[Senate Hearing 118-191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                          S. Hrg. 118-191

                      NO COMPANY IS ABOVE THE LAW:
                        THE NEED TO END ILLEGAL
                       UNION BUSTING AT STARBUCKS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
                          LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                                   ON

      EXAMINING THE NEED TO END ILLEGAL UNION BUSTING AT STARBUCKS

                               __________

                             MARCH 29, 2023

                               __________

 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and 
                                Pensions
                                
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                                 __________

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-464 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
        
          COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS

                 BERNIE SANDERS (I), Vermont, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania   BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana, 
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin                 Ranking Member
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut   RAND PAUL, Kentucky
TIM KAINE, Virginia                  SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TINA SMITH, Minnesota                MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            ROGER MARSHALL, M.D., Kansas
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          MITT ROMNEY, Utah
ED MARKEY, Massachusetts             TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
                                     MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
                                     TED BUDD, North Carolina

                Warren Gunnels, Majority Staff Director
              Bill Dauster, Majority Deputy Staff Director
                Amanda Lincoln, Minority Staff Director
           Danielle Janowski, Minority Deputy Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                               STATEMENTS

                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 29, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           Committee Members

Sanders, Hon. Bernie, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, 
  Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement.........................     1

Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from the State 
  of Louisiana, Opening statement................................     4

                            Witness--Panel I

Schultz, Howard, Member of the Board of Directors and former CEO, 
  Starbucks Corporation, Seattle, WA.............................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     7

                          Witnesses--Panel II

Carter, Maggie, Starbucks Barista, Knoxville, TN.................    50
    Prepared statement...........................................    52
    Summary statement............................................    56

Saxton, Jaysin, Fired Starbucks Worker Leader, Augusta, GA.......    57
    Prepared statement...........................................    59
    Summary statement............................................    61

Block, Sharon, Professor of Practice, Harvard Law School, 
  Cambridge, MA..................................................    62
    Prepared statement...........................................    64
    Summary statement............................................    67

Byrne, Hon. Bradley, Of Counsel, Adams & Reese LLP, Mobile, AL...    67
    Prepared statement...........................................    69
    Summary statement............................................    70

Greszler, Rachel, Senior Research Fellow, Grover Hermann Center 
  for the Federal Budget, Heritage Foundation, Washington, DC....    71
    Prepared statement...........................................    73
    Summary statement............................................    83

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Sanders, Hon. Bernie:
    Pride at Work, Statement for the Record......................    92
    National Women's Law Center, Statement for the Record........    93
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
    National Labor Relations Board, Statement for the Record.....    95
Lujan, Hon. Ben Ray:
    Starbucks Workers United, Statement for the Record...........    98
Carter, Maggie:
    Non-interference and Fair Election Principles for Partner 
      Unionization...............................................    99

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Response by Bradley Byrne to questions of:
    Senator Sanders..............................................    99

 
                      NO COMPANY IS ABOVE THE LAW:
                        THE NEED TO END ILLEGAL
                       UNION BUSTING AT STARBUCKS

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, March 29, 2023

                                       U.S. Senate,
       Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in 
room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

    Present: Senators Sanders [presiding], Murray, Casey, 
Baldwin, Murphy, Kaine, Hassan, Smith, Lujan, Hickenlooper, 
Markey, Cassidy, Paul, Braun, Marshall, Romney, Tuberville, and 
Mullin.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS

    The Chair. The Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions will come to order. And let me get to the 
point of this hearing. Today in our Country, over 60 percent of 
our people are living paycheck to paycheck and millions are 
working for starvation wages.

    Unbelievably, despite an explosion in technology and huge 
increases in worker productivity, the average American worker 
is making $50 a week less than he or she made 50 years ago 
after adjusting for inflation. Unless we change the nature of 
the way our economy works, it is all too likely that our 
younger generation will have a lower standard of living than 
their parents.

    What this means in reality is that workers throughout our 
Country are struggling to pay for housing, struggling to pay 
for health care and prescription drugs, struggling to put food 
on the table, struggling to pay off their student debts, and to 
deal with other basic necessities of life.

    While that is the reality for the working class of this 
country, here is another reality, and that is that the people 
on top have never, ever had it so good. Today in America, we 
have more income and wealth inequality than we have ever had, 
with the top 1 percent now owning more wealth than the bottom 
90 percent, with CEOs now making 400 times what their workers 
are making, and with three people at the top owning more wealth 
than the bottom half of American society.

    That is the economic reality that exists today. People on 
top doing extraordinarily well, millions of working families 
struggling. And as a result of that economic reality, what we 
are now seeing is a major increase in trade union organizing. 
Throughout our Country in blue collar jobs and in white collar 
jobs.

    Workers are standing up and they are fighting back to form 
unions in order to improve their wages, their benefits, and 
their working conditions. These workers know, as I do, that 
union workers earn 20 percent more on average than nonunion 
workers. These workers also know, as I do, that union workers 
have better health care benefits, better paid family and 
medical leave policies, are much more likely to have a pension 
and are less likely to be victims of health and safety 
violations compared to nonunion workers. At a time when 71 
percent of the American people now approve of unions, the 
highest level since 1965, there has been a major revitalization 
of the trade union movement in this country.

    Between 2021 and 2022, the number of union elections taking 
place in America has gone up by 53 percent. And since 2020, 
workers have voted to form a union in over 70 percent of union 
elections. Rather extraordinary. And now that is the good news 
for those of us who understand that strong unions are a vital 
part of rebuilding the declining middle class in this country.

    That is the good news. The bad news is that in order to 
combat this increase in union organizing, corporations have 
engaged in an unprecedented level of illegal union busting 
activities, which takes us to the focus of today's hearing. 
Over the past 18 months, Starbucks has waged the most 
aggressive and illegal union busting campaign in the modern 
history of our Country.

