Is Starbucks really an “evil” corporation as suggested by opponents, or is it truly a “good” corporate citizen as supporters argue? The answer, according to a new book, isn’t quite so black and white. Jesse Russell reports:

Labor activist Kim Fellner watched in 1999 as a trash can was hefted through a Starbucks window during the Seattle protests of the World Trade Organization. She says it was that moment that forced her to reconsider the role that what she had previously only considered as a coffee shop played in the scope of the world economy. The result is her new book “Wrestling with Starbucks: Conscience, Capital, and Cappuccino.” In it she argues that Starbucks struggles with “benevolent paternalism.”

[Fellner]: Starbucks is considered a leader in socially responsible business practices: an early adopter of health care for domestic partners, pioneered benefits for part-timers, has a very multi-racial workforce including up to top officials, emphasizes training, often promotes from within. All pretty good stuff.

Fellner said the company does share less than commendable traits with other corporations in similar industries:

[Fellner2]: …what it shares with Wal-Mart and McDonald’s is a baseline hourly wage around $7 and $10 and they don’t like unions very much, and over the years they have vigorously fought workers efforts to form unions…sometimes to the point of illegality.