SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz attends an event in Washington, D.C. on June 9, 2022.
(Photo: Leigh Vogel/Getty Images for The New York Times)
'Easier' to Fire Workers Than Answer Questions, Says Sanders After Starbucks CEO Refuses to Testify
"If Mr. Schultz believes that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Starbucks can break federal labor law with impunity he is mistaken."
Feb 15, 2023
U.S. coffee chain Starbucks on Tuesday told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that interim CEO Howard Schultz has no intention of testifying before the panel as Chairman Bernie Sanders requested last week, sparking speculation that the progressive senator could use his subpoena power to compel the billionaire executive to appear at an upcoming hearing.
Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by Democrats on the committee in writing a letter to the company on February 7, asking Schultz to testify on the company's "decisions with respect to complying with our nation's labor laws and negotiating a first contract with union workers at Starbucks."
Sanders (I-Vt.) called Starbucks' response to the request "disappointing, but not surprising."
"Apparently, it is easier for Mr. Schultz to fire workers who are exercising their constitutional right to form unions, and to intimidate others who may be interested in joining a union than to answer questions from elected officials," said the senator Wednesday.
Schultz has played a central role in attempting to quash unionization efforts at the company's stores across the country. After workers in Buffalo launched efforts to form a bargaining unit in 2021, the Starbucks co-founder flew in to the city to hold an anti-union meeting with employees just before they were set to vote on the issue.
The CEO, who is scheduled to leave the company in April, has been personally named in some of the 75 complaints against Starbucks filed by the National Labor Relations Board general counsel, accusing the company of illegal union-busting tactics such as intimidation and retaliation.
On Monday, ahead of Starbucks' response to Sanders, Schultz brushed off the workers at 366 of the company's stores in 39 states who have organized to form bargaining units despite Starbucks' aggressive anti-union efforts, tellingThe Washington Post that they are "angry at the world."
"They're angry at YOU and your despicable union-busting tactics," countered economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires.
In response to Sanders' request for Schultz's testimony, the company offered to send A.J. Jones II, an executive vice president and chief communications officer, instead of the CEO.
"This could get interesting," said labor reporter Steven Greenhouse after Sanders sent the request, noting that the senator has repeatedly called on Schultz to testify.
\u201cThis could get interesting\u2014Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Labor Committee, & other Democrats on the committee invite Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to testify\n\nSanders has sent 3 letters to Schultz urging him to end "the egregious union-busting campaign" against Sbux workers\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1675885920
"If Mr. Schultz believes that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Starbucks can break federal labor law with impunity he is mistaken," said Sanders Wednesday. "As the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, I intend to hold Mr. Schultz and Starbucks accountable for their unacceptable behavior and look forward to seeing him before our committee."
Sanders said last week that he is willing to use the panel's subpoena power to force Schultz to testify, but he did not address that possibility directly in his statement.
After writing to Starbucks last week, the senator told the Associated Press that the HELP Committee intends "to be asking Mr. Schultz some very hard questions" and that Starbucks and other union-busting corporations "should be nervous."
"This is corporate greed," Sanders told the outlet. "Workers have a constitutional right to organize. And even if you are a large, multinational corporation owned by a billionaire you don't have the right to violate the law."
Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from Sen. Bernie Sanders.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
bernie sandershoward schultzlaborworkersnational labor relations boardstarbucksstarbucks workers unitedunions
U.S. coffee chain Starbucks on Tuesday told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that interim CEO Howard Schultz has no intention of testifying before the panel as Chairman Bernie Sanders requested last week, sparking speculation that the progressive senator could use his subpoena power to compel the billionaire executive to appear at an upcoming hearing.
Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by Democrats on the committee in writing a letter to the company on February 7, asking Schultz to testify on the company's "decisions with respect to complying with our nation's labor laws and negotiating a first contract with union workers at Starbucks."
Sanders (I-Vt.) called Starbucks' response to the request "disappointing, but not surprising."
"Apparently, it is easier for Mr. Schultz to fire workers who are exercising their constitutional right to form unions, and to intimidate others who may be interested in joining a union than to answer questions from elected officials," said the senator Wednesday.