    That union busting campaign has been led by Howard Schultz, 
the multi-billionaire founder and director of Starbucks, who is 
with us this morning only under the threat of subpoena. Let us 
be clear about the nature of Starbucks vicious anti-union 
efforts. The National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, has filed 
over 80 complaints against Starbucks for violating Federal 
labor law.

    There have been over 500 unfair labor practice charges 
lodged against the company, and judges have found that 
Starbucks broke the law 130 times across six states since 
workers began organizing in the fall of 2021.

    These violations include the illegal firing of more than a 
dozen Starbucks workers for the crime of exercising their right 
to form a union and to collectively bargain for better wages, 
benefits, and working conditions.

    Since the first Starbucks union was certified more than 450 
days ago in Buffalo, workers in more than 360 stores across 40 
states have held union elections. 83 percent of these elections 
have resulted in a union victory. and today, nearly 300 
Starbucks coffee shops, employing more than 7,000 workers have 
a union, despite Starbucks aggressive anti-union efforts.

    But with nearly 300 shops voting to form a union, Starbucks 
has refused to sign a single first contract with the union. Not 
a single one. Think about that. Think about a multi-billion 
dollar company with unlimited resources, with all kinds of 
lawyers, advisers, consultants, and yet they have not yet 
signed one contract with any of their nearly 300 unionized 
shops.

    Just a few weeks ago, on March 1st, an administrative law 
judge found Starbucks guilty of, ``egregious and widespread 
misconduct,'' which showed, ``a general disregard for the 
employees' fundamental rights.''

    In a 220 page ruling, this judge found that Starbucks 
illegally retaliated against employees for unionizing, promised 
improved pay and benefits if workers rejected the union, 
conducted illegal surveillance of pro-union workers, refused to 
hire prospective employees who supported the union, relocated 
union organizers to new stores, and overstaffed stores ahead of 
union votes.

    All clear violations of Federal labor law. The judge also 
found that Starbucks, ``widespread coercive behavior over 6 
months had permeated every store in the Buffalo market.'' The 
judge ordered Starbucks to reinstate seven workers who were 
wrongfully terminated, reopen a pro-union store in Buffalo that 
was illegally shut down, and pay ``reasonable, consequential 
damages'' to more than two dozen Starbucks workers whose rights 
were violated by the company.

    Let us be clear, Starbucks egregious union busting campaign 
is not limited to Buffalo. It is happening all over America. 
Federal courts in Tennessee and Michigan have issued emergency 
injunctions requiring Starbucks to reinstate workers who were 
illegally fired and to prohibit the coffee chain from firing 
workers for supporting unionization efforts in the future.

    In Scottsdale and Phoenix, Arizona, the NLRB has charged 
Starbucks with committing eight violations of labor law when it 
disciplined, fired, and forced out workers because they 
cooperated with Federal investigations. On November 30th of 
last year, the NLRB found that Starbucks unlawfully refused to 
recognize and bargain with the union at its reserved grocery 
store in Seattle.

    NLRB judges have found that Starbucks illegally threatened 
to withhold benefits, including health insurance, from pro-
union workers in Denver, Overland Park, Kansas, Seattle, 
Washington, and Ann Arbor, Michigan. The pattern in all of 
these scores is clear.

    On one hand, we have workers making $13, $14, $15 an hour 
with minimal benefits, working 20 hours a week, 30 hours a 
week, maybe 40 hours a week, depending on a totally 
unpredictable schedule dictated by their managers, and these 
workers are out there struggling today to achieve dignity and 
justice on the job.

    That is what they are trying to do, and I applaud their 
efforts. And on the other hand, we have a corporation, worth 
some $113 billion, largely controlled by an individual worth 
some $4 billion, who are using their unlimited resources to do 
everything possible, legal and illegal, to deny these workers 
their Constitutional right to form a union.

    The fundamental issue we are confronting today is whether 
we have a system of justice that applies to all or whether 
billionaires and large corporations can break the law with 
impunity. I have read Mr. Schultz's comments to the media in 
which he expresses his strong anti-union views.

    As an American, Mr. Schultz is entitled to those views and 
any other views he holds. But even if he is a multi-billionaire 
and the head of a giant corporation, he is not entitled to 
break the law. So today I will be asking Mr. Schultz whether he 
will do what an administrative law judge has ordered him to do, 
and that is to record and distribute a 14-page notice, which 
states that Starbucks has violated Federal labor law to inform 
Starbucks employees all across this country about their rights 
under the National Labor Relations Act.

    How Starbucks has violated those rights and to assure that 
Starbucks will not infringe upon those rights in the future. In 
other words, I will be asking Mr. Schultz whether or not he 
intends to obey the law.

    Further, I will be asking Mr. Schultz another question, and 
that is whether or not he is prepared to promise this Committee 
that within 14 days of this hearing, Starbucks will exchange 
proposals with the union, something that 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.

    Let me conclude by saying that what is outrageous to me is 
not only Starbucks anti-union activities and their willingness 
to break the law. It is their calculated and intentional 
efforts to stall, to stall, and to stall.

    They understand that the turnover rate at Starbucks and 
many other similar type companies is high. They understand that 
if workers see--do not see success in gaining a contract, they 
are going to get discouraged and give up the fight.

    At a time when we want in this difficult time in our 
Country for people to stand up and fight for their rights, to 
try to destroy the spirit of thousands and thousands of people 
who are fighting for justice, that to my mind, is unforgivable. 
Senator Cassidy.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASSIDY

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. Workers have 
a right to organize. Now, some may disagree as to whether the 
protections for workers who choose to organize should also 
apply to workers who choose not to organize. That is my 
position, but examining this nuance is not an issue here.

    The title of today's hearing is, No Company Is Above the 
Law, The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks. Now, 
that clearly presumes that Mr. Schultz and his former employee 
are guilty before the allegations are fully investigated.

