On Wednesday, Starbucks announced that it will be replacing CEO Kevin Johnson with former CEO Howard Schultz as interim chief executive, a move that union organizers say is meant to directly target their union drive.
In a press call with Congressional Labor Caucus members on Wednesday, union organizers said that they’re wary of Schultz and his anti-union attitude. They say that Schultz has told organizing workers that the union drive is a personal insult to him.
“I think it’s very clear why they brought Howard back in,” said Starbucks Workers United organizer and Buffalo employee Casey Moore. The board believes that “Howard is the only person who can convince workers to not unionize,” Moore said.
Buffalo worker and union organizer Jaz Brisack said that Schultz is “coming out of the shadows to lead this fight against the union.” Brisack noted that when the New York workers began their campaign, the company brought out a “Buffalo SWAT team” made up of company executives to fight the union, including Schultz.
Indeed, Starbucks board chair Mellody Hobson said on CNBC on Wednesday that Schultz is “singularly capable of engaging with our people in a way that will make a difference.” During the company shareholder meeting the same day, Hobson said that the company will not take a neutral stance on unionizing, as major shareholders have requested, because it would limit “our ability to speak to our partners in certain ways.”
Starbucks Workers United has asked Schultz to sign onto the group’s “Fair Election Principles” asking for non-interference during the union campaign. Labor Caucus co-chair Rep. Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) echoed that appeal in the press call on Wednesday. “Howard, do the right thing here,” Norcross said. “Give these workers a voice.”
Though Schultz stepped down from CEO in 2017, he has been involved with the company as executive chairman and traveled to Buffalo last year to convince workers to turn against their then-nascent union campaign. In a speech, Schultz bizarrely compared the company to Holocaust victims and repeatedly referenced workplace issues that unionizing workers had complained about.
Schultz, who likely would have been the U.S. Labor Secretary if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency in 2016, has had a decades-old record of being against unions at Starbucks. In his 1999 memoir about leading the company, Schultz wrote that he views unionization as an affront to him and his leadership. “I was convinced that under my leadership, employees would come to realize that I would listen to their concerns. If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union,” he wrote. Schultz stepped down as CEO in 2000 and returned from 2008 to 2017.
Starbucks workers have tried to unionize before — drives in the Pacific Northwest in the late 1990s and early 2000s and in New York in the late 2000s faced strong opposition from the company, which was led by Schultz during many of those years. Labor leaders at Seattle Starbucks stores and a local roasting plant that were unionized in the late ‘80s, when Schultz first took ownership of the company, said that Schultz was extremely hostile toward them.
The first time Pam Blauman-Schmitz, local union representative for the United Food and Commercial Workers, visited the plant under Schultz’s leadership in the late ‘80s, “He went ballistic screaming at me, telling me to get out of the plant,” Blauman-Schmitz told The New York Times. “He followed me all the way out.”
However, the current union campaign, which has already led to six unionized stores, is the largest the company has ever faced. About 145 stores have filed to unionize so far, and the filings are coming in at an incredibly fast rate — just a few weeks ago, the union was celebrating having gotten filings from over 100 stores.
As the union campaign has grown, the company’s union-busting moves have gotten bolder. Starbucks recently began cutting hours across the board for employees, a move that workers say is meant to financially and psychologically manipulate pro-union employees.
On Wednesday, workers met with the Congressional Labor Caucus and asked lawmakers to increase the pressure campaign against Starbucks. The company’s stock has fallen over the past six months, and shareholders have asked the company to lighten its stance on the union in part because the campaign has been bad for publicity.
“No workers should go through what we’re going through,” said Brisack. The workers joined the caucus in calling for the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which would clear the path for unionizing workers in the U.S. and place harsher penalties on union-busting employers.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.