Schultz has played a central role in attempting to quash unionization efforts at the company's stores across the country. After workers in Buffalo launched efforts to form a bargaining unit in 2021, the Starbucks co-founder flew in to the city to hold an anti-union meeting with employees just before they were set to vote on the issue.
The CEO, who is scheduled to leave the company in April, has been personally named in some of the 75 complaints against Starbucks filed by the National Labor Relations Board general counsel, accusing the company of illegal union-busting tactics such as intimidation and retaliation.
On Monday, ahead of Starbucks' response to Sanders, Schultz brushed off the workers at 366 of the company's stores in 39 states who have organized to form bargaining units despite Starbucks' aggressive anti-union efforts, tellingThe Washington Post that they are "angry at the world."
"They're angry at YOU and your despicable union-busting tactics," countered economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires.
In response to Sanders' request for Schultz's testimony, the company offered to send A.J. Jones II, an executive vice president and chief communications officer, instead of the CEO.
"This could get interesting," said labor reporter Steven Greenhouse after Sanders sent the request, noting that the senator has repeatedly called on Schultz to testify.
\u201cThis could get interesting\u2014Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Labor Committee, & other Democrats on the committee invite Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to testify\n\nSanders has sent 3 letters to Schultz urging him to end "the egregious union-busting campaign" against Sbux workers\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1675885920
"If Mr. Schultz believes that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Starbucks can break federal labor law with impunity he is mistaken," said Sanders Wednesday. "As the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, I intend to hold Mr. Schultz and Starbucks accountable for their unacceptable behavior and look forward to seeing him before our committee."
Sanders said last week that he is willing to use the panel's subpoena power to force Schultz to testify, but he did not address that possibility directly in his statement.
After writing to Starbucks last week, the senator told the Associated Press that the HELP Committee intends "to be asking Mr. Schultz some very hard questions" and that Starbucks and other union-busting corporations "should be nervous."
"This is corporate greed," Sanders told the outlet. "Workers have a constitutional right to organize. And even if you are a large, multinational corporation owned by a billionaire you don't have the right to violate the law."
Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from Sen. Bernie Sanders.
From Your Site Articles
- Sanders Calls on Starbucks CEO to End 'Concerted and Relentless' Union-Busting Campaign ›
- Sanders, Senate Dems Invite Schultz to Testify About Starbucks' Labor Law Violations ›
- 'Schultz Has Given Us No Choice': Sanders Plans Vote to Subpoena Starbucks CEO ›
- Historic Labor Ruling Slams 'Egregious and Widespread Misconduct' by Starbucks ›
Related Articles Around the Web
U.S. coffee chain Starbucks on Tuesday told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that interim CEO Howard Schultz has no intention of testifying before the panel as Chairman Bernie Sanders requested last week, sparking speculation that the progressive senator could use his subpoena power to compel the billionaire executive to appear at an upcoming hearing.
Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by Democrats on the committee in writing a letter to the company on February 7, asking Schultz to testify on the company's "decisions with respect to complying with our nation's labor laws and negotiating a first contract with union workers at Starbucks."
Sanders (I-Vt.) called Starbucks' response to the request "disappointing, but not surprising."
"Apparently, it is easier for Mr. Schultz to fire workers who are exercising their constitutional right to form unions, and to intimidate others who may be interested in joining a union than to answer questions from elected officials," said the senator Wednesday.
Schultz has played a central role in attempting to quash unionization efforts at the company's stores across the country. After workers in Buffalo launched efforts to form a bargaining unit in 2021, the Starbucks co-founder flew in to the city to hold an anti-union meeting with employees just before they were set to vote on the issue.
The CEO, who is scheduled to leave the company in April, has been personally named in some of the 75 complaints against Starbucks filed by the National Labor Relations Board general counsel, accusing the company of illegal union-busting tactics such as intimidation and retaliation.
On Monday, ahead of Starbucks' response to Sanders, Schultz brushed off the workers at 366 of the company's stores in 39 states who have organized to form bargaining units despite Starbucks' aggressive anti-union efforts, tellingThe Washington Post that they are "angry at the world."
"They're angry at YOU and your despicable union-busting tactics," countered economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires.