    The title suggests that this hearing is not a good faith 
effort to get at the facts. It is a smear campaign against an 
individual and a company based upon allegations that everyone 
knows are still under litigation.

    I am not here to defend Starbucks. I have my own questions 
about the alleged misconduct, and the law should be followed 
and upheld. I agree with the Chair, no one is above the law. 
But let's not kid ourselves, this is not a fair and impartial 
hearing. Now, it is not surprising that Mr. Schultz was 
reluctant to testify.

    When the majority is using the title of the hearing to 
slander the witness we are asking to testify, it sends a 
signal. The Majority points to claims of Starbucks misconduct 
filed at the National Labor Relations Board to justify today's 
hearing.

    These allegations should be addressed and they should be 
investigated, period. But it would be malpractice for this 
Committee to not also acknowledge that NLRB is currently facing 
its own credibility crisis.

    The NLRB confirmed there are four separate allegations of 
NLRB employee interference, three in which the employer was 
Starbucks, pending before the board. It begs the question, are 
NLRB employees weaponizing the agency against American 
employers to benefit politically connected labor unions?

    The National Labor Relations Act was passed to provide an 
unbiased framework to review disputes between employers and 
employees. The NLRB carries out the law and is required to 
protect the rights of all parties in a labor dispute, not put 
their thumb on the scale in favor of unions. But that is not 
what we appear to see in practice.

    An NLRB hearing officer recently substantiated reports of 
voting irregularities in a union election at a Starbucks in 
Kansas that could potentially elevate to the level of 
misconduct by NLRB employees. This includes NLRB staff 
providing duplicate ballots, supplying union organizers with 
confidential voter information, providing voter accommodations 
to employees selected by the union without offering them to all 
employees.

    Regardless of the outcome, these actions are in direct 
violation of Federal law and NLRB written guidelines. Now, 
today, we will hear from former Congressman Bradley Byrne. He 
is representing the brave whistleblower who brought this 
misconduct and weaponization of the agency to light.

    He will be able to provide more insight into how the NLRB 
is operating in violation of its own practices and procedure in 
a way that favors labor unions. Let's be clear, and one more 
time, workers have a legal right to unionize. Companies cannot 
break the law to prevent unionization.

    Similarly, unions should not be allowed to intimidate 
workers into unionizing through coercion or by banning secret 
ballot elections, which the Supreme Court has stated, ``indeed, 
the preferred'' method to gauge workers' support of 
unionization. This is a conversation this Committee can have 
and will continue to have.

    But the bottom line is that a Federal agency has no right 
to break the law to advance a political agenda. And this should 
be something that our Committee investigates on a bipartisan 
basis. If the Committee is going to properly investigate 
concerns over labor relations at Starbucks, we should also 
investigate alleged misconduct of the agency that sought to 
influence the union representation process.

    At last week's hearing, I said we should thoughtfully 
examine legitimate policy issues, not hold show trials for 
public shaming. Today looks like more of what we saw last week. 
There are important bipartisan things the Committee needs to 
accomplish.

    We need to work together on real solutions to issues facing 
American families like the high cost of prescription drugs, 
getting Americans back to work, driving down inflation that is 
choking economic growth. Instead, we put CEOs on the dock.

    But instead of a cage in which the prisoner was formally 
kept, it is a desk in front of the Committee where a judgment 
has already been made. Thank you, and I look forward to today's 
testimony.

    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Cassidy. We will now turn to 
our witness. Mr. Howard Schultz is the former longtime Chief 
Executive Officer of Starbucks and a member of the Starbucks 
Board of Directors. Mr. Schultz, you may proceed with your 
testimony.

STATEMENT OF HOWARD SCHULTZ, MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 
         FORMER CEO, STARBUCKS CORPORATION, SEATTLE, WA

    Mr. Schultz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good 
morning, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, and Senators 
of the Committee. I am pleased to be here this morning and tell 
the entrepreneurial story of Starbucks and how we have carried 
the American flag to 84 countries around the world.

    My vision for Starbucks Coffee Company has always been 
steeped in humanity, respect, and shared success. It is a 
vision that was inspired by the struggles of my father, a World 
War II veteran who slipped on a sheet of ice in 1960 and was 
promptly fired from his job as a delivery driver.

    It fractured our family and it deeply scarred me. I decided 
at an early age that if I was ever in a position to run a 
business, it would be based on respect and shared success. With 
my 1-year term as Starbucks interim CEO having come to a close, 
I appear before you today with love and gratitude for what we 
have built at Starbucks over these last 40 years.

    The essential operating approach at Starbucks since 1987, 
when we had just 11 stores, has focused on values-based 
decisions. We have always believed that if we exceed the 
expectations of our people, they in turn will exceed the 
expectations of our customers.

    We call our employees partners is a very important point to 
share with the Committee, because since 1991 we established 
shared ownership for every single person at Starbucks full and 
part time--unprecedented. More than 30 years ago, before the 
company's IPO, Starbucks created two unprecedented benefits for 
our partners.

    It was the first of its kind in all of American business, 
never done before. Starbucks Bean Stock Program, a stock equity 
program, and access to health care, almost 25 years before the 
Affordable Care Act for full and part-time workers who work 20 
hours a week. My written testimony has details on the benefits 
and opportunities we have created for our people over the past 
40 years.

    This represents decades of work, striving to build a 
different kind of company that lifts our customers and gives 
our partners a chance at a better life. According to AON, one 
of the most respected benefits and H.R. consultancies in the 
country, this is their voice, not ours, there is literally no 
company, no company in our competitive set of retail that 
offers higher value benefits than Starbucks in the United 
States.

    Senators, we did this by building a direct relationship 
with our partners, built on trust and shared success based on a 
40-year track record of benefits and actions to create 
opportunity.

