Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz faces Senate over labor practices

Retention of any company in our sector, that's hundreds of companies, the highest level. There are time limits here, Senator Cassidy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, ranking member. I think this is an interesting discussion because I recently come from the world of building a business over 37 years, and I've been clear when it comes to unions: they are so important in today's world vis-a-vis large public companies, multinationals. How would you have any countervailing clout unless you didn't have an effective union? I think this is interesting because the restaurant business I think currently has maybe three to four percent of it unionized. And one of the reasons—since I had a small business for 17 years, 15 employees before it grew—the best avoidance of a union is to treat your employees like family, pay good wages, have good benefits. You do that, you're probably never going to have a union knocking at your door. But we're talking about an industry here that through COVID went through one of the most traumatic events any small enterprise or business has gone through. This is not a small enterprise or business, but it's in a business it's got a high fatality rate due to the nature of it. I don't know currently what you're paying your average employee on the line—that's going to be the first question—and then what the average pay of senior middle management, senior management, would be. I always thought it was good as long as you're earning equity in whatever you're doing that you probably be reasonable there. I don't pull in with a Maserati and all of that. I'd love to know where you're at on that wage stratification.

Very good. And do you have a stratum of management above that? Is a district manager, regional manager? And I think what we're most proud of is that the majority of people who are managing stores, managing districts, managing regions, started out in our stores. We have hundreds, maybe thousands, of beautiful stories that our partners have shared with us about what Starbucks has done for them and their families as a result of the benefits that we created. And those benefits were not created because there was a union. Those were created because of the decisions. And I think that's important to note. But I think what you represent here is a watershed case because you're large. You generally get large because you're successful along the way. And we've got to be careful because I'm going to pivot to something the other side of the aisle has proposed, like the PRO Act. And again, I'm probably the most outspoken Republican on the benefit of unions, but you got to be careful where they go. If they're going into the gig economy, into the independent contractors—which is the next chapter on some of this—that will stifle entrepreneurialism. When you look at if you are large, you shouldn't necessarily be held to account unless there are things that you're doing to impede the law in terms of unionizing. You've already made that point that you don't think you've been doing it. All I'm saying is this is important because this will have a ripple effect way beyond your business. And the one thing we can't have is to suffocate what's made this country great, and that is that you do not necessarily have to wrestle with a union if you do all the things that are good for your employees to begin with. Can you honestly say that you've done that throughout the history of your company? And in that, I know you have mobility it sounds like several different ways you can grow. You have no mobility unless you're growing as a company. But if you've honestly done that—

What was your average wage before COVID? Because you said you're at about 17 now starting. Did you have to raise it over the last weeks? Wages in May, that's correct. And what was it before—about $15 an hour went to $17? And one final point: even $17 an hour, that's not a living wage in this day and age.

Shouldn't necessarily be bragging about $15 to $20 wages when you look at the typical structure of a large company. That should probably be $20 plus, like many main street businesses pay. And I think of companies like yours—the larger companies don't do it, you're going to be constantly grappling with maybe here. But on the other hand, unions shouldn't be trying to get involved in companies that are doing a good job, especially Main Street and smaller ones. I wish we had more time. We'll leave it at that. Thank you, sir. Senator Smith.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon or good morning, I think it is still. Mr. Schultz, you repeatedly call your employees partners. Do you value your employees or your partners that want to join a union or have joined a union? Do you value them as much as you value those that have not yet joined a union?

Yesterday I had the opportunity to meet with some unionized Starbucks workers from Minnesota. Gracie and Elizabeth, and they tell me that Starbucks is cutting their weekly hours. They estimate that they're losing $4 an hour in wages because the company won't allow them in unionized stores to access credit card tipping when that's available to workers in non-unionized shops. And they tell me that they are simultaneously understaffed in their stores and unable to get enough hours to pay their bills. If these folks are your partners, why are you treating them differently than the non-unionized workers?

You have said that several times during this meeting. You've said that you cannot legally provide these benefits without bargaining over them. But you know, I'm sure that the union has specifically stated in this letter—July 15, 2022—that they waived any objection to bargaining on this. It says in the letter: "To this end, the union hereby waives any objection that we might have to Starbucks providing union-represented employees with any wage or benefit improvements provided to unrepresented employees." So I don't think this—I think you're wrong.

I think that the way the law reads is that there is an exception to that requirement to negotiate when the employees make it clear and unmistakable waiver to bargaining. But let me ask you about this: the first Minnesota store union was certified over 320 days ago, and no meaningful bargaining has happened since then, though there have been some meetings. Do you know how long those meetings have been in Minnesota?

The Minnesota folks tell me that those negotiation sessions have not lasted longer than six minutes. So that seems to me, sir, as a failure to negotiate in good faith.

My observation here is that this feels like a catch-22, because you are not willing to bargain on issues like credit card tipping, while simultaneously you're not coming together to bargain at all. And so I think that is why the employees who are wanting to be in a union feel so frustrated. But I want to just touch on one other thing. I've been listening really closely to you today, and I also come from the private sector, had my own company at one time before I moved into the public sector. And I've been really struck by your focus on what an excellent company you are. Honestly, it sounds as if you are personally offended or even insulted that anyone would question you or your company. And it seems as if you feel that only bad companies should be unionized, that there's something nefarious about a company that has done something bad and therefore they need to be unionized, and that Starbucks doesn't need a union because you are a good company. But I think, Mr. Schultz, that is not your decision to make. And I believe that there is an inherent value in coming together to organize that would address this imbalance of power that I think the many, many Starbucks partners sitting behind you and in Minnesota feel. I mean, you are a billionaire and they are your employees. The imbalance of power is extreme, and that is why people want to come together to form a union.

I don't mean to cut you off, we have time limits here.

It is not. You have had more time. I've been generous with the time. Now I'm sorry, but, Mr. Chairman, we have a room full of people, we have a panel to go after you. I'm not the only person.

I defer to Senator Marshall.

Thank you, ranking member. Thank you, chairman. Mr. Schultz, I'm going to change the subject a little bit. Last year your company decided to close 16 stores across the nation, including the Starbucks down the street here at Union Station, due to rising crime in these cities. Shortly thereafter you stated that there are going to be many more closures for similar concerns. Your store managers are quoted saying that their employees have not felt safe amid a spike in crime, a surge of assaults, thefts, and drug use. I agree. In fact, I fear for my own staff walking home in this neighborhood. I feared so much that I purchased each one of them one of these noise makers this past Christmas. One of our colleagues' office staff was recently violently assaulted as well. The lawlessness in this country is out of control. When you decided to close those 16 stores because you feared for your employees' safety, did you then—and do you still—believe that the White House needs to focus on restoring law and order and relaying a message to this country of respect for the brave men and women in law enforcement in this country?