In response to Sanders' request for Schultz's testimony, the company offered to send A.J. Jones II, an executive vice president and chief communications officer, instead of the CEO.
"This could get interesting," said labor reporter Steven Greenhouse after Sanders sent the request, noting that the senator has repeatedly called on Schultz to testify.
\u201cThis could get interesting\u2014Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Labor Committee, & other Democrats on the committee invite Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to testify\n\nSanders has sent 3 letters to Schultz urging him to end "the egregious union-busting campaign" against Sbux workers\u201d— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1675885920
"If Mr. Schultz believes that a multi-billion dollar corporation like Starbucks can break federal labor law with impunity he is mistaken," said Sanders Wednesday. "As the chairman of the Senate HELP Committee, I intend to hold Mr. Schultz and Starbucks accountable for their unacceptable behavior and look forward to seeing him before our committee."
Sanders said last week that he is willing to use the panel's subpoena power to force Schultz to testify, but he did not address that possibility directly in his statement.
After writing to Starbucks last week, the senator told the Associated Press that the HELP Committee intends "to be asking Mr. Schultz some very hard questions" and that Starbucks and other union-busting corporations "should be nervous."
"This is corporate greed," Sanders told the outlet. "Workers have a constitutional right to organize. And even if you are a large, multinational corporation owned by a billionaire you don't have the right to violate the law."
Note: This article has been updated to include a statement from Sen. Bernie Sanders.
From Your Site Articles
- Sanders Calls on Starbucks CEO to End 'Concerted and Relentless' Union-Busting Campaign ›
- Sanders, Senate Dems Invite Schultz to Testify About Starbucks' Labor Law Violations ›
- 'Schultz Has Given Us No Choice': Sanders Plans Vote to Subpoena Starbucks CEO ›
- Historic Labor Ruling Slams 'Egregious and Widespread Misconduct' by Starbucks ›
Related Articles Around the Web
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Trump-Appointed Judge Rules White House Can't Retaliate Against AP Over Gulf of Mexico Dispute
A spokesperson for the news agency said the ruling "affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation."
Apr 08, 2025
A federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot cut off The Associated Press' access to the Republican leader because of the news agency's refusal to use his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico.
"About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president," wrote Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who is based in Washington, D.C.
Specifically, according to the news outlet, "the AP has been blocked since February 11 from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room."
The AP responded to the restrictions by suing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint," McFadden noted in his 41-page order. "Today, the court grants that relief."
The judge explained that "this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the president or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."
"The court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he stressed. "The Constitution requires no less."
McFadden blocked his own order from taking effect before next week, giving the Trump administration time to respond or appeal. Still, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said Tuesday that "we are gratified by the court's decision."
"Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation," Easton added. "This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."
NPR reported that "an AP reporter and photographer were turned back from joining a reporting pool on a presidential motorcade early Tuesday evening, almost two hours after the decision came down."
ACLU Sues to Block Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the lawsuit asserts.
Apr 08, 2025
The ACLU and allied groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a bid to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from "abusing the Alien Enemies Act"—an 18th-century law only ever invoked during wartime—to deport foreign nationals to a prison in El Salvador with allegedly rampant human rights abuses.
According to a statement, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union, "in partnership with the Legal Aid Society whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation, filed an emergency lawsuit this morning in federal court in New York to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court's judicial district."
The lawsuit—which names Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials as plaintiffs—follows Monday's 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that largely reversed a lower court's decision blocking the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador.
BREAKING: Today the NYCLU and @aclu.org filed an emergency lawsuit to ensure the Trump administration does not deport people under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country.
— NYCLU (@nyclu.org) April 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
While the high court said the Trump administration can resume deportations under the 1798 AEA, the justices included the caveat that people subject to such removals must be afforded due process under the law.
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the ACLU argued in the new lawsuit. "It cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States."
Not only has Trump sent foreign nationals—including at least one wrongfully deported man—to CECOT, he has also floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens there at the invitation of right-wing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who is scheduled to visit the White House next week.
This, despite widespread reports of serious human rights violations at the facility and throughout El Salvador in general.
ICE-IRS Deal Blasted as 'Bad Policy. Bad Economics. And Cruel.'
"The administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk," said one critic.
