Exchange Between Sen. Bernie Sanders and Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz Transcript

Mr. Schultz, thank you very much. My time is limited, as is the time of all of our members here, so I’m going to be asking you to respond to each question as briefly as you can, hopefully with a yes or a no. Do you understand that in America workers have a fundamental right to join a union and collectively bargain to improve wages, benefits, and working conditions? Do you understand that?

I understand. And we respect the right of every partner who wears a Green Apron, whether they choose to join a union or not.

Are you aware that NLRB judges have ruled that Starbucks violated federal label law over 100 times during the past 18 months? Far more than any other corporation in America?

Sir, Starbucks Coffee Company, unequivocally, and let me set the tone for this very early on, has not broken the law.

Okay. Are you aware that on March 1st, 2023, an administrative law judge found Starbucks guilty of quote, “Egregious and widespread misconduct,” unquote, widespread coercive behavior, and showed quote, “A general disregard for the employee’s fundamental rights,” end quote, in a union organizing campaign that started in Buffalo, New York in 2021. Are you aware of that?

I’m aware that those are allegations, and Congress has created a process that we are following and we’re confident that those allegations will be proven false.

All right. Mr. Schultz, before answering the following questions, let me remind you that federal law at 18 US Code Section 1001 prohibits knowingly and willfully making any fraudulent statement.

I understand that.

Were you ever informed of or involved in a decision to fire a worker who was part of a union organizing drive?

I was not.

Were you ever informed of or involved in a decision to discipline a worker in any way who was part of a union organizing drive?

I was not.

Have you ever threatened, coerced, or intimidated a worker for supporting a union?

I’ve had conversations that could have been interpreted in a different way than I intended. That’s up to the person who received the information that I spoke to them about.

Were you informed of or involved in the decision to withhold benefits from Starbucks workers in unionized stores, including higher pay and faster sick time accrual?

My understanding, when we created the benefits in May, one month after I returned as CEO, my understanding was under the law, we did not have the unilateral right to provide those benefits to employees who were interested in joining a union.

Am I hearing you say that you were involved in the decision to hold benefits from Starbucks’s workers in unionized stores? Is that what I’m hearing?

It was my understanding that we could not provide those benefits under the law.

Mr. Schultz, have you ever asked a Starbucks worker, quote, “If you hate Starbucks so much, why don’t you go work somewhere else?”

I’m glad you asked that question because I’ve read in the press that quote, and that’s not exactly what I said. Can I tell the story? Do you mind?

I have some other questions. I’m sorry. There are a lot of people-

I think it’s important to hear the facts.

All right. You’ll have your chance. Will you commit to testifying in any trial where you personally are accused of breaking federal labor law, something that you have been accused of doing nearly 100 times since 2021?

Mr. Chairman, let me say under oath, these are allegations and Starbucks has not broken the law.

Mr. Schultz, were you informed of or involved in the decision to close all Buffalo Area stores in November, 2021, just days before Area Union elections, in order for Starbucks employees to listen to you give a speech on why they should vote against former union, a meeting the NLRB has determined was a violation of the law?

I think this is another area that I hope I get a chance to speak about. For the last 12 months, my involvement, my engagement, and my return to Starbucks has been primarily, I would say 95% focused on the operations of our business, the customer, domestically and around the world. My involvement and engagement in union activities, despite this event today has been minimus. I was not involved in any issue of closing stores.

Are you aware, Mr. Schultz, that an administrative law judge ordered you to record and distribute a video of yourself reading a notice to Starbucks employees about their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, how Starbucks violated those rights, and to assure that Starbucks will not infringe upon those rights in the future, and that this notice must be posted in all Starbucks stores and shared digitally to all of Starbucks employees? Are you prepared to read that notice?

No, I am not. Because Starbucks Coffee Company did not break the law.

Under your leadership, Starbucks has repeatedly refused to bargain with any of the 7,000 workers in nearly 300 stores where workers have voted to represent themselves through union. The first group of workers to win their election have been waiting more than 460 days to reach a first contract. Mr. Schultz, will you commit right now that within 14 days of this hearing, Starbucks will exchange proposals with the union, something it has refused to do for more than 450 days, so that meaningful progress can be made to bargain a first contract in good faith? Will you make that commitment?

Because the arrangement that was made by the union and the NLRB in Buffalo to negotiate one single store at a time, we have met over 85 times for a single store. We’ve tried to arrange over 350 separate meetings. We’ve said publicly, and I say it here again, that we believe that face-to-face negotiations is the way to proceed. And the reason I want to make that point is that there have been safety issues in which Starbucks managers have been outed on social media. There are privacy issues. We don’t want to do it on Zoom. We are prepared to meet face-to-face on a single store issue.

Will you make a promise to this committee that you will exchange proposals with the union so that we can begin to make meaningful progress?

On a single store basis, we will continue to negotiate in good faith. That’s what we’ll do.

Two minutes over.

Senator Cassidy.

[inaudible 00:07:38]