Thank you for your answer and your honesty. It's a sad day for this nation when the crime is so bad that you feel the need to close profitable shops because you can't keep your employees safe at their place of work. And I have to note for the record that every single location you close, all 16 of them, were in Democrat-run cities. We have another saying: I want to change the subject here again. We have a saying back home: Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered. Who has 645 unfair labor cases brought against you? Based upon the size of the crowd there, there may be some smoke and fire together there. This is your chance. Tell me your side of the story. Tell me why you have so many complaints. Do you feel that there's been a fair negotiation process? Have you and your company been open to negotiation process? So this is you—give you a minute here, a minute and a half—just tell me your side of the story. Thank you.

This is your chance. So why are you innocent?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, collective bargaining is a fundamentally conservative idea. I've sort of lost track of that. It's rooted in free market principles, right? The idea that workers should be able to freely join together to negotiate in a free open negotiation with their employer. So it's kind of disappointing and sad and wild to me how sort of partisan this debate has become—Democrats standing up for unions, Republicans saying they support collective bargaining, but not seeing that there's real genius in the idea in a free market society that workers get to come together. It's funny: previous Republican candidates, they really fought hard to work to win the union vote, to speak at union conventions. This sort of new dichotomy we have is in fact new. What do you mean when you say that you abide by the law? So I guess when I do a search online to take a look at cases that have been brought against Starbucks for illegal firings—as you know, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kansas, Missouri, Washington, a decision out of Buffalo requiring you to reinstate workers, calling your practices egregious and widespread misconduct—you say you follow the law, but then of course this committee sees repeated evidence of NLRB orders forcing you to reverse actions that were on their face a violation of the law. When you say you don't break the law, you abide by law, you mean you disagree with all of these decisions from the NLRB? You think they got it wrong in all of those cases?

But if I can give you one specific case—these are all but these are some of these are orders from administrative law judges to reinstate employees based upon violations of conduct. Do you think in all of those cases in which judges have required stores to be reopened or for workers to be reinstated that they just all got it wrong?

I'm just trying to clarify: when you say that you are abiding by the law, you mean that in every case in which an NLRB judge has ordered you to take steps to remediate actions, in every single case they've gotten it wrong?

But the judge is making a finding that you have engaged in conduct that is not allowed by the underlying law—i.e., illegal behavior. In every case you believe that the judges got it wrong?

So let's take Memphis, which has been a clear, isolated case but I think indicative of the process.

I understand. I'm just trying to square your testimony in which you insist that you rigorously follow the law with overwhelming evidence from the organizations that are charged with enforcing American labor law that that is not the case. It is akin to someone who has been ticketed for speeding a hundred times saying, 'I've never violated the law because every single time the cop got it wrong.' That would not be a believable contention if someone was to make that before the committee. And so I find it hard to believe your insistence that, notwithstanding this extraordinary set of decisions reinstating workers, forcing stores to be reopened, that you are in fact consistently abiding by the law as your testimony is before this committee.

All right. Thank you. Let me just make a couple observations relative to what has been said on the other side of the aisle. First, we should have, as I mentioned earlier, an investigation of the NLRB activities. They're being made out as if they're a totally objective player in all this circumstance. But here I have a letter from the NLRB confirming that the OIG is investigating allegations of misconduct by NLRB employees in Region 14. Now we can say, 'Oh my gosh, NLRB is supposed to be neutral,' but there's tangible evidence that they're not. Secondly, Senator Murphy left—Republicans down here have totally supported the right of people to organize. I'll also point out that it was Republicans who were standing up for the trade unions when, in his first week of his presidency, Joe Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline—canceled it when those trade unions needed those jobs to make their pensions. And by the way, if I may point out, subsequently the Administration has gone hat in hand to Venezuela and the Middle East asking for more production. If they had not canceled that pipeline, that oil would now be coming down to the state of Louisiana, employ more workers in my state, refining that way and refining that oil in the most environmentally sensitive way. So I kind of stand by our side. Mr. Schultz, let's explore a little bit. There's this impression that the unionization effort has occurred organically, but you mentioned earlier, and I think I have some facts here, that the person in Buffalo was making $69,000 a year when she went to work for the store and began to organize. I think that's called salting. It wasn't as if there's this organic 'let's all just come together and unionize,' no, workers of the world unite—it was somebody was paid to go in there and create an environment where four out of six people might do it. I don't know if that was the four out of six union. Any comments upon this person getting paid by the union when she came to your store in an attempt to organize it? Well, if that's not a nefarious act, I don't know what is. It does seem just a little bit inorganic. You made, or your company made in a 2023 proxy statement, that Starbucks has not been found to have violated the law as part of any enforced order of the NLRB. Now Senator Murphy suggested that you are guilty because you've been charged, and yet you're pointing out that you've not been found to violate the law. Can you reconcile those two statements?

I just made the point—I forget if I requested this, but I would like to enter into the record the letter from the NLRB confirming that they are being investigated for NLRB employee misconduct in Region 14. Without objection. Do you have any comments upon what I feel is the politicization of the NLRB from your perspective? Is that a real thing?

Now, there's been a lot made that contracts have not yet been achieved—so-called first contracts. I have something here from a Bloomberg report that it took, on average, 465 days for first contracts in a variety of industries to be achieved. More than half took more than a full year to sign. Is it being argued that you're not negotiating in good faith because you have not yet achieved the contract, and yet that seems to be consistent with the pattern of how these first contracts come about? Is there any statement you'd like to make on that?

Now, the NLRB's general counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo, found that you had violated federal labor law by refusing to bargain if some attended over Zoom. I didn't realize it was a law that you had to be able to go over Zoom. Any comment upon Ms. Abruzzo, who some have found to be an advocate for unions in terms of this particular finding?

I haven't heard of it either. I yield.