    Today, baristas in our stores earn, on average, $17.50. 
Respectfully, that is more than the minimum wage of every 
Senator that has represented a state on this Committee, 
including, respectfully, Chairman Sanders, where the minimum 
wage in Vermont is $13.18. We are at $17.50.

    With benefits and other income included, such as 100 
percent paid college tuition, the first of its kind in American 
business, comprehensive health insurance, and Bean Stock 
equity, the average value approaches $27 an hour.

    What I am most proud of is today, 63 percent of our retail 
managers started out as hourly baristas, underscoring the 
opportunity we provide for shared growth and success, and our 
employee retention is twice the industry average.

    Let me repeat, employee retention at Starbucks is twice the 
industry average, and throughout our history we have addressed 
the issues most critical and most important to our people, 
including pay equity, paid sick leave, fully paid parental 
leave, support of our partner networks, financial literacy, 
sustainability, hiring military veterans and their spouses, 
over 30,000 to date, partnering on food security and offering 
industry leading mental health support.

    The vision and track record and ongoing pathway for 
employees has led our industry. A small number of our partners, 
about 1 percent, have chosen a different approach, as is their 
right under law. And while we care deeply about each and every 
one of our partners, we are limited by law in what we can 
unilaterally do in union environments.

    We are 100 percent committed to fulfilling our obligations 
as an employer under the National Labor Relations Act and are 
committed to good faith negotiations on first contracts for 
each unionized store.

    A year ago, I came back to Starbucks as interim CEO and 
concluded that assignment last week. While not a 1-year fix, we 
are back on the right path and have demonstrated that by $1.4 
billion of employee facing investments that we made this year.

    Every day we wake up thinking about how we can put our 
people first, put them in a position to win, and do everything 
we can to demonstrate the conscience, the heart, and the values 
of Starbucks Coffee Company.

    That has been the Starbucks way for the last 40 years, 
since 1987, when we had 11 stores and 100 employees. With that, 
I welcome your questions.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schultz follows:]
                  prepared statement of howard schultz
    Good morning, Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy, and Members 
of the Committee. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with 
you today.
            Starbucks Vision as a Different Kind of Company
    As a young boy, I experienced first-hand the consequences of a 
family without resources or adequate benefits. My father, a World War 
II veteran, held a number of low-paying jobs during his life. In 1960, 
he had a home delivery route exchanging clean for dirty cloth diapers 
when he slipped on a sheet of ice, fracturing first his hip--and then 
our family--when he was promptly fired. I grew up in public housing in 
Canarsie, New York, often dependent on the generosity of others. The 
image of my dad, lying on the sofa and immobilized in a body cast has 
been burned into my memory, and I decided at an early age that if I ran 
a business, it would be a company based on respect and shared success, 
unlike the company that had fired my dad.

    My vision for Starbucks Coffee Company has always been a company 
steeped in humanity, respect, and shared success. It is a company 
committed to listening to its partners and creating a better future for 
them while delivering innovation and an increasingly more elevated and 
differentiated experience to its customers. Starbucks follows its 
guiding principles, lives its mission and values, celebrates diversity 
and inclusion, and welcomes all on the belief that our differences make 
us better and stronger. We are a different kind of public company that 
balances profitability with social conscience. Aspiring to achieve that 
vision has been my life's work.

    Today, with my 1-year term as Starbucks interim chief executive 
officer having come to a close, I appear before you with love and 
gratitude for what we have built at Starbucks over the last 40 years. I 
could not be more grateful for the contributions and support of 
millions of Starbucks partners who have believed in the company, joined 
our vision, and made Starbucks a success. In fact, we call our 
employees ``partners'' to underscore our shared ownership and success. 
Today, Starbucks has more than 36,000 stores in 84 markets, employs 
more than 450,000 people, serves more than 100 million customers around 
the world every week and, on average, is opening eight stores around 
the world every day.

    When a partner joins Starbucks and puts on our iconic green apron, 
it is far more than a job. They are joining a diverse group of partners 
committed to being their best selves and making a difference to each 
other and their communities. Across all 50 states, our partners include 
young people who have come for their first job, working parents, 
veterans and military spouses, students, and many more. Our partners 
create moments of connection and that defines the Starbucks experience.
          How we Built Starbucks--It Starts with Our Partners
    The essential operating approach at Starbucks since 1987, when we 
had 11 stores, has focused on values-based decisionmaking. The leaders 
who built Starbucks believed if we exceeded the expectations of our 
partners, they would, in turn, exceed the expectation of our customers.

    Exceeding the expectations of our partners includes a legacy of 
industry-leading benefits for all eligible full-time and part-time 
partners. We were among the first companies to provide comprehensive 
health care to part-time employees starting 35 years ago, in 1988, and 
we have provided 401(k) benefits to eligible partners since 1987. The 
term ``partner'' is not simply a moniker. Since 1991, we have issued 
``Bean Stock,'' equity in the form of stock ownership, to all eligible 
full-time and part-time partners, the first company to do so, to 
underscore our commitment to shared ownership and success. The 
Starbucks Bean Stock program remains a unique partner benefit that both 
rewards and recognizes the contributions of our partners. To date, Bean 
Stock has awarded more than $2 billion in pre-tax earnings to partners 
who have used those funds for everything from a down payment on a home, 
to a child's education, to health care for their parents, to a wedding 
or car--and so much more.

    We also provide significant benefits to our partners to advance 
their education. Today, nearly 24,000 partners are currently enrolled 
in our Starbucks College Achievement Plan and Pathways to Admission 
programs. By the end of the current semester, more than 10,000 partners 
will have graduated with a college degree, and 100 percent college 
tuition coverage, through our partnership with Arizona State University 
(ASU). And to further reduce academic barriers, our Pathways to 
Admission program provides a roadmap for eligible partners who do not 
initially qualify for admission at ASU. Starbucks was also one of the 
first companies to offer student loan assistance.

