Ex-Starbucks CEO Schultz illegally threatened union activist, NLRB rules

By MARK GRUENBER
PAI Staff Writer

Washington (PAI) — Longtime Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz lied.

The now ex-CEO of the coffee company, Schultz lied to the Senate Labor Committee this past March 29 when he piously proclaimed under oath to panel chair Bernie Sanders (Ind.-Vt.) that Starbucks is neutral about the ongoing national organizing drive among the giant coffee chain’s workers.

That’s even though the panel had amassed reams of evidence showing that’s not true. That’s even though the two workers who followed him to panel witness chairs contradicted him.

That’s even though the evidence shows Schultz directed and promoted the anti-union campaign, which has featured record labor law-breaking.

He lied when he said that “neutrality,” extended to top management, presumably including himself, though Schultz didn’t toot his own horn before the lawmakers.

As it turns out he lied even about himself, as National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge Brian Gee ruled on Oct. 10 Schultz, personally, broke labor law almost a year before Sanders’ hearing.

PERSONALLY THREATENED JOB LOSS
In so many words, Gee stated Schultz threatened Long Beach, Calif., barista and union activist Madison Hall with job loss, unless she stopped speaking out for the union, Starbucks Workers United, at her coffee shop. That’s illegal.

Schultz’s labor law-breaking threat came in a company “listening session” in Long Beach on April 8, 2022, Gee wrote.

Hall demanded Schultz be honest and open about the company’s frequent labor law-breaking, formally called Unfair Labor Practices. With a scowl and a snarl, Schultz first demanded they speak one-on-one later.

Then he “invited” Hall — the sole union supporter present at the session — to leave Starbucks. “If you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company,” said Schultz.

In the context of that session among selected workers from Starbucks stores in Long Beach, that’s an illegal threat, Gee ruled.

“Starbucks has engaged in the most-aggressive and illegal union-busting campaign in the history of the country,” Sanders said in opening his hearing, a year later. And it’s done at Schultz’s direction and command, he added.

What nobody knew then was that Schultz not only ordered and oversaw the union-busting, but did it himself, too.

MORE THAN 350 STORES HAVE UNIONIZED
More than 350 Starbucks stores have unionized in the nationwide grass-roots effort, aided by Starbucks Workers United, a Service Employees affiliate. Despite NLRB orders, Starbucks not only engages in labor law breaking to try to stop the organizing, but when it loses, it also refuses to recognize and bargain with its workers.

Two Starbucks workers who followed Schultz to the Labor Committee witness table that day promptly contradicted him, also under oath. One, a disabled veteran from Georgia, was later illegally fired for his union activity, but an NLRB ruling forced Starbucks to take him back and make him whole financially.

WHAT THE JUDGE SAID
“An employer violates” labor law’s right of workers to organize, “when, in response to their activity, it invites employees to quit,” Gee wrote. “Such invitations amount to implied threats of discharge because they suggest that engaging in protected concerted activities is incompatible with continued employment… That is precisely what happened here.

“After Hall raised union-related issues during the collaboration session, Schultz said to Hall: ‘And I sense from you a little bit of anger towards the company, and I just want to know why. Why are you angry at Starbucks?’” Even though Schultz is the legendary leader of Starbucks, “Hall did not shy away from his question.

“Rather, Hall raised the subject of ULP [unfair labor practices] charges and asked Schultz to be ‘transparent’ with the group. After saying he was there to be ‘100% honest and transparent’ and ‘not to talk about a union issue,’ Schultz told Hall he had returned as a temporary CEO to ‘improve’ the company.” His successors, Schultz claimed, were more oriented towards profits, not people.

“And if you’re not happy at Starbucks, you can go work for another company,’” Schultz told Hall. “By saying this, Schultz sent the chilling message that Hall’s advocacy of the union was incompatible with continued employment.”

VINDICATING
“It’s vindicating to see an NLRB judge call out Howard Schultz and Starbucks for its vicious anti-union campaign,” Hall, now a former barista at the 2nd and Covina Starbucks store in Long Beach, Calif., told Starbucks Workers United.

“What workers need is for Starbucks to come to the bargaining table and to negotiate in good faith – it’s time for Starbucks to put an end to their ongoing pattern of threatening and intimidating workers,” Hall concluded.