I'm happy to yield to Senator Markey for a minute, and then I'll follow up after him, if that works.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for this important hearing. And Mr. Schultz, it's good of you to show up, but then again you've faced little choice. It's disappointing to me that it took such a long time and required the threat of a subpoena for you to appear before this committee. And it's frankly disrespectful to your hundreds of thousands of employees, but we do appreciate you are finally appearing here. All across America, workers are saying that they've had enough. Rising inequality and outlandish CEO pay for those at the top like you, and a paycheck-to-paycheck subsistence for everyone else. The unionizing Starbucks workers are on the front lines of a groundswell of working and middle-class people banding together to assert their right to organize, form a union, and collectively bargain for their dignity. My father used to tell me that you can't beg for your rights—you have to take them. He lost his finger in an industrial accident as a young man. There was no OSHA. He just said the boss said, 'See you next week, Sean, back on the job.' That was before unions, before rights were put on books. And ultimately, that's what Starbucks workers are doing. Workers in Buffalo are the spark that's lit the fire of organizing at locations across the country, including 15 Starbucks locations in Massachusetts. The American people are watching. Public support for unions hit a record high late last year, with 71% of Americans approving of labor unions. So as you sit here denigrating your workers, you're not just morally and legally wrong—you're in the minority. You're out of touch. Union busting is disgusting. I got the chance this week to meet with Caitlin, who is a Starbucks employee from Gardner, Massachusetts. Like you, Caitlin cares deeply about Starbucks. She originally started working for the company in 2006 and came back to rejoin Starbucks in 2021. When she came back, she saw Starbucks similar to how you describe it in your testimony—a company that had lost its way. She saw a company that now only cared about money at the expense of the health and well-being of its workers. So to help save the Starbucks she wanted and loved, Caitlin and her co-workers formed a union. They wanted to revive a wayward company, make your company better. But you vilify Caitlin and her colleagues for caring. You demonize them for participating in their fundamental right to organize. And worse, you and your company set out to punish Caitlin and her colleagues: withholding benefits and raises, cutting hours, and purposefully understaffing to harm your most dedicated partners. So when you give us 10 pages of testimony extolling the benefits that Starbucks offers its employees, that's not what I see. I see Caitlin. I see you squeezing the people who have made you rich with blatant disregard for the law. Perhaps because you think if you can hire the lawyers and pay the union-busting consulting firms, you can get away with violating other people's rights, with disregarding their dignity, and with silencing working people in America. But here's the thing: if you can pay the lawyers and the consultants and the PR specialists, you can also pay the workers a fair wage. So you say that your father was unfairly fired after he was injured on the job. Your father had no rights, and your family paid the price. That is how your workers now feel. They have no rights. They don't want to be like your father who had no rights. They don't want their families to have to pay the price for their children the way your father had to pay a price for his children. They want rights. Your father couldn't protect himself. That's all your workers are looking for—so they can protect themselves and their families, so that what happened to your family does not happen to their family. I don't think you understand that, Mr. Schultz. They're just looking for someone who can protect themselves in the way your father could not. So Mr. Schultz, I would just hope that you would understand that. But I'm afraid you don't. I'm afraid that if you step down as CEO, you don't understand that these people are afraid that your company will lose its way again, and that they need rights that don't just come from you but come from the company. That's what they're looking for. It lost its way, you say you're back, but it could lose its way again. Workers should not be dependent upon you, Mr. Schultz, and your sense of right and wrong. They should be able to have laws, protections, unions that stand up for them every single day of the year. And that is something I think you fundamentally don't understand. These workers are just like your father, and they have no rights.

30 seconds only.

I understand completely. Your father served our country—

Yes, sure.

Mr. Schultz—tremendous, Mr. Schultz.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to discuss reports of illegal union busting at Starbucks locations across the country. In New England alone, there are 19 unionized Starbucks stores, and a total of eight unfair labor practice violations have been filed by the workers union. So it is absolutely critical that we hold companies accountable when they fail to comply with federal labor law. Mr. Schultz, I am seriously concerned by reports that Starbucks is coercing and retaliating against workers for exercising their rights to organize—for example, by unjustly firing workers who are involved in union organizing, conducting surveillance of union organizers, and reducing their work hours. Until two weeks ago, you were the CEO of Starbucks, and you continue to be a member of the board of directors as well as a major shareholder. So what I want to know is this: I know that Senator Casey asked you about reports that Starbucks was surveilling workers who were engaged in organizing. Do you have any knowledge that such surveillance took place?

So you had no participation in decisions to move these workers to other locations—the workers who were engaged in organizing—or to reduce their hours or fire them?

So you had no participation in decisions about moving workers who were engaged in organizing?

Were you or your successor involved in any of these decisions? I'm just asking again: no? Mr. Schultz, the National Labor Relations Board has filed over 80 complaints against Starbucks for this kind of activity that I just asked you about. Starbucks leadership really needs to end these practices. You've said you don't know anything about them. You've also, as you discussed with Senator Markey, indicated in the past that you came back because you felt the company had lost its way. So I will just add my concern about these reports of these activities and urge you as a board member to take action to make sure that the rights of workers who are engaged in organizing activity are protected. Now, as you know, the National Labor Relations Act requires an employer to bargain collectively with its employees' union representatives. It has been more than 450 days since the first Starbucks union was established, yet there has been little evidence of good faith negotiations between Starbucks and its union. The delay is truly unacceptable. As CEO of Starbucks, what exactly did you do to move union negotiations along in a timely way?

Well, the record to date is unacceptable—450 days. What will you do, as someone who continues to serve on the company's board of directors, to remedy the situation?

Well, failing to reach a contract over 450 days, this time period between requests to organize and getting contracts done, indicates that you are resisting unionization as opposed to working with the union and collaborating with it.

So my question is: why not work with the union and collaborate? Why not get the input from the unions to actually improve things for workers?

Again, I will just urge you: there are lots of examples of large employers who work well with their unions, and they actually find that their business does better when they negotiate with unions, reach contracts, and collaborate with those unions. So I would urge you to take that approach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schultz, thank you for being here today. I have a series of questions, some of them are yes-or-no, and I hope to be able to cover a lot of ground here if it's possible. Mr. Schultz, yes or no: does Starbucks provide employees with generous benefits like health care, paid parental leave, and college scholarships?

And you're proud that Starbucks does that?

I understand that part-time employees need to work at least 240 hours over the course of three consecutive months, or roughly 20 hours a week, to be eligible for those benefits. Is that true?

I don't want to ask one of your lawyers. I believe that to be true. I see a lot of head nodding from employees behind you. But nonetheless, we can submit a question to the record so that you can definitively say yes or no. Mr. Schultz, what happens if workers' hours fall below a threshold as I suggested? Are you able to answer that question?

I understand that Starbucks has a widespread pattern of reducing worker hours at stores that have unionized. After conversations with constituents from New Mexico, that's what I've learned. Why does Starbucks reduce workers' hours at unionized stores?

Mr. Schultz, you announced in May 2022 that the company would raise pay and double training hours at its more than 10,000 corporate-owned stores, but you said that these changes and others would not apply to unionized stores or stores where workers had filed for union elections. Mr. Schultz, yes or no: did you say this?

Was there a finding at the NLRB along these lines as well?

Yes or no: do you claim that Starbucks cannot make changes to benefits without good faith collective bargaining?