    Many employers in our sector do not offer any paid sick leave 
unless mandated. In contrast, Starbucks provides the same generous paid 
sick leave benefit across all states, even where not mandated to do so, 
and partners start accruing sick leave from their first day of work. 
Similarly, many employers do not provide fully paid parental leave. 
Starbucks offers fully paid parental leave for eligible birth parents 
and non-birth parents. Most employers offer mental health support 
through their health insurance plans where employees must pay a cost 
share or through an Employee Assistance Program with an average of 
three visits. All Starbucks partners and their eligible family members 
are eligible, from date of hire, for up to 20 free therapy sessions 
each year. Starbucks offers a free premium membership to Headspace in 
support of mental health to all partners from date of hire. And we 
provide reimbursement for the renewal fee for our partners who are 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals recipients.

    We are also one of the few employers that offers backup care 
benefits for employees. All Starbucks partners are eligible for 10 
backup care days per year from date of hire through our Care@Work 
program. Most employers offer no reimbursement program assistance for 
family expansion and if one is offered, it is often limited to adoption 
expenses. Starbucks partners may also be reimbursed for up to $40,000 
for eligible expenses and the Starbucks program includes adoption and 
surrogacy expenses, recognizing different ways to expand a family. 
Starbucks was the first company to offer emergency savings with a 
direct payroll deposit and incentives to create an emergency savings 
account.

    At Starbucks, we created a range of benefits and have inspired 
other companies to follow suit. The attached chart shows the evolution 
of our industry leading benefits.

    Over the years, we have employed millions of partners in our U.S. 
stores, in many cases providing a first job. In the three fiscal years 
ending September 30, 2023, we will have deployed more than $20 billion 
in wages and benefits in our business, including providing full support 
through the COVID-19 pandemic, while making more than $3 billion of 
partner investments, and $6 billion of investment in our customers and 
stores. Our business generates significant economic activity in 
virtually every state in the United States, including contributing more 
than $1 billion in sales and other state and local taxes over the last 
three fiscal years. Today, the average wage in our stores is $17.50 per 
hour. With benefits and other income included, the average value 
approaches $27 per hour. And we have been recognized by AON for 
providing higher value benefits to retail hourly employees than any 
other company measured and significantly above-average benefits to 
salaried employees. I am very proud of our Starbucks partners and where 
the company is today. We will continue to invest to innovate, grow the 
company, and elevate the experiences we deliver to our partners and 
customers.

    We have been widely recognized for our commitment to our partners. 
Organizations and indexes have benchmarked Starbucks in the highest 
quartile, including:

          100 percent on the Disability Equality Index by 
        Disability: In 2022 for the sixth time.

          100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign Corporate 
        Equality Index for the ninth consecutive year.

          Number 1 for the Food Services industry on Fortune's 
        2023 World's Most Admired Companies list.

          Number 1 in the Restaurant & Leisure category on 2023 
        JUST Capital rankings.

          Number 12 on Diversity First's 2023 Top 50 Companies 
        for Diversity.

    We have delivered all of this value and innovated to deliver 
benefit programs that meet partners needs and provide opportunities for 
the future. We did this because it was the right approach, and it 
demonstrates the value of our direct relationship with our partners.

    Many times, during moments of company economic challenge, investors 
have urged us to cut our benefits because we had ``cover'' to do so, 
occasionally citing the fact that we were, at times, paying more for 
health care than we did for green coffee for our U.S. stores. My 
response was always the same: If you think our benefit programs for our 
partners are too rich, it means you do not understand what drives 
Starbucks success.

    When we put our partners first and exceed their expectations, they 
exceed the expectations of our customers--setting in motion an 
accelerating cycle of deepening customer connection and loyalty to the 
Starbucks brand that reverberates all around the world. The trust our 
partners have in the company and our commitment to providing 
opportunities for partners, their families and their communities, is 
what propels Starbucks' business forward globally. And as Starbucks 
grows, all stakeholders benefit, including our partners.
 A Direct Relationship with Our Partners is Fundamental to Our Culture 
                              and Success
    The direct relationship we have with our partners enhances our 
ability to anticipate and meet our partners' needs, provide 
opportunities for their success, and is fundamental to who we are and 
to the success of our business.

    We strive to address issues relevant to our people, including pay 
equity, financial literacy, student debt, human and civil rights, 
environmental sustainability, hiring military families, civic 
engagement, ``ban the box,'' partnering on food security and addressing 
the mental health crisis, while doing our part to help our partners 
build life skills and a career launching pad.

    We have also addressed emergent situations during which Starbucks 
and our partners responded with urgency, including racial profiling in 
one of our stores in Philadelphia, after which we closed our stores to 
implement unconscious bias training and education. Following the murder 
of George Floyd and the Uvalde and Highland Park shootings, we 
immediately responded by creating forums to listen to our partners 
share their feelings and experiences. We have also closed stores when 
necessary out of concern for the safety of our partners and our 
customers.

    Our business model, and our mission and values, is imprinted with 
our people. I remember with profound emotion:

          The late Jim Kerrigan, one of our first baristas in 1986. Jim 
        contracted AIDS and became too ill to continue to work. We 
        learned that there was a gap in his health care coverage and 
        promptly updated our policy to make critical care a part of our 
        health plan, a benefit that we continue to offer today.

          The three young partners senselessly gunned down at closing 
        time in a Washington, DC, store in 1997. While this was the 
        first-time tragedy and societal evil entered our stores and 
        destroyed lives, sadly it was not the last. We implemented 
        enhanced safety measures in our stores which we continue today.

