employees- employees are free people who sell their skills and experience for as much as the market will bear.

    Management comes to the table with a single voice. Their spokeperson's clout? "If you don't buckle under and work for whatever we decide to pay you, and under whatever conditions we declare you will either endure or enjoy, no other manager in the company will allow you to work here."

    That management clout is always the same, whether or not there is a union in place.

    Collective bargaining levels the playing field. Labor's clout equals management only when labor, like management, speaks with a single voice. The spokesperson't clout? "If we don't reach an agreement regarding the conditions under which we will work and the amount we will be paid per hour, no other employee will do further work for you."

    Union membership is at historically low levels in the US. In fact, just about the only real unions left are for teachers and public employees. Is it coincidental that in the same decade where union membership evaporated in nearly every other phase of the economy, wages have remained stagnant (or actually declined, in many cases) while corporate profits are soaring to record levels?

    History, including recent experience, indicates that many employers will not voluntarily share increased profits with the workers that made those profits possible.

    Labor and capital are equally important. It's best when neither side is subjugated by the other.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    We must also remember Chuck
    February 15, 2013 7:28 am
    That in our society anyone that wants to risk capital and put in the long hours and years of building a business that be unhappy as an employee may also become an employer and provide a service under their own directives. Unions provided a valuable service years ago providing for their members a safe work enviroment, a standard wage and a standard work week which soon became the guidline protected under federal and state laws. Today the unions are more active in political posturing and gearing the work requirements to the lowest common denominator.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Somewhat agree, mnpat
    February 15, 2013 7:52 am
    The historic contribution of unions transformed the concept of work from the model that had prevailed, quite literally, since feudalism. Before unions, nobody thought it was questionable when a business decided it made more economic sense to allow drastically unsafe working conditions than to "waste money" trying to create a safer work place. If one starving worker died on the job, it was easier to replace that worker with another than to correct the problem and prevent further death.

    As a society, those issues are behind us now.

    Union wages created the middle class. Union negotiators made sick leave, paid vacation, paid holidays, paid overtime, retirement plans, medical coverage, and other conditions now considered somewhat "normal" a reality. Those working conditions once prevailed in most non-union workplaces, and some of them are still common today, thanks to union negotiations of the past.

    The modern role for unions is the preservation of the middle class. In the last decade, with the general demise of most unions, we have already witnessed the elimination of retirement plans from nearly all businesses. As medical costs have gone up by a few hundred percent over 10 or 15 years, we are witnessing fewer and fewer businesses offering health insurance (or even the opportunity for employees to purchase health insurance) as a fringe benefit.

    Union influence has never been less in the modern era that it is today. Wages are flat or down in most industries. Fringe benefits are being rolled back. Corporate profits are off the chart. Over a period of time, we will be back to feudalism again.

    Neither labor nor capital should expect to dominate the other at all times. A "free market" only exists when buyer and seller have equal power. Equally empowered, when the buyer and seller decide to do business it's a "fair deal." When one side (labor or capital) holds all the power, business is done as the result of extortion.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mnpat wrote...
    I agree with your statement Chuck however
    February 15, 2013 8:03 am
    I disagree with employees/workers having to pay union dues that exceed the need of the local/national costs endured. The funds that are used for political/organizing should not be forced upon anyone even if they benifit from the labor agrrement worked out by unions.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Fuego wrote...
    This "fair" stuff..
    February 15, 2013 7:59 am
    is getting old. Get over it, life ain't fair, just ask the Russians that have to go out and buy new underwear after that meteor hit.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    A fair is where you go to get cotton candy.
    February 15, 2013 8:02 am
    ....
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • Chuck Gould wrote...
    Funny, I'm pretty sure security at that fair will be provided by
    February 15, 2013 8:12 am
    a unionized cop.

    It's semi-absurd when cops and firefighers, (routinely earning over 6 figures these days, especially with OT and benefits) start grumping about the evils of unions. The one area were unions are still pretty effective is in public employment.

    I would be the last to argue that putting ones life on the line as a condition of employment shouldn't be worth $2,000 per week; but if a non-union guard instead of a unionized cop were guarding that cotton candy stand he'd be lucky to make $2,000 per *month*, not $2,000 per week.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    Cops and fire fighters are NEEDED and it is part of the gov't mandate to provide these services. PERIOD.
    February 15, 2013 12:40 pm
    I make no apologies.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • William Lawn wrote...
    Of course you don't make apologies, you got yours
    February 15, 2013 4:33 pm
    And screw everyone else.

    So union negotiated pensions, sick time, holidays, working conditions are mandates?

    No they aren't.

    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • ratrustle wrote...
    show me where
    February 15, 2013 8:04 pm
    Government is mandated to provide police and fire protection. I can't seem to find that anywhere? It's probably right next to the section on transit and welfare?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • nwhandy wrote...
    Am I reading this right?
    February 15, 2013 9:49 am
    According to the article it seems that the unions are saying that they have the right to lobby for unionization, but the employer does not have the right to lobby against it. Is this the case? Only the union has rights in a situation like this?
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • mere mortal wrote...
    silliness
    February 15, 2013 10:04 am
    I'm afraid the workers are barking up the wrong tree. Unions have been fighting an uphill battle for a long time and their belief that there members deserve a bigger piece of the corporate pie are just silly, really. If I own a business, I will hire qualified people and they will have a job description. Do a good job and move up. Do a poor job and you will most likely be replaced. This isn't a Union issue, it's an HR issue. Don't like the way your being treated, work with management to improve it or move on. No one owes you a job! Knowledge and a good attitude are appreciated by employers, whiners, not so much.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • HPD 5-0 wrote...
    No not at all like the 2nd amendment...
    February 15, 2013 1:00 pm
    Assholeiah, like all liberal DimoRats, thinks it's just fine to pick and choose which laws we must adhere to and enforce. Typical. Lying, hypocrites. and Assholiah is the leading dumbfark here.
    { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }
  • { "Thumbs Up":"1","Thumbs Down":"-1" }