Workers at more than 275 Starbucks stores have tried to unionize their workplaces over the past few years. This accounts for about 3% of the company-owned stores in the United States. During that time, Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (and then Kevin Johnson, and then Howard Schultz again) has been repeatedly called out by organizers, workers, and federal labor officials for launching a vigorous union-busting campaign.
This led Sen. Bernie Sanders to compel Schultz, under threat of subpoena, to appear for testimony in front of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The back-and-forth between committee chair Sanders and Howard Schultz has been covered thoroughly (and entertainingly) by my fellow Daily Kos writer Laura Clawson. There was another great interaction of note during that testimony on Wednesday, between Schultz and Democratic Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania.
Casey began by outlining the need for stronger laws in support of labor, and also the need to enforce the existing labor laws that are on the books. He then directed Schultz to remember back to the year 2021, when Starbucks hired Littler Mendelson, “one of the largest and most notorious union-busting law firms in the country that reportedly charges upwards of $600 an hour for their services.”
Then Casey decided to trap the CEO in a corner. Schultz has publicly argued that Starbucks hasn’t done any union busting, but also, that if anything that he says didn’t happen … well, happened, it was during the three-year period when he wasn’t CEO. As such, Casey’s questions for Schultz were directed at exposing the Starbucks CEO’s personal feelings on unions.
RELATED STORY: Howard Schultz really didn't want to answer Bernie Sanders' questions about Starbucks' union-busting
Casey began his question by reminding Schultz about Schultz’s own activities two years ago, when “Starbucks shut down all stores in the Buffalo area, rented out the Hyatt Regency Hotel. Flew you, Mr. Schultz, and Starbucks senior executives, into town and forced workers to hear you give anti-union talking points.”
Casey went on to point out that while we don’t know for sure how many millions Starbucks Coffee Company has spent on a union-busting law firm like this over the past few years, what is known for sure is that “Under current law, federal law, Internal Revenue Service law, Starbucks is able to write off those costs as a run-of-the-mill business expense—meaning taxpayers. Taxpayers are subsidizing union busting in the United States of America, including that of Starbucks.”
Having laid down the moral implications of the laws that everyone understands have been lobbied for by companies like Starbucks and subsequently exploited by Starbucks, Casey offered up a very easy-to-answer question: “So, Mr. Schultz, I'd ask you, as a private citizen, in your personal capacity, do you believe that corporations should have the right to get a tax break, a taxpayer-provided subsidization, a tax break for union-busting activities?”
Schultz attempted to expand his answer by offering up that there are lots of things “to respond to”—except, of course, the question being asked. He then tried to say Starbucks hasn’t broken the law—which, as Casey pointed out, was not the question being asked. “I didn't ask you about Starbucks. I asked you about your personal view. Yeah. Do you think that the provisions should stay or the law should be changed?”
Schultz eventually answered truthfully: He indeed supports a loophole that allows taxpayers to front the bill for companies’ anti-labor activities. Of course, Casey was forced to pry that answer out of him about three times. Then Casey asked Schultz whether or not he knows anything about complaints that Starbucks was surveilling workers and their unionization efforts. Schultz went into how proud he is of Starbucks, and Casey reminded him that that’s great and all but immaterial in regard to the question at hand.
Scultz said he was not aware of any surveillance, and admitted it would be wrong if it were true. Then he tried to get righteously indignant that he’s being painted as a union-buster, which prompted the spectators at the hearing to laugh. Schultz has earned this derision.
Enjoy.