The National Labor Relations Board requires an employer and the union to bargain in good faith about wages, hours, and other terms of employment until they agree on a labor contract, not after. Are you familiar with that?

And yes or no, just so that I understand correctly: is it true that Starbucks can hold shareholder meetings virtually but it refuses to allow some union members to join bargaining negotiations virtually, even if other members are present?

The reason I asked the question about the reduction in hours, Mr. Schultz, is I certainly commend and appreciate what decisions were made about respecting employees, about valuing employees as well. What concerns me is practices that have been shared with me: a reduction in hours where an employee maybe once worked full-time, 36 hours or so, but then hours were changed at that property for whatever reasons—I'll suggest that I believe it's because of unionization—and I look forward to getting your response there. But then the employees, I'm told, have to be on call or made available if Starbucks decides to add a shift or something. Is that true?

I'm not asking about a specific store. Starbucks across the country, in many properties, has reduced hours of employees—that's a fact. Is that correct?

When someone's hours are reduced—if it's for business—does Starbucks have a policy where that employee has to make themselves available if Starbucks decides to call them back in for a shift that they're not scheduled for?

Well, that's not my understanding. I'd be happy to submit something into the record. My concern is this: if a store changes its hours, reduces its open hours, staff schedules are changed, they're reduced from 36 hours to 20 hours, but they're told to stay available—well, how do they get another job? If they can't get another job and they're trying to go to school or do something to broaden whatever they're doing in their lives, but then a policy is put in place that says, 'We're going to reduce your hours and you have to stay on call'—whether it's a manager or not—that's a Starbucks policy? I just hope with all of this, that's not a policy.

I didn't ask a question of Mr. Schultz. I'd be happy to ask a question if you'd like a response.

Okay, thank you. Thank you very much, Senator. What we're going to do is we have a wonderful panel that's going to be up here in a second. You have not voted yet and I have not voted yet.

Just for 30 seconds, can I be recognized to submit a letter into the record from the Albuquerque store?

Without objection. Let me conclude this session with Mr. Schultz by saying that we are looking at a situation where one side has all the money, has all the power, has all the consultants, and can hire and fire at will. We're looking at another side where workers are making not very good wages—wages that were forced up, as I understand it, by the threat of—

Unionization so that you now have a $15 an hour minimum wage. We are looking at a situation that Senator Lujan just mentioned. You know, it was in a lovely room, but there is one world out there in the real world, whether it's Seattle or Vermont or wherever it is, people are given arbitrary schedules as to when they can and cannot get to work. Sometimes they work 20 hours a week, sometimes they work 30 hours a week. Hard to build a budget around that. But at the end of the day, this hearing is not about my best-selling book, it's not about Venezuela – and it is a good book, people should read it – but the issue is pretty simple: workers have a right to join a union, and in hundreds of shops that you control, workers have voted to join a union. There is zero, zero union contracts. What I am not only asking you, I am urging you, is do not only the right thing, do what is legal. Sit down. Now you've said you are prepared to sit down face to face. Is that what I heard? Yes. Do it. Sit down in the next two weeks, come back to us and tell us the success that you've had in finally negotiating a first contract. That is my hope. And with that, until I get to say a statement, you do – yes. And I would also say this hearing is about how we should have a neutral process by which NLRB is making not a thumb on the scale on the side of one side or the other, but in which they are attempting to have a neutral process. And this committee should be investigating the allegations that we have confirmation that OIG is investigating that there are NLRB employees who are doing precisely that. Now we on this side of the aisle firmly defend the ability of people to unionize, and we have promoted policies much more favorable for unions. For example, Keystone XL pipeline, and it absolutely has to do with the administration's desire to buy oil from Venezuela than from Canada. Why in the world that would be, I don't know. And employing American workers and American trade unions, why that would be, I don't know. But nonetheless, that's their call, not mine. But we should not in this committee presume that someone is guilty before we have done our own independent evaluation, particularly because it would depend upon an evaluation by NLRB which we happen to know right now is under investigation for being biased. NLRB is not under investigation for anything. All right, with that, their employees are their employees. Thank you very much for being with us. We are going to recess for 10 minutes, and then we're going to have a very excellent panel joining us. Thank you.

We fired the Starbucks – Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for being with us. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. My name is Jason Saxon. I'm a wrongfully fired Starbucks worker from Augusta, Georgia. I started with the company in 2019. I hired on as a chef supervisor. In time, I became the go-to not only for baristas but management as well. I was recognized for my dedication and hard work, as well as the positive and infectious energy and environment I created for partners and customers. I even won Partner of the Quarter. My time at Starbucks wasn't all bad. I met my amazing wife, who is now the mother of our two-year-old Ava. I got to be there for the customers who relied on us during the pandemic and support my co-workers whose families were also going through some really tough times. Being a disabled veteran with osteoarthritis of the spine from my time in the Coast Guard, I felt it was my duty to serve my country again in order to make my workplace more equitable, but also so that my work family could have what they needed to survive. We face many failed and broken systems working at Starbucks. When we began to organize a union, we saw that Starbucks had failed at honoring its stated mission and values, so we chose to live up to them in challenging the status quo. In late 2021, when we started to hear about Starbucks workers in Buffalo organizing a union, I thought we need this too. I reached out to Starbucks Workers United to see how we could get started organizing in our store and began talking to my co-workers. We kept organizing despite increasing retaliation and surveillance. The company sent higher-up managers to our store, and it felt like it was just to surveil us. The regional director who drove down from Atlanta was in our store regularly with the district manager. We were disciplined for minor things that happened in the store, like being written up for being two minutes late, which had never happened before. Terminations increased too. A partner who experienced sexual harassment from one of our managers was terminated after reporting it. They held captive audience meetings – they called them one-on-ones for us to have all of the facts, but the partners were outnumbered every time. In these meetings, partners were being threatened with losing their benefits if they joined the union, which made them feel intimidated and scared. In February 2022, we heard about the Memphis 7, a high-profile case of retaliation and termination against a group of mostly workers of color. Their firing had a chilling effect on me and my co-workers as we saw the company betraying the very values and mission that these Memphis workers were upholding. Despite our fears, we were inspired by the courage and power of the Memphis 7 and filed for our election a month later in March 2022. A week after we filed, they replaced a sympathetic store manager, but it backfired as more people got on board with the union. In April, our store won our election by a landslide, 26 to 5, despite all of the threats and intimidation. Starbucks' retaliation and union busting ramped up even more after we won our election. We were constantly being watched, and managers listened in on our conversations through our headsets. Store hours were constantly changing, and hours kept getting cut. People were fired right on the shop floor. They fired seven of our union members. Two of them were shift supervisors. Two partners requested medical and maternity leave, but management refused to sign off on their leave, and they were terminated. Several people quit, including my wife. Some of us were told that we should look for another job. In July, I had a two-day unfair labor practice strike and delivered our demands. A month later, I was fired for supposedly being disruptive. I did not receive any write-up or discipline, and there was no investigation. I was fired after organizing, like so many union leaders across the country. I have filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB seeking to be reinstated at Starbucks. Big corporations have a lot of power and money, and they are willing to pull out all the stops to deny workers a voice and a seat at the table in a union. That's why I'm thrilled to be here today, to have witnessed firsthand Howard Schultz being held to account for his company's illegal behavior. We are coming together to demand better pay, affordable health coverage, and stronger safety procedures. I'm proud to be a leader of this new labor movement. We're taking on corporate power and fighting for all of us. One day, my daughter is going to be able to look up her dad on the internet and find out that I fought for a better future for every Starbucks worker and for all working people, and I know she'll also read that we took on one of the most powerful corporations and won. That's why I keep fighting, and that makes everything worth it.