Apr 08, 2025
Migrant and privacy rights advocates this week are sounding the alarm over a deal signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to hand sensitive taxpayer data over to immigration authorities as part of U.S. President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement's efforts to combat illegal immigration," a Treasury Department spokesperson told Fox News, which reported on the development after a late Monday court filing.
"The bases for this MOU are founded in long-standing authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals," the spokesperson said. "After four years of [former President] Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump's highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people."
After weeks of warnings about a potential data transfer deal, it was revealed as part of a legal case brought by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Inclusive Action for the City, and Somos Un Pueblo Unido, which are represented by Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and Raise the Floor Alliance.
"Taxpayer privacy is a cornerstone of the U.S. tax system," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a Tuesday statement. "This move by the IRS is an unprecedented breach of taxpayer privacy laws and confidentiality, which has been respected by both political parties for decades."
"The Trump administration's terror tactic of using immigrants' tax data against them will drive some of our most vulnerable communities further underground," she warned. "If this taxpayer information isn't safe from the prying eyes of the Trump administration's goons, then no one's taxpayer information is safe."
Juliette Kayyem, a former Department of Homeland Security official now lecturing at the Harvard Kennedy School, wrote on social media: "Bad policy. Bad economics. And cruel. They are so desperate to get their deportation numbers up that they are doing this."
Multiple members of Congress also blasted the move. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said that "the IRS should NEVER be weaponized to target immigrant families. This backdoor deal with ICE shatters decades of trust—and may be illegal."
"I will fight this with everything I've got," vowed Gomez, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. "No one should fear that filing taxes puts their family at risk."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) was among the critics who emphasized that the MOU doesn't just affect migrants.
"First things first: The impact of folks not filing their taxes because they are afraid of deportation would be detrimental to our economy," he explained. "Two: Immigrants pay taxes but do not benefit from the social programs that most taxpayers do. Three: Everyone should be concerned about the privacy implications here. This sets the precedent that the federal government can arbitrarily share your personal information with law enforcement. And it's just wrong."
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) similarly said: "For decades, undocumented immigrants have trusted the IRS when it encouraged them to file. They've paid taxes in good faith, contributing nearly $100 BILLION per year and supporting social services they can't even access. Not only is this a total betrayal, but it's also illegal. We'll fight this."
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy also highlighted that "turning the IRS away from its job (collecting taxes) to instead focus on mass deportation efforts will mean less tax revenue collected on top of the harm done to families and communities affected by deportations."
In response to The New York Times' reporting on the deal, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick pointed out on social media that the MOU "is, on its face, limited to criminal investigations (not deportation investigations)."
"There are many questions raised about this new [agreement], which seems to violate previous understandings of the laws requiring IRS not to share taxpayer information," he continued. "But at its heart it does not seem that the MOU permits ICE to ask for taxpayer data for deportation reasons."
"It seems primarily to be aimed at criminal investigations for willful failure to depart after the issuance of a removal order, a crime on the books which (until now) is virtually never prosecuted," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Despite the fact that this MOU is limited only to criminal law enforcement, it will likely have a chilling effect on undocumented taxpayers."
How the Trump administration actually proceeds remains to be seen. The court filing says no information has been shared between the agenices yet—but the deal comes as part of a wave of anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric from the president and his officials.
"With the Supreme Court greenlighting Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act and the administration now gaining access to sensitive IRS data, we continue to slip into a new era of authoritarianism in America," Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub, said a Tuesday statement "The digital and physical dragnets that Trump is building mean millions of immigrants—many of whom have followed the law and paid their taxes for decades—are now vulnerable to indiscriminate brutality and quiet erasure with little opportunity for redress."
Lopez stressed that "undocumented immigrants already contribute billions to our economy—often paying a higher effective tax rate than 55 major corporations and some of the wealthiest individuals in America. By weaponizing private taxpayer data, the administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk."
"Coupled with Trump's xenophobic tariff threats and a $350 billion demand to fund mass disappearances and deportations, this is more than an attack on immigrants—it's a calculated effort to destabilize the country and remake its image," she concluded. "Congress must reject this funding and the authoritarian playbook behind it. This is not policy. It's punishment."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.