(C) Daily Kos This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Howard Schultz really didn't want to answer Bernie Sanders' questions about Starbucks' union-busting [1] ['Daily Kos Staff', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags'] Date: 2023-03-29 Sanders kicked off his questioning of Schultz by citing some of those charges. “Are you aware that NLRB judges have ruled that Starbucks violated federal labor law over 100 times during the past 18 months,” he asked, “far more than any other corporation in America?” Schultz responded: “Sir, Starbucks Coffee Company unequivocally, and let me set the tone for this very early on, has not broken the law.” So it’s Schultz vs. multiple judges. But sure, believe the union-busting CEO. Schultz wasn’t successful at setting the tone, either, because as much as he wanted to be “unequivocal,” at key moments, he equivocated. “Are you aware that on March 1, 2023, an administrative law judge found Starbucks guilty of, quote, ‘egregious and widespread misconduct,’ end quote, ‘widespread coercive behavior,’ and showed, quote, ‘a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights,’ end quote, in a union organizing campaign that started in Buffalo, New York, in 2021,” Sanders followed up. “Are you aware of that?” “I’m aware that those are allegations,” Schultz responded, “and Congress has created a process that we are following, and we are confident that those allegations will be proven false.” That is a federal administrative law judge’s assessment of those allegations. Sure, there’s a “process” that could include appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court, but it’s not like those quotes came from a Starbucks worker on a picket line. It was at this point that Sanders warned Schultz that it was illegal to lie to Congress in this setting, going on to ask a series of questions about Schultz’s personal involvement in a series of union-busting moves by Starbucks such as decisions to fire or discipline workers who were part of union organizing drives. Schultz answered a flat “no” to those questions, and he might have been telling the truth—those things definitely happened, but it is unlikely that they were bringing the CEO of the company in on the specific decisions about which baristas to retaliate against. Schultz set the tone at the company, but lower-level managers carried it out. But on the next question, Schultz couldn’t be quite so definite. Here’s how it came out when Sanders asked him if he’d ever “threatened, coerced, or intimidated a worker for supporting a union.” Schultz responded, “I’ve had conversations that could’ve been interpreted in a different way than I intended. That’s up to the person who received the information that I spoke to them about.” For some strange reason, workers who have watched Starbucks fire other union supporters in what multiple judges have concluded was illegal retaliation might have, y’know, just interpreted Schultz wrong. Next, Sanders asked Schultz if he was “informed of or involved in the decision to withhold benefits from Starbucks workers in unionized stores, including higher pay and faster sick time accrual.” “My understanding,” Schultz answered, “was under the law, we did not have the unilateral right to provide those benefits to employees who were interested in joining a union.” What happened here is that Starbucks tried to prevent workers from unionizing by improving the pay and benefits of non-union workers, making the union look like a big risk. But while it is true that Starbucks did not have the unilateral right to change working conditions in stores that had unionized, management could have gone to the union and asked if it would accept the improvements. Starbucks management, under Schultz, refused to do that. It’s another evasive answer, but what Schultz is in effect admitting here is that if he couldn’t do something good for workers unilaterally, he wasn’t going to do it. At another key point, Sanders asked Schultz if he intended to obey an administrative law judge’s order to record a video of himself informing workers about their National Labor Relations Act rights and about Starbucks’ violations of those rights. “No, I am not,” Schultz answered, “because Starbucks Coffee Company did not break the law.” It’s amazing, isn’t it, how many times Starbucks has been not just accused of breaking the law but found to have done so by federal officials and administrative law judges when it is so completely innocent? Millions of dollars in legal fees apparently cannot get a major corporation a fair hearing, amirite? Finally, Sanders pressed Schultz on whether Starbucks would commit to start bargaining with its unions, some of which have been waiting, he noted, for 460 days. Shockingly, Schultz refused to commit. x Bernie Sanders pressed Howard Schultz to answer a series of questions about his direct role in union-busting efforts that federal judges and the NLRB ruled were illegal. Schultz repeatedly refused to answer yes or no. pic.twitter.com/pO70XyuJeA — More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) March 29, 2023 RELATED STORIES: Starbucks illegally fired Memphis union activists, judge says Starbucks broke the law more than 200 times in effort to squash union organizing, labor board says It's just barely springtime in an off year, but there's been loads of election news lately, so co-hosts David Nir and David Beard have a super-sized roundup on this week's episode of The Downballot. The Davids recap the first round of voting in the race for Jacksonville mayor (which saw Democrats do unusually well) and the collapse of an effort to recall New Orleans Mayor LaToya Cantrell before turning to big batch of 2024 updates. On tap for the Senate: The GOP's desperate effort to compete with Democratic fundraising enthusiasm by recruiting self-funders; why Republicans are afraid the guy who succeeded John Boehner in Congress will try to challenge Sherrod Brown; and how Democrats' plans to clear the field in Michigan may not succeed. Plus developments in the battle for New Hampshire's governorship, a key House seat in Wisconsin, and the saga of Tennessee's answer to George Santos. [END] --- [1] Url: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/3/29/2160910/-Howard-Schultz-really-didn-t-want-to-answer-Bernie-Sanders-questions-about-Starbucks-union-busting Published and (C) by Daily Kos Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/