Mr. Saxon, thank you very much. Our third witness is Sharon Block, a professor of practice and the executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy at Harvard Law School. For 20 years, she has held key labor policy positions across the legislative and executive branches of federal government, including here at the HELP Committee and at the NLRB. Ms. Block, thanks so much for being with us.

Thank you, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy for inviting me to testify today. It feels a little bit like coming home. I want to make clear that first that I am testifying in my personal capacity and not as a representative of Harvard Law School. In light of my long service with the NLRB, I'd like to start my testimony by recognizing the great work done by the NLRB career staff with regard to the Starbucks campaign, handling hundreds of cases over the past 18 months. I know them firsthand to be consummate professionals and dedicated public servants. Next, I'd like to address the purpose of the National Labor Relations Act so that we understand the consequences when an employer denies workers the rights guaranteed by the Act. The NLRA does not guarantee that workers will be represented by a union or that if they are so represented that they will secure particular outcomes at the bargaining table. Instead, it guarantees to them a fair process to decide for themselves whether they want to exercise these rights. It is always the workers who make these decisions; it is not the employer's decision. So thought of in this way, you can say that the NLRA establishes the rule of law for the workplace. And so the question for this hearing is whether Starbucks respected this workplace rule of law or has undermined the ability of workers to be treated fairly in their quest to decide for themselves whether they want union representation. I'd like to make three main points in the remainder of my testimony. First, the scope of Starbucks' violations alleged and found so far is beyond the scope of the anti-union campaigns that I have witnessed during my career as a labor lawyer. Second, these violations should not be understood as isolated acts but rather should be viewed as a coordinated campaign to stifle union activity across the company. Finally, it is critical that this kind of egregious conduct is taken seriously because otherwise it will send a message to workers across the economy that their rights are as disposable as a paper Starbucks cup. First, I'll address the scope of the violations. As you have heard already, Starbucks is facing more than 500 allegations that it has violated the NLRA, and career Board agents have found merit in more than half of those charges. In addition, four Board members from both political parties and seven career administrative law judges have concluded that Starbucks has committed violations of the Act. While it sadly has become quite common for companies to respond hostilely and often unlawfully to organizing campaigns by their workers, I'm not aware of another company in recent years that has had this many allegations leveled against it or this many allegations found to have merit. The egregiousness of many of the violations also makes this campaign stand out. For decades, Board law has deemed the firing of pro-union workers during an organizing campaign as a hallmark violation – a violation that is likely to have significant impact not just on the worker who is fired but also on the organizing rights of co-workers. Already, the General Counsel and ALJs have found more than 20 Starbucks employees have been fired because of their union activity. These discharges and other hallmark violations found is conduct that goes to the very heart of workers' rights under the Act, and in the words of the ALJ who reviewed Starbucks' anti-union campaign in Buffalo, 'Starbucks has engaged in egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for employees' fundamental rights.' That observation leads to my second point. What has happened at Starbucks is not just a collection of individual violations; it looks more like a company campaign to stop the workers' campaign in its tracks. Each time the company commits a new violation in a new location or at a new stage in the union's campaign, it is communicating to all of its workers that the rights accorded to them by the law can be defeated, that the company has the resources, the will, and the stamina to undermine the exercise of their rights at every turn. Therefore, I am also concerned about the wider message that Starbucks' vast anti-union campaign sends workers across the country. Many low-wage workers have also been inspired by what the Starbucks baristas have achieved over the past 18 months. But what do these workers and the public think when they see that Starbucks is willing to break the law that protects these rights hundreds of times? I commend the committee for holding this hearing to show that you take seriously workers' rights to organize and to sit at a bargaining table if they choose, even if their employer is a huge company that really doesn't want them to have a union. It's a bedrock of our democracy that the law applies to everyone, including the most powerful. So I believe that much is at stake in ensuring that Starbucks workers' rights to unionize are protected and respected. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Ms. Block. Senator Cassidy is voting, so I'm going to introduce his witness. Former Representative Bradley Byrne served four terms in Congress and has more than 30 years of experience as a labor and employment attorney in private practice. Mr. Byrne, thanks for being with us.

Thank you, Senator Sanders. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I've submitted a written statement; I won't read that to you. I do not represent Starbucks. I do not have a position about whether they have or have not committed unfair labor practice violations. I do not have a position on whether they should or should not be organized. I believe that's up to the workers, and I trust the wisdom of the workers at the Starbucks stores to make those decisions in appropriately conducted elections. I'm here because I represent a whistleblower, a long-time employee, professional employee at the National Labor Relations Board, who has come forward to the Inspector General of the National Labor Relations Board with information that there have been significant irregularities, violations of the neutrality of the organization of the agency during at least one such election. Now, why does that matter? The process that we follow in these elections is very important because, as the previous speaker said, it's to make sure that the employees make a free and uncoerced decision. It's not to protect the management of the company, it's not to protect the union, and it's certainly not to protect the NLRB. The NLRB is required to conduct what we call 'laboratory conditions' from the time a petition is filed until the time you have an election. That means you've got to make sure that the voting environment is free, that there isn't any coercion, and most especially in this case that the NLRB isn't putting its finger down on one side or the other. They shouldn't favor the employer, they shouldn't favor the union; they should be professional and neutral in all cases. And in my experience, the vast majority of the employees at the NLRB do exactly that. Unfortunately, we know that in at least one case, that was violated – it was violated egregiously, and a hearing officer found four different violations. Now, here's the problem with all that. If you do something that challenges the integrity of the process, you've challenged the integrity of the vote, and if you challenge the integrity of the vote, you've challenged the integrity of the entire system. Because remember, it's there to give the employee the final decision, not the company and certainly not the union. So what I would like for this committee to do is to use its oversight authority, which is considerable, to look into what happened not just in this one case but to determine if there is a pattern in practice at the NLRB of violating their neutrality obligation. And if there is a pattern of practice, is that pattern practice being directed from people in higher echelons of the agency? I am very concerned by public statements, public positions taken by the General Counsel of NLRB. The General Counsel is a political appointee; there's nothing wrong with that – that's true when you have Republican presidents just like it's true when you have a Democrat president. But whether you are a Democrat-appointed NLRB General Counsel or Republican-appointed, you have an obligation to maintain that neutrality, you have an obligation to follow the law. What this General Counsel has done is attack the process for elections altogether. She wants to do away with elections. That greatly disturbs me. It flies in the face of long-settled law, and it also flies in the face of what I've been hearing a lot about recently – workplace democracy, workforce democracy. Well, if we believe in workplace democracy, we ought to give employees the right to vote as to whether or not they want a union. If they do, as they have done in some of these Starbucks elections, that's the law; they get to have a union represent them. But in many cases, they vote no. In the vast majority of cases where I represent an employer in a representation election, the employees chose not to have a union represent them. Fine. Whichever way they vote is good, but they ought to have the right to hear both sides of the story, which they won't have if they don't have an election, and they ought to have the ability to walk into a secret place and cast a secret vote so that no one is coercing them to vote whichever way they want to vote. So I ask this committee and the Congress to look at this very carefully because of the seriousness of the situation. It should be all of our concern that we make sure that we have true integrity in these elections so that the result is final and fair. I thank you for the opportunity to be here and look forward to your questions.

Mr. Byrne, thank you very much. Rachel Gressler is a senior research fellow in economics at the Heritage Foundation. She previously served as a senior economist at the Joint Economic Committee of Congress. Ms. Gressler, thanks very much for being with us.

Is your mic on? Yes, okay. Hold it closely. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. First, I want to recognize the important role that unions have played in U.S. history in securing important worker safety protections, just wages, and giving workers a previously unheard voice. Many of the things that unions fought for are now protected by law, and the globally competitive economy has empowered individual workers and ultimately weakened unions' advantages. For example, when the only cars that Americans could buy were those that were produced in the U.S., the United Auto Workers Union could impose above-market compensation. While that benefited union workers in the short run, it meant more expensive cars, fewer people able to afford them, and fewer workers needed to produce them. When foreign competition entered and unions maintained their excessive compensation demands, automakers began shuttering their doors. Domestic auto production today is one-third of what it used to be two decades ago. In addition to shifting to more service-oriented jobs, American workers have become more educated and more mobile. The average worker changes jobs 12 times throughout their career, which means pensions built on decades of service are less desirable, and rigid pay scales may work for nine-to-five jobs where everybody produces 20 widgets a day, but few jobs today are so routine, and most workers want to be paid based on what they contribute. Consequently, unions' advantages have been waning. Since 2007, non-union wages have increased 56 percent while union wages have increased only 41 percent. And union pensions have recklessly promised $677 billion in pension benefits that they haven't set aside to pay. Instead of adapting to provide new services that workers value, unions have turned to political force and inciting animosity, depicting company management as 12-foot diseased rats – that is dehumanizing and destructive. Most people want to be part of a team, not a battle. In fact, positive workplace relationships are the biggest indicator of employee satisfaction. Most people also don't want their money taken to pay for things that they don't value. Many unions spend more money on politics than they do representing workers. A recent study found that only 16 percent of teachers' union dues go to the local union that bargains on their behalf; the rest goes to the state and national unions that spend a lot of that money on politics. Unionization hit an all-time low of 10.1 percent last year, and in part that's because employers can be more responsive and accommodating to workers' desires without a union dictating what they can and can't do. Instead of wooing workers, unions are trying to forcibly reverse their decline through laws that would take away workers' privacy, their secret ballot elections, their right to work without paying a union, and the ability to be their own boss. But instead of forcing workers into one-size-fits-all unions, alternative worker organizations could benefit more workers. For example, Major League Sports bargain collectively for some things, but players are able to negotiate their own salaries. Professional organizations like the Freelancers Union provide educational services and bring workers together to pool benefits. In worker choice models, more workers who want to be in a union would have that option while not forcing anybody who doesn't want to be in the union. The Employee Rights Act would secure fundamental rights like privacy and secret ballot elections; it would elevate the voices and opportunities of union and non-union workers alike, and it would also protect the livelihoods of 59 million Americans who participate in independent work. It would also preserve the small business franchise model. The recent shortage of workers and a longer-term decline in labor force participation is troubling for the economy and civil society. To help more people find meaningful and productive work, policymakers should expand apprenticeship opportunities, enable more portable benefits, and end unnecessary regulations that prevent employers from offering more flexible and generous benefits. Additionally, it is the NLRB's job, not Congress's, to investigate unfair labor practices and to render consistent and impartial decisions. It's also the NLRB's job to oversee fair elections and to protect workers' and employers' free speech rights. I don't know about specific unfair labor practice charges at Starbucks or any of the roughly 18,000 unfair labor practices filed with the NLRB last year, but I do know from my work advocating for workplace flexibility that Starbucks has been a leader in expanding benefits like paid family leave and providing college tuition and high starting wages. The fact that their turnover rate is less than half the industry average suggests that they're doing something right. Running a business and attracting and retaining workers isn't easy, and an employer shouldn't have to fear congressional harassment if they don't want a union coming between them and their workers. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Let me begin my question with Ms. Cotter and Mr. Saxon. You have heard, I suspect, Mr. Schultz saying that he obeys the law, he respects the right of workers to organize, if that is what he wants, and that Starbucks does not engage in union busting. Ms. Carter, what is your observation about that?

My observation is that that is not my experience while working in a store that was unionizing. Thank you for your question, Chairman. We were forced to go through multiple captive audience meetings in our store, and our store was the only one to stay open throughout the entirety of the pandemic. Unfortunately, because of a captive audience meeting, a member of management who traveled to our store from I don't know where – I had never met them before – gave multiple partners COVID in this meeting, and we had to shut down for five days. That's a little bit of union busting and outside experiences, but kind of crazy. Workers have any option about whether or not they would undergo this meeting with the Starbucks executive? We were scheduled for that meeting, and it actually was our very first one, so we weren't told at this point in time that we didn't have to attend. So it was very much not an option.

Let me get to Mr. Saxon. You heard what Mr. Schultz said. What do you think?

