Senate Democrats grill former Starbucks CEO over illegal union-busting tactics

Schultz questioned by Democrats over firing pro-union baristas and closing stores that unionized

Former CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, faced a barrage of questions from Senate Democrats on Thursday. His role in the coffee chain’s decision to fire pro-union baristas and close stores that unionized was questioned.

Schultz testified under oath in front of the Senate Budget Committee’s subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education. The hearing focused on the company’s extensive illegal efforts to prevent its employees from joining a union.

Workers at nearly 300 Starbucks stores have voted to form a union since December 2021

Since December 2021, workers at nearly 300 Starbucks stores have voted to form a union. Roughly 290 stores have voted to unionize, but none have won contracts from the company.

Witnesses testified in front of the subcommittee, including Starbucks workers who described how the company cut hours for union supporters, leading to the loss of benefits.

Starbucks drew more than 80 unfair labor practice charges from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over the past 18 months

Starbucks has been hit with more than 500 charges of unfair labor practices, including retaliatory firings, cutting hours, and closing stores. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found “hundreds of unfair labor practices” and “egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for employees’ fundamental rights.”

Schultz denied involvement in decision to fire union organizers or close stores that voted to form a union

Schultz denied involvement in the decision to fire union organizers or close stores that voted to form a union. He insisted that Starbucks had broken no laws and had done nothing wrong.

Democrats criticized Schultz repeatedly for stating that Starbucks is only being accused of labor law violations when there is evidence to the contrary from regulatory rulings. Schultz argued that Starbucks’ existing wages and benefits are better than union contracts and that Starbucks doesn’t need unions.

Republicans defended Schultz against allegations of lawbreaking

Republicans defended Schultz against allegations of lawbreaking. However, their commitment to capital and their class solidarity with bosses eclipsed any other values they might espouse.

Schultz eventually admitted that he supports the fact that companies like Starbucks can write off the cost of retaining union-busting firms as a tax-deductible business expense. Nonetheless, judgments against the firm’s management for its violations of labor law continue to pile up.

Democrats give Schultz assignment to bargain in good faith and sign first contract within two weeks

Democratic senators grilled Schultz on Starbucks’ hiring of a notorious union-busting law firm and its unwillingness to bargain in good faith. All Democrats present expressed support for the workers and harsh condemnation for Starbucks.

Democrats gave Schultz an assignment to bargain in good faith and sign a first contract with at least one of the unionized stores within two weeks. Republicans were left criticizing this ultimatum, which they saw as political grandstanding by Democrats.

National scrutiny of Starbucks’ practices increases

The hearing brought national scrutiny to Starbucks’ practices. The company’s extensive illegal efforts to prevent its employees from joining a union have been exposed, and Schultz’s testimony has only served to fan the flames. As workers continue to organize, the pressure on Starbucks will only increase.

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons