Local 789 filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations board over the termination, alleging that the company had violated labor laws. In addition, state Rep. Frank Hornstein introduced legislation in March that would bar state agencies from purchasing any Jennie-O products until it “ceases all alleged unfair labor practices.” The bill never passed out of committee, but remains alive.

Earlier this month Jennie-O reached a settlement with the NLRB. It agreed to pay Ali all back wages, plus interest, and offer him his job back. (He declined.) It also agreed to post a sign at the slaughterhouse laying out in explicit detail workers’ rights regarding unionization, and to distribute the missive to employees.

Local 789 hopes to utilize the ruling as a means to jumpstart an organizing campaign at the Faribault turkey processing plant. In the past such organizing drives have not been successful. The union plans to run the NLRB posting as an ad in local newspapers.

“We’ll see what kind of a response we get,” says Bernie Hesse, director of special projects at Local 789. “It’d be kind of neat if all of a sudden we got inundated with interest.”

Local 789 is part of a nationwide effort by the UFCW to organize workers at the country’s largest employer. The campaign, targeting more than 100 stores in 17 states, was prompted in part by the presence of a more labor-friendly administration in Washington, D.C., and to generate momentum for passing the Employee Free Choice Act.

Wal-Mart is arguably the country’s most notoriously anti-union company. In the past it has taken dramatic steps to keep collective bargaining agreements out of its shops. After workers in Canada voted to authorize a union in 2004, for instance, the company responded by closing the store.

According to Doug Mork, organizing director for Local 789, Wal-Mart has been engaging in standard, anti-union behavior since the campaign’s inception earlier this year. But in the second week of June a team of corporate representatives was dispatched to the Twin Cities from the company’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to help smother any organizing momentum.

“They really turned up the heat inside the stores and really started to hammer folks,” Mork said.

He believes the dialed-up efforts are a reflection of Local 789′s recent successes in convincing workers that union representation is the correct choice. Employees at eight Wal-Mart stores in the Twin Cities have so far signed off on cards indicating that they want to organize, according to the union.

“We’ve seen considerable and steady forward progress,” Mork said, “not only in our core, active stores from the beginning, but now just in the last few weeks we’ve had a couple of new stores break lose and start to get more active.”

According to Martin Ostheus, regional director for the National Labor Relations Board, an investigator has been assigned to scrutinize the allegations against Wal-Mart. Ostheus expects a ruling on whether the charges have merit to be made by mid-August. There are no other complaints against Wal-Mart currently pending with the NLRB’s Minneapolis office.

Daphne Moore, a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart, says that the company is looking into the allegations. “We’re just learning about the filing,” she says. “We’ll review it and respond after that review. Generally we provide our managers with training on how to comply with labor laws and we also make sure that our associates know their rights.”

Moore also questions the union’s claim of growing worker support for unionization. “We have noticed that the UFCW has been working harder in its attempts to get Wal-Mart associates to sign union cards, but we don’t think our associates have any reason to be more interested than before.”

Mork believes Local 789′s efforts will eventually result in elections in Wal-Mart stores to decide whether workers want to have union representation, but he declines to predict when that might transpire. Up until then, he expects the retailing behemoth to continue to fight such efforts vigorously.

“In the past obviously Wal-Mart’s been tremendously effective in scaring the hell out of people and getting them to back down,” he said.

“We are in the process right now of attempting to negotiate a settlement with Starbucks on the allegations that we have found to be meritorious,” says Robert Chester, regional director of the NLRB’s Minneapolis office.

Among the infractions allegedly taken by the company: prohibiting employees from discussing the union within stores, threatening to call security because of union activities and prohibiting posting of pro-union materials.

The charges were filed in January by Erik Forman (pictured), a worker at the Starbucks in the Mall of America, on behalf of the Starbucks Workers Union. Forman was not surprised by the ruling.

“We’ve been bearing the brunt of their union-busting since the day we went public and before,” he says. “We know they break the law, but it’s nice that the federal government acknowledges they break the law as well.”