          Sage guidance from Starbucks Board Member Secretary Bob Gates 
        that led us to establish a goal of hiring 10,000 military 
        veterans and spouses to help our heroes and their families 
        transition to civilian life. In fact, we have hired more than 
        30,000 veterans and military spouses since making that 
        commitment a decade ago. In addition, my family foundation, the 
        Schultz Family Foundation, committed $30 million to support 
        veterans transitioning into civilian life and research on the 
        consequences of post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain 
        injury.

          Our efforts to welcome refugees through a commitment to hire 
        10,000 displaced people worldwide. This also includes work with 
        refugee resettlement organizations to identify potential 
        partners and provide additional tools, resources and support to 
        address the unique needs of refugee applicants.

          After the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown, I traveled to 
        St. Louis, Missouri, in early 2015, for the fourth in a series 
        of partner forums on race and also took the opportunity to 
        visit nearby Ferguson. We moved quickly to announce our plans 
        to build a store in Ferguson, as part of an accelerated program 
        to open stores in diverse urban communities across the United 
        States. There are now 30 Starbucks Community Stores across the 
        country, and we have a commitment to build 100 Starbucks 
        Community Stores. These Community Stores are intended to help 
        strengthen the communities where we live, work and grow. 
        Community Stores focus on providing economic opportunity in 
        communities and creating impact in partnership with local 
        nonprofit organizations. In those stores, we prioritize hiring 
        partners from the local community because our partners know 
        their communities best.

    This is the story of Starbucks. It is a tapestry of stories created 
by millions of Starbucks partners around the world who have worn the 
green apron. The direct relationship with our partners is also 
fundamentally linked to our decision not to franchise but to have 
company-owned stores. While franchising was a logical route to national 
expansion and a lower cost business model, we rejected that approach. 
We train our partners, link them to a set of values and guiding 
principles, and exceed their expectations in terms of the overall 
partner experience, generating enthusiasm, loyalty, and tremendous 
engagement. This has been the secret sauce of Starbucks over the years. 
And the strong, company-owned approach has allowed us to be a pathway 
for many in the company to grow life skills, customer service skills, 
barista craft and operational roles within and outside the company. 
Today, 63 percent of our retail managers started as hourly baristas, 
underscoring the opportunity we provide for shared growth and success.
                  Compliance and Good Faith Bargaining
    As labor issues are a focus of this hearing, I would like to take 
this opportunity to address that topic directly.

    Starbucks respects the right of all partners to make their own 
decisions about union representation, and Starbucks is committed to 
engaging in good faith collective bargaining for each store that has a 
union. I embrace these commitments. At the same time, our business 
requires speed and flexibility, both on the job and when operating more 
than 9,000 U.S. company-operated stores of every shape and size while 
addressing ever-changing customer preferences. Our business also 
depends on having trust, connection, and shared commitment among 
Starbucks, its partners, and its customers. For five decades, our 
strength has always been to look for answers based on full engagement 
with our partners.

    Starbucks has engaged in good faith bargaining. We have been 
arranging more than 350 bargaining sessions involving more than 200 
sets of negotiations--each relating to a single store--and Starbucks 
representatives have been physically present at more than 85 sets of 
negotiations. However, union representatives have improperly demanded 
multi-store negotiations, delayed or refused to attend meetings, and 
insisted on unlawful preconditions such as ``virtual'' bargaining and 
participation by outside observers, among other things.

    Moreover, Starbucks has complied with the National Labor Relations 
Act. After Workers United prevailed in National Labor Relations Board 
(NLRB or the Board) certified elections, we recognized the union 
without appealing and began the bargaining process in more than 200 
stores. Where partners have been subject to discipline, those partners 
engaged in misconduct contrary to Starbucks policies and procedures. No 
Starbucks cases involving Workers United have been decided by the 
Board, and the NLRB litigation process usually takes years to complete.
                 My Return to Starbucks as Interim CEO
    Looking back, it is clear that prior to my return last April the 
company had lost its way on many levels.

    Under former leadership, the dangerous influence of Wall Street 
short-termism that I had always rejected had found its way into the 
company. Instead of innovating and delivering more relevant and 
meaningful experiences to our partners and customers, we were relying 
on prior successes. Instead of thinking entrepreneurially and playing 
the long game, we were deploying capital in areas that would assuage 
Wall Street for the moment but assure lower long-term returns than our 
historic standard. Focusing on Wall Street short-term targets as a 
priority, and not our people and customers, is antithetical to our 
history and breaks the equation that built Starbucks. As I watched the 
company over the last few years after I stepped away, it became clear 
to me that Starbucks had lost sight of what drove the company's 
success--making our partners and customers proud--and that the 
company's culture and its future were at significant risk. Starbucks is 
addressing those shortcomings.
                       Starbucks Reinvention Plan
    It was obvious that we had some significant investments in our 
partners--and in our business--to catch up on, which is why immediately 
upon my return, I suspended Starbucks stock buyback program. We would 
no longer be rewarding shareholders at the expense of our partners or 
the long-term success of our business.

    The list of shortcomings we identified last spring and summer 
through our co-creation sessions, where partners directly told us what 
they needed, is long, and solving them is not a 1-year fix. But we are 
back on the right path. Starbucks' Reinvention Plan investments--
informed by our co-creation sessions--are beginning to have impact. The 
significant improvement in hourly partner retention, a measure that is 
already twice the industry average, is a fantastic proof point that 
underscores the success of our Reinvention-driven investments to 
elevate the partner experience. The spirit of leadership at the company 
has returned to the mindset required. Every day we wake up thinking 
about how we put all Starbucks partners in a position to win.
We Play the Long Game on Our Terms: Investing in our Partners for Long-
                              Term Success
    Over the years, I have never wavered from the view that to achieve 
long-term value for shareholders, a company must first create value for 
its employees and customers. Our shareholders and partners, past and 
present, have come to recognize and appreciate that the investments we 
make to enhance total rewards and partner well-being strengthen us as a 
company. This is the value proposition of Starbucks. This is what makes 
us different.

    Over the last year, we have demonstrated the success of this model 
through investments that would enable our partners to have improved 
pay, benefits, and stability. Below are some areas supported by the 
more than $1 billion of incremental investments:

          Raised minimum starting rate for all U.S. hourly 
        partners to $15 or more.

          11Launched new financial well-being benefits--from 
        support and incentives to help start and grow savings to 
        resources to help with financial education and student loan 
        management.

          Implemented faster paid sick time accrual.

          Launched a new partner recognition platform.

          Brought back the Coffee Master program at the request 
        of partners, and 800 partners who completed the program have 
        traveled to Costa Rica to participate in the Origin Experience.

          Updated our Family Expansion Reimbursement Program, 
        including increasing the lifetime maximum.

          Updated our dress code policy to provide more 
        flexibility based on partner feedback.

          Developed portable cold foamers to reduce the burden 
        on our partners; they are being rolled out in the United States 
        starting this month and are slated to be in all stores by late 
        summer.

          New coffee delivery equipment called ``Clover 
        Vertica'' beginning to deploy.

          Launched better print ordering system to help 
        customer service.

          Credit and debit card tipping, enabling customers to 
        recognize directly the great work of our partners.

          Doubled training hours for new barista and shift 
        supervisors.

          Launched supply chain product delivery enhancements.

          Added more time for hourly performance and 
        development conversations.

          Added quarterly foundational training for all 
        partners including upcoming sessions during the spring 
        promotional season.

          Updated inventory tracking tools.

          Co-created our new Green Apron Coffee Blend made 
        possible by more than 24,000 partner submissions.

    Although not a complete list of everything we are doing, these 
partner-focused efforts are the cornerstone of our reinvention. 
Properly designed and implemented, these investments lead to increased 
partner engagement and satisfaction, increased productivity, and longer 
employee retention, all of which drive sales and reduce costs, 
particularly in connection with training. We have more work to do at a 
systemic level, but the intention and early progress is happening, and 
it will no doubt be fueled by the new mindset and future leadership of 
the company.

    In closing, our Board and our leadership are in complete agreement 
that a direct relationship with our partners, where we have the 
flexibility to implement improvements quickly in wages and benefits and 
share success in the future, as we have in the past, is the right path 
forward for Starbucks, our partners and all company stakeholders. Our 
leadership team and Board of Directors share a common view on our 
heritage and our aspiration for the future.

    We are a different kind of company, in a different kind of world. 
We are in the human connection business. We exist to build bridges. 
With every cup, with every conversation, with every community, we 
nurture the limitless possibilities of human connection. At our best, 
we commit to mutual success for all. We work closely with our partners 
to bridge to a better future. We promise our customers that we will 
uplift their everyday. We contribute positively to our communities. 
With our farmers, we ensure the future of coffee for all. We give the 
earth more than we take. For our investors, we generate long-term 
returns. The beauty of Starbucks is the balance we create--between the 
work outside, and the work inside; between the partners and customers 
in our stores and the farms, roasting plants and distribution centers 
supporting our stores; between the limitless possibilities that human 
connection brings and the work it takes as a company, as a team and as 
individuals.

    Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I welcome the 
opportunity to answer your questions.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Mr. Schultz, thank you very much. My time is 
limited, as is the time of all of our Members here, so I am 
going to be asking you to respond to each question as briefly 
as you can, hopefully with a yes or 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?

    Mr. Schultz. I understand, and we respect the right of 
every partner who wears a green apron, whether they choose to 
join a union or not.

    The Chair. Are you aware that NLRB judges have ruled that 
Starbucks violated Federal labor law over 100 times during the 
past 18 months, far more than any other corporation in America?

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

    The Chair. Okay. Are you aware that on March 1st, 2023, an 
administrative law judge found Starbucks guilty of, ``egregious 
and widespread misconduct,'' widespread coercive behavior, and 
showed, ``a general disregard for the employees' fundamental 
rights'' in a union organizing campaign that started in 
Buffalo, New York, in 2021? Are you aware of that?

    Mr. Schultz. I am aware that those are allegations. And 
Congress has created a process that we are following and we are 
confident that those allegations will be proven false.

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz, before answering the following 
questions, let me remind you that Federal law, that 18 U.S. 
Code Section 1001 prohibits knowingly and willfully making any 
fraudulent statement.

    Mr. Schultz. I understand that.

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

    Mr. Schultz. I was not.

    The Chair. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. I was not.

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

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

    The Chair. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. My understanding, when we created the benefits 
in May, 1 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.

    The Chair. Am I hearing you say that you were involved in 
the decision to withhold benefits from Starbucks workers in 
unionized stores, is that what I am hearing?

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

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz, have you ever asked the Starbucks 
worker, ``if you hate Starbucks so much, why don't you go work 
somewhere else?''.

    Mr. Schultz. I am glad you asked that question, because I 
have read in the press that quote and that is not exactly what 
I said. Can I tell the story, do you mind?

    The Chair. I have some other questions. I am sorry--a lot 
of people----

    Mr. Schultz. I think it is important to hear the facts.

    The Chair. You will 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 a hundred times since 2021?

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

    The Chair. 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 forming a union, a meeting the NLRB has determined 
was a violation of the law?

    Mr. Schultz. 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 percent 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 de minimis. I was not involved in 
any issue of closing stores.

    The Chair. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. No, I am not, because Starbucks Coffee Company 
did not break the law.

    The Chair. 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 
a 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?

    Mr. Schultz. 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 have 
tried to arrange over 350 separate meetings.

    We have 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-story issue.

    The Chair. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. On a single store basis, we will continue to 
negotiate in good faith. That is what we will do.

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. I defer to Senator Paul.