Thank you for your question, Senator. That hasn't been my experience in my store. When we filed, they fired our store manager. He was a very well-liked store manager; he actually helped in our organizing effort. Once he was fired, after that they brought in an interim store manager and a store manager team to make our store more efficient. That making our store more efficient resulted in us constantly coming into work with everything moved around, so every single day we had to relearn where everything was. With that, the interim store manager would take notes about what she would hear or see on the floor, and she'd write down partners' names. We didn't find out until after we had our election that those people whose names she had written down were going to be written up and or fired.

So what I'm hearing from you is you didn't quite accept Mr. Schultz's view that he has not engaged in anti-union activity.

They have definitely engaged in anti-union activity.

Let me get to Ms. Block. If I heard you correctly, I think you indicated that what you were seeing at Starbucks is unprecedented in modern history, and that what Starbucks is doing is also sending a signal to the corporate world that in a sense, if they can get away with this, other corporations can as well. Am I right on that?

Yes, I think that's a fair interpretation of how this campaign may be perceived. And in my mind, most importantly among other low-wage workers that work for large corporations that have the resources to engage in this kind of drawn-out, long litigation over their activity during an organizing campaign.

What is the purpose, do you think, of these long, never-ending efforts on the part of companies? Why do they do that?

I try not to speculate on other people's motives, but I am concerned that we are seeing now fewer petitions being filed by other Starbucks employees. There can be lots of reasons for that, so I think time will tell. But as other witnesses and as other members of the committee have indicated, there is necessarily a huge power imbalance between workers and the company, and so the ability to play things out over a long time just exacerbates that kind of power imbalance.

Okay. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Byrne, you represent a constituent of mine who bravely provided information to the NLRB Inspector General of misconduct that she witnessed during the representation election at a Starbucks in Overland, Kansas. Specifically, a hearing officer found there was substantial disparity between the communications the region shared with Starbucks and the communications the region shared with the union. What makes this an issue?

Well, you're supposed to be neutral, and so if you're having communications with the union about an issue, you need to have communications with management as well. If you're not having that even communication, then clearly you're favoring one side over the other. Now, some of the communications seem to me fairly benign, but I gather it has to be even keel – whatever you do for one, you have to do for the other. That's correct. So one of the things that came out in that is that the labor board agent actually allowed the union to bring two people to vote at the board's office, and this was a mail-in election where you had a stipulated agreement. So the communications weren't about some small things; they were about big things – i.e., the vote. So the stipulation that you shall mail in is really kind of ironclad, and what may seem just kind of like an accommodation, really they should have said no, we can't, you've got to go down the street, you've got to put it in a mailbox or something like that. A stipulated agreement is the law of the case; they have to follow that. Now, if they want to vary it, you go to both sides and say we need to vary it as to this employee or that employee, but you don't just unilaterally do it after having a conversation with the union and you haven't had any conversation with the company.

I kind of get that. Let me ask you this: can you tell us about records brought forward by your client that implicates a pattern and practice that the union received accommodations by NLRB in other regions, not just Kansas?

Senator, let me be very careful how I say this. There is a subpoena that has been issued to my client by the House committee; we are in the process of reviewing that and complying with it. I can say without going into the details of it that there are documents in there that would indicate that the sort of thing that happened in this one particular election has happened in other elections as well. So there is a basis to determine whether or not there has been a pattern and practice, not just in Starbucks cases – although the House subpoena was limited to Starbucks cases – but if it's happened in Starbucks cases, is it happening in other cases across the country?

Let me ask you this. Much has been made about the number of filings of unfair labor practices by people seeking to unionize against Starbucks. And yet the NLRB, in a letter that I submitted for the record earlier, has stated that over half of unfair labor practices are dismissed or withdrawn. As a labor lawyer, can you speak to the tactical use of unfair labor practice complaints in an organizing campaign?

In my experience, the union files unfair labor practice charges – multiple unfair labor practice charges – in every election, and it's part of their strategy for handling it. And as you said, the vast majority of them are thrown out; they don't even get to the point of having a hearing because they didn't have any basis in the first place. So it is a pattern that the union follows to try to intimidate the employer and try to eat at the time in the election.

Ms. Gressler, the Republicans made it pretty clear that we support the right to unionize, but you point out that the labor laws we have are sometimes 100 years old, and yet you promote some reforms that would modernize it, if you will. And you mentioned for example Major League Baseball, a special case, but in which merit actually dictates wages along with a baseline of benefits. Can you just quickly summarize some other things that if we were to come together on a bipartisan basis, you would recommend that we do to help people who seek to unionize but to update the whole concept?

Yeah, and there I think the focus has to be on the workers and their choices. So they may choose to have an organizational structure that allows them to pull together and say, these certain benefits are important to all of us and we want to have the same level of them, but there are other things that we want to be able to negotiate more flexibly. That could also happen across a big company that has multiple different stores in different states that are facing different conditions. I think the importance there is letting the workers have the choice to do that. Right-to-work states allow this, but they also in those states have representation for everybody, so even if the worker isn't paying into the union, they are represented by the union. Now the union would say that's a free rider problem, so you could eliminate that by saying the union does not have to represent you if you're not paying them. So if you want that representation, you've got to pay, but if you don't want it, you can be on your own and you can negotiate by yourself or you can have a separate type of negotiation. Just having the choice actually be focused on the worker themselves.

Thank you. Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member, and welcome to all of you. I'm glad to see you here, and I want to thank you in particular the Starbucks organizers for being here. Ms. Carter, I understand you organized one of the first stores in the South for the Starbucks workers. I wanted to ask you something. Mr. Schultz talked repeatedly this morning about this 'partner' relationship that he says he has with his employees. I'm just wondering from your experience, how do you have a partnership with hundreds of thousands of people? And when you were doing the organizing in your store, what did you find? Why were people wanting to be part of a bargaining unit?

Thank you so much for your question, Senator. It's about the rules and regulations that are in place and how we are actually able to service the customer. Throughout COVID, we really saw a decline in maintenance in our stores, we really saw a decline in upkeep, and frankly when you report these concerns to your manager, it just really feels like you're talking sometimes to a wall, as if you're just not getting any response. So that was a huge catalyst to why we wanted to organize. But also, the wages and rent rising in our state – it's just not something that worked for us. And also, benefits are just too expensive for us to actually be able to use, so rather than forgo a paycheck, we just choose not to have health insurance. So those are a lot of the reasons why we chose to organize. And I'll say Howard Schultz does not feel like a partner to me as well.

Thank you. Mr. Saxon, I'd like to know what you'd like to add to this. I'm particularly interested in the challenges that folks have dealing with schedules that are uncertain and unpredictable. You have maybe a promise of some hours that you then don't get. How would being part of a bargaining unit help you deal with those kinds of challenges as a worker?