Similar NLRB complaints have been filed against Starbucks across the country in recent years. Last year the federal agency accused the coffee chain of firing an East Grand Rapids worker for supporting unionization efforts, as documented by the Michigan Messenger. Two years ago the NLRB’s New York office leveled 30 labor-law violations against the company.

The adverse NLRB determination comes as Starbucks rolls out a new, multi-million-dollar marketing campaign aimed at curbing inroads made by low-cost competitors such as McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts. Starbucks closed 600 stores last year and has plans to shutter 300 more. Its first quarter profits were off 77 percent from a year ago. The new ads tout Starbucks’ “values,” including fair-trade practices and support for environmentally sustainable farming.

Forman finds the campaign misleading. “This idea of social responsibility has been a major part of their image since the company was started,” he says. “Unfortunately we’ve found it’s more image than reality. It would be nice if they would live up to their reputation.”

Forman was fired by the coffee chain in July but was reinstated the next month with roughly $2,000 in back pay. The Starbucks Workers Union is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World.

The NLRB’s Chester expects a settlement to be reached quickly. “I would hope that we’ll know something no later than two weeks,” he says. “We may know something sooner.”

About a dozen former and current Starbucks workers gathered outside the coffee chain’s outlet at the intersection of Nicollet and Franklin avenues on Thursday morning, circling on the sidewalk in the single-digit temperatures and carrying placards that read “Justice for Baristas” and “Starbucks Workers Union.”

“Starbucks Union here to stay,” they chanted. “These lattes are union-made.”

The event coincided with the filing of 11 labor violation charges against the company with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Among the accusations against the ubiquitous coffee retailer: Employees were illegally fired or punished for engaging in union activities; store managers wrongly prohibited discussions of organizing efforts at work; and pro-union workers were spied on by management.

“Starbucks has flagrantly violated the National Labor Relations Act on countless occasions,” said Aaron Kocher, an employee at the Nicollet Avenue shop.

As a media event it was admittedly something of a failure. Along with a Minnesota Independent reporter, there was exactly one other attendee shooting video. But that doesn’t mean the Starbucks Workers Union hasn’t made some progress in its four-year campaign to organize baristas at outlets across the country.

Although the union, which is affiliated with the Industrial Workers of the World, is not recognized by Starbucks, it now has an active presence in stores across the country. And recently it has won some notable victories in making the case that Starbucks routinely violates labor laws. In December, the NLRB ruled that the company illegally fired three baristas for union activities and ordered that they be reinstated with back pay. The federal agency also determined that Starbucks broke the law by prohibiting union activities in the workplace and punishing pro-union workers with poor evaluations.

Earlier this week, the NLRB took Starbucks to court seeking the reinstatement of a worker in Grand Rapids, Mich. “On the basis of an investigation that we preformed, we allege this employee was terminated because of his union activities,” said Stephen Glasser, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board, as reported by the Michigan Messenger.

Locally the Starbucks Workers Union has largely drawn attention around the case of Eric Forman (pictured above). The union activist was fired by the company’s Mall of America store in July, prompting his co-workers to walk off the job the following day. A month later, Starbucks agreed to re-hire Forman and pay him roughly $2,000 in back pay.

At Thursday’s event, workers presented Starbucks with its own “performance review.” Not surprisingly the company did not receive high marks. On a three-point scale evaluating 10 business practices, its average score was well under one. The company received a score of one, for instance, in the area of wages. “We’re not coffee beans; we’re human beings,” said Forman. “And we have needs. We need to pay rent. We need to pay bills.”

On the issue of diversity, the company fared even worse, earning a zero rating. “I find it hard to believe that only pretty, young, straight, white girls are turning in applications,” said Jamie Laudert (pictured), a former Starbucks employee who quit because she says she couldn’t live on the wages.

After they finished reading the performance evaluation, the workers filed into the Starbucks shop to speak with a district manager, who’d been present earlier in the day. But the manager had already vacated the premises.