To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz speaks onstage at the New York Times DealBook D.C. policy forum on June 9, 2022 in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for the New York Times)
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz made it clear Thursday that he does not intend to hold good-faith negotiations with Starbucks Workers United--the union that has won elections at more than 140 coffee shops nationwide since December--potentially exposing the corporation to a fresh legal fight with the National Labor Relations Board.
When asked by Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times if he could ever see himself "embracing the union," Schultz responded tersely: "No."
"The customer experience," the billionaire claimed during a live interview, will be degraded "if a third party is integrated into our business."
\u201cBREAKING: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says that the company will never engage with @SBWorkersUnited.\n\nFor months, Starbucks has claimed it\u2019s engaging in \u201cgood faith\u201d bargaining with the union, as required by law.\n\nNow Schultz is revealing that Starbucks has been lying.\u201d— More Perfect Union (@More Perfect Union) 1654882283
As Jordan Zakarin of More Perfect Unionreported Friday, Schultz's comment "marks a significant and potentially illegal shift in the company's public statements about its relationship" with Starbucks Workers United.
"Schultz's statement could run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act, which requires a constructive approach from employers when its workers vote to form a union," Zakarin noted. "The law demands that during collective bargaining, employers must 'confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.'"
He continued:
Up to this point, Starbucks executives have been careful to insist that the company would bargain in good faith--often in those exact terms.
In December, immediately following the union's first victories in Buffalo, Rossann Williams, Starbucks president for North America, stated in a public letter that "we will bargain in good faith with the union that represents partners in the one Buffalo store that voted in favor of union representation."
Similar statements, from Schultz, Williams, and spokespersons for the company, have been made regularly for the past seven months.
Veteran labor journalist Steven Greenhouse responded to the interview by saying that Schultz in his remarks "seems to declare permanent war against the union."
\u201cWOW\u2014Howard Schultz seems to declare permanent war against the union\n\nSchultz says he can't "accept" having the union work with Starbucks to help do a better job serving customers\n\nHe says he'll never allow a "third party"\u2014his term for a union\u2014to be "integrated into our business"\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1654884933
"Schultz sounds so hugely anti-union," Greenhouse continued, "that he seems totally willing to refuse to cooperate in any way whatsoever with the union to help make Starbucks a better company and serve its customers better."
"If I were a Starbucks shareholder," he added, "this refusal to work with the union would worry me."
Greenhouse also pointed out the hypocrisy of Schultz's derogatory reference to the union as a "third party."
Referring to high-level company executives and the union-busting law firm hired by Schultz to fend off worker organizing, Greenhouse said that "Starbucks didn't call the dozens of managers and $500-an-hour Littler Mendelson lawyers it flew to Buffalo from out of town a 'third party.'"
Peter Certo of the Institute for Policy Studies, meanwhile, responded to Schultz's comments by issuing a caustic reminder that "Hillary Clinton was going to make this man her labor secretary."
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz made it clear Thursday that he does not intend to hold good-faith negotiations with Starbucks Workers United--the union that has won elections at more than 140 coffee shops nationwide since December--potentially exposing the corporation to a fresh legal fight with the National Labor Relations Board.
When asked by Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times if he could ever see himself "embracing the union," Schultz responded tersely: "No."
"The customer experience," the billionaire claimed during a live interview, will be degraded "if a third party is integrated into our business."
\u201cBREAKING: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says that the company will never engage with @SBWorkersUnited.\n\nFor months, Starbucks has claimed it\u2019s engaging in \u201cgood faith\u201d bargaining with the union, as required by law.\n\nNow Schultz is revealing that Starbucks has been lying.\u201d— More Perfect Union (@More Perfect Union) 1654882283
As Jordan Zakarin of More Perfect Unionreported Friday, Schultz's comment "marks a significant and potentially illegal shift in the company's public statements about its relationship" with Starbucks Workers United.
"Schultz's statement could run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act, which requires a constructive approach from employers when its workers vote to form a union," Zakarin noted. "The law demands that during collective bargaining, employers must 'confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.'"
He continued:
Up to this point, Starbucks executives have been careful to insist that the company would bargain in good faith--often in those exact terms.
In December, immediately following the union's first victories in Buffalo, Rossann Williams, Starbucks president for North America, stated in a public letter that "we will bargain in good faith with the union that represents partners in the one Buffalo store that voted in favor of union representation."