Thank you. To answer the first question, some of the challenges that we faced were when I talked to some of my co-workers, they overwhelmingly were talking about the training. The training is one week where you're learning everything and then one week where you're practicing everything, and then for shift supervisors, it's you go through the same barista training and then you do shift supervisor training which functions the same way. Then scheduling was a huge thing, and this kind of goes into your second question. I currently have at my store someone who used to get 25 hours a week. They are a very much so a supporter of our union. They have been reduced down to five hours a week. I think that speaks for itself. If they really want to be partners with us, they'd hear those concerns, you know, and make those changes. Starbucks has an empty seat that they leave at the shareholder table for their partners. They should fill that seat and hear what we have to say.

Thank you. Ms. Block, earlier this morning when we were talking with Mr. Schultz, several of us were pressing him on this disparity in how the unionized folks were being treated versus the non-unionized people. I particularly was talking about this ability for the unionized shops to be able to access the credit card tipping mechanism. Mr. Schultz said that his understanding of the law was that he could not do that. When I questioned him, he shifted a little bit and said, actually, it's our preference not to do that. Could you address this issue?

Absolutely. Thank you for the question. I think as Mr. Schultz eventually was sort of circling around, once the union waived its right to bargain over those particular benefits, it would not have been unlawful for Starbucks – at least what I can tell from the information that's become public – it would not have been unlawful for Starbucks to grant those benefits to the stores that had unionized. But there's another dimension too in the allegations that in fact withholding those benefits was itself an unfair labor practice, and that goes to the question of why – right? – they made that judgment. So if it isn't accurate that the law precluded them from providing those benefits, then you say, well then what was the reason? And if the reason for withholding those benefits was to retaliate against workers for having a union, to intimidate them in how they exercise that right, then that crosses the line from just not being an accurate sense of the law to being an unfair labor practice. So that's the question that will now be before the Board.

Thank you, Senator Smith. Just a few more questions. Recently, Starbucks raised their minimum wage, I suspect in response to union organizing. But tell me – and certainly it's not just people working in Starbucks – what's it like to try to get by on $15 an hour or $16 an hour? And picking up on Senator Smith's question about scheduling, do people know if they're going to have 40 hours or 30 hours or 20 hours? If I go to work, how many hours am I going to be working in a week? Ms. Carter.

Thank you for your question, Chairman Sanders. To address your first question, $15 an hour is not enough to pay bills and actually survive in this world today as we know it. We often struggle. One of the main things I hear from my partners is, 'I can't pay my light bill and put gas in my car at the same time,' or 'I can't put gas in my car and get groceries.' So just imagine having to ration the most important things that you need to survive day in and day out. Another point that I'm really glad you brought up is the hour requirement in order to obtain benefits. In my four years at the company, I've never had a problem qualifying for benefits until now. Suddenly, I actually just was taken off of Starbucks benefit policies because I have not been scheduled the appropriate hours or anywhere close to my availability for the better part. Explain that.

To the world out here, what does that mean? If I am your supervisor, I can reduce your work week, and because I've reduced your work week, you now lose your benefits. Is that what you're saying?

Yes, sir. We have an hour requirement per week. I believe it's 20 – I'm not sure. Actually, it's been removed. But yeah, because of that, my hours were cut basically since around a little bit before Christmas last year, and so I actually just recently lost my benefits because of that hour requirement. So yeah, I mean, having your benefits tied to your hours when you don't get to determine the hours you work doesn't really seem conducive, in my opinion.

Let me go to Mr. Saxon. You know, people have to pay rent, they have to deal with all the needs of the family. How do you do a budget if you don't know exactly how many hours you're going to be working and what kind of paycheck you get at the end of the month?

You simply can't do a budget when you don't know. Like I said, there is a partner at my store whose hours went down from 25 to 5. They've now had to get a second job. Even with that, the scheduling around their second job and with Starbucks – how do you have a second job if you just don't know? Starbucks puts out its new schedule every three weeks. So one week you can have 25, the next week you could have 10, the week after that you could ask – that's theoretical. Is that common? Very common.

So how do you know if you're going to be able to pay your rent if you've got 10 hours?

You get a second job, you do DoorDash, which many of my partners in my store have had to do.

All right. Tell me about healthcare. I don't want to misquote Mr. Schultz, but you talk about comprehensive health benefits. When I hear that, I think that people have universal healthcare that they can walk in and the doctor might have to take out their credit card? What's going on with healthcare? Ms. Carter or Mr. Saxon, jump in.

With healthcare, I actually had healthcare with Starbucks. I had myself, my wife, and my daughter covered. The thing about the coverage is it's offered in tiers – gold, silver, and bronze. These tiers, you still have to pay your copay, you still have to take out your card when you go to the doctor.

How much is copay? Does it depend?

It depends on the level that you pick.

So would I be correct in assuming that if I'm working 10 hours a week, first of all, I work 10 hours a week or 15 hours a week, I don't get that benefit? Is that correct?

Correct.

And if I'm working 20 hours a week, I'm not making enough money to pay the copayment or the premium, right?

Correct.

You want to elaborate on this? It sounds like maybe it's not quite the comprehensive benefit that it's advertised as.

Again, with every wage increase, they increase how much you have to pay into the health insurance. So that means more of your check is coming out for subpar health insurance that doesn't cover everything. So I have been reduced to going back to just the VA. Besides my firing, I've had to go back to the VA to get things that Starbucks health insurance would not cover.

It would seem to me that if I were sitting where you are sitting and fighting for a union, one of my demands would be consistent and reasonable scheduling that I had some input to. Is that true?

Thank you, Senator Sanders. Yes, that is absolutely one of our proposals – to have better, consistent scheduling. And also, just making sure that – well, I don't want to misspeak about the bargaining proposals, but I do know that having that consistent schedule is definitely something that we are fighting for in this movement, because if our benefits are tied to it, we need to know that we can get those hours and not have to have this ridiculous availability that keeps you from actually pursuing a second job or pursuing some other form of income.

What does this availability mean?

I believe you have to have 180 percent of your hours available on top of the availability that you have if you want it. So say, for example, you want to work 12 hours a week, you have to have 18 hours available. If you want to work – I'm bad at math, so I'll just use that example. But yeah, that pretty much explains it.

Anything more that you would like to add, Mr. Saxon?

No.

Okay. All right. On behalf of the committee, let me thank all of our panelists for your testimony. We appreciate it very much. And this is the end of our hearing. For any senators who wish to ask additional questions, questions for the record will be due in 10 business days, April 12th by 5 PM. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two statements from stakeholder groups in support of Starbucks workers and their fight to join a union freely and fairly. The committee stands adjourned.