Similar statements, from Schultz, Williams, and spokespersons for the company, have been made regularly for the past seven months.
Veteran labor journalist Steven Greenhouse responded to the interview by saying that Schultz in his remarks "seems to declare permanent war against the union."
\u201cWOW\u2014Howard Schultz seems to declare permanent war against the union\n\nSchultz says he can't "accept" having the union work with Starbucks to help do a better job serving customers\n\nHe says he'll never allow a "third party"\u2014his term for a union\u2014to be "integrated into our business"\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1654884933
"Schultz sounds so hugely anti-union," Greenhouse continued, "that he seems totally willing to refuse to cooperate in any way whatsoever with the union to help make Starbucks a better company and serve its customers better."
"If I were a Starbucks shareholder," he added, "this refusal to work with the union would worry me."
Greenhouse also pointed out the hypocrisy of Schultz's derogatory reference to the union as a "third party."
Referring to high-level company executives and the union-busting law firm hired by Schultz to fend off worker organizing, Greenhouse said that "Starbucks didn't call the dozens of managers and $500-an-hour Littler Mendelson lawyers it flew to Buffalo from out of town a 'third party.'"
Peter Certo of the Institute for Policy Studies, meanwhile, responded to Schultz's comments by issuing a caustic reminder that "Hillary Clinton was going to make this man her labor secretary."
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz made it clear Thursday that he does not intend to hold good-faith negotiations with Starbucks Workers United--the union that has won elections at more than 140 coffee shops nationwide since December--potentially exposing the corporation to a fresh legal fight with the National Labor Relations Board.
When asked by Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times if he could ever see himself "embracing the union," Schultz responded tersely: "No."
"The customer experience," the billionaire claimed during a live interview, will be degraded "if a third party is integrated into our business."
\u201cBREAKING: Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says that the company will never engage with @SBWorkersUnited.\n\nFor months, Starbucks has claimed it\u2019s engaging in \u201cgood faith\u201d bargaining with the union, as required by law.\n\nNow Schultz is revealing that Starbucks has been lying.\u201d— More Perfect Union (@More Perfect Union) 1654882283
As Jordan Zakarin of More Perfect Unionreported Friday, Schultz's comment "marks a significant and potentially illegal shift in the company's public statements about its relationship" with Starbucks Workers United.
"Schultz's statement could run afoul of the National Labor Relations Act, which requires a constructive approach from employers when its workers vote to form a union," Zakarin noted. "The law demands that during collective bargaining, employers must 'confer in good faith with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.'"
He continued:
Up to this point, Starbucks executives have been careful to insist that the company would bargain in good faith--often in those exact terms.
In December, immediately following the union's first victories in Buffalo, Rossann Williams, Starbucks president for North America, stated in a public letter that "we will bargain in good faith with the union that represents partners in the one Buffalo store that voted in favor of union representation."
Similar statements, from Schultz, Williams, and spokespersons for the company, have been made regularly for the past seven months.
Veteran labor journalist Steven Greenhouse responded to the interview by saying that Schultz in his remarks "seems to declare permanent war against the union."
\u201cWOW\u2014Howard Schultz seems to declare permanent war against the union\n\nSchultz says he can't "accept" having the union work with Starbucks to help do a better job serving customers\n\nHe says he'll never allow a "third party"\u2014his term for a union\u2014to be "integrated into our business"\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1654884933
"Schultz sounds so hugely anti-union," Greenhouse continued, "that he seems totally willing to refuse to cooperate in any way whatsoever with the union to help make Starbucks a better company and serve its customers better."
"If I were a Starbucks shareholder," he added, "this refusal to work with the union would worry me."
Greenhouse also pointed out the hypocrisy of Schultz's derogatory reference to the union as a "third party."
Referring to high-level company executives and the union-busting law firm hired by Schultz to fend off worker organizing, Greenhouse said that "Starbucks didn't call the dozens of managers and $500-an-hour Littler Mendelson lawyers it flew to Buffalo from out of town a 'third party.'"
Peter Certo of the Institute for Policy Studies, meanwhile, responded to Schultz's comments by issuing a caustic reminder that "Hillary Clinton was going to make this man her labor secretary."