    Senator Paul. Ayn Rand's Howard Roark points out the 
ingratitude that man has for the entrepreneur, the creator. 
Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make 
fire. He was probably burnt at the stake he taught the others 
to light, but he left them a gift that had not been conceived, 
and he lifted darkness from the face of the earth.

    Now, Starbucks didn't exactly discover fire, but Starbucks 
did somehow, somewhere discovered in the depths of man's soul 
that he would pay as much for a double mocha latte as he once 
did for a week's worth of coffee.

    My wife, Kelly, and I tried to get my grandparents some 
fancy coffee once, and my grandfather, a survivor of the 
depression, informed us in no uncertain terms that he drank 
Maxwell House, $3.99 for a week's worth of coffee.

    The Pauls, although German, often missed the zeitgeist of 
the times, and so while we continued to purchase Maxwell House, 
others, our contemporaries bought Starbucks stock and did much 
better than we did. Who knew people would pay $6 bucks for a 
cup of coffee? But I digress.

    Convincing the public to buy very expensive coffee is not 
the discovery of fire, but still, it deserves respect. Instead, 
Congress convenes today not to praise Starbucks, but to bury 
them. The hearing today is convened to attack a private company 
for its success when its success has benefited both customers 
and its employees alike. We have heard of the average wages, 
over $17.

    We have heard of the 401(k) plans. We have heard of the 
parental leave, even for part time employees. Starbucks given 
away tens of millions of dollars each year. They have 100 
percent tuition and fee for bachelor's degree. Maybe it isn't 
so too bad a place to work. Starbucks is among the most 
charitable companies in the country.

    Since 2016, they have had a program to give away unused 
food to feed over 5 million hungry families. Starbucks didn't 
do all this under orders from a Government bureau. They did it 
because capitalism works. We have more charity when we have 
more money, when we have more success, when we have more 
profit.

    Nobody buys $6 coffee in impoverished nations. We are an 
extraordinarily rich nation. Marian Tupy and Gayle Pooley wrote 
a book called Super Abundance. They say we live in an era of 
super abundance. Starbucks can only exist in an era of super 
abundance. The average calorie count since when I was born, 
about 2,800.

    It has gone up to 3,700. Many would argue have too much 
food. You can buy seven times as much food for the same amount 
of worker hours. If you measure stuff in time prices, how many 
hours of the average worker it takes to buy something, it is 
extraordinary how wealthy we are.

    Even in inflation adjusted terms from 1960 to today, 1952 
to today, the average income inflation adjusted is up four-
fold. These are all extraordinary tales. This is also a story 
of a company that started out of nothing and employs tens of 
thousands of people, all making great wages.

    We are here to say as if this is like Charles Dickens. I 
mean, we think it is 1812. I mean, it is an amazing success 
story. We live in the era of super abundance. In 1820, 96 
percent of people lived on less than $2 a day. Adjusted for 
inflation, you know how much of the world lives that way?

    Less than 10 percent. Trade, capitalism, profit. People all 
the time are talking about we want sustainable this and 
sustainable that. You know what sustainable, capitalism and 
profit and employment. You want to put all those Starbucks 
workers in the Government dollar? You want to have a Government 
coffee company?

    You know, what are we talking about here? If you don't want 
their coffee, be like my family and buy Maxwell House, but for 
goodness sakes, don't deride one of the great American success 
stories. This is not who we are. We are better than this. If 
the goal is to destroy the goose that laid the golden egg, then 
by all means, this hearing is a good beginning.

    For me, I see the fabulous success of Starbucks, and I 
understand that luxury, the luxury to spend an extraordinary 
amount of money for a cup of coffee is a testament to 
capitalism. It is a testament to the fact that we have enough 
money that we can do that.

    When I walk in Starbucks, I don't see billionaires buying 
coffee. I see everyone from top to bottom and they are paying 
for the coffee because they have decided the quality is worth 
it. But I don't want to be part of any witch hunt that vilifies 
any American business, so count me out.

    Count me as one who is ecstatic that Starbucks is an 
American success story, and I will have no part in trashing 
their success.

    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Hickenlooper, you have to 
preside soon, so you ask the first questions.

    Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chair, Ranking Member. Mr. Schultz, I appreciate you coming 
before us. I realize that you have spent your life creating one 
of the most successful brands in American history. You 
mentioned the long-held aspiration to make Starbucks a company 
that balances profitability with social conscience.

    I think that brand is exceedingly attractive, especially to 
young people, and I think it is part of your success. I think 
in many ways the ability of Starbucks to attract young workers 
and have them believe in the brand and the vision is a big part 
of that success, which I think is part of what this group 
believes, is that the partnership between the company and the 
workers is a key to success for any successful company.

    Many folks who work at Starbucks came because they want a 
chance to work for a company that prioritizes earnings and 
benefits, wellness. And your testimony described in some detail 
that you are near the top of that ladder.

    But we also heard over the last few weeks from other 
workers, some from Colorado, who told us they came to work for 
the partner centric model but were disappointed because they 
wanted that opportunity to be part of a union and told us that 
disillusionment has been very hard for them.

    I guess the question I would ask first is that appearance 
that so many of the employees have of that their organizing 
efforts are being interfered with seems at odds with the 
commitment to the partner model and the worker welfare. So how 
do you respond to those workers who appreciate the Starbucks 
model but would like to be able to organize with less 
confrontation?

    Mr. Schultz. Well, thank you for the question and the 
opportunity to answer that without some of the propaganda that 
has been floating around. You know, I have built my life trying 
to create a company that values every single person with 
dignity and respect who puts on the green apron.

    That has not changed as a result of 1 percent, 3,400 people 
out of 250,000 who want to join the union. We have said it 
publicly, we respect the law, we respect their rights, and we 
want to treat everyone with respect and dignity.

    However, I have the right and the company has the right to 
have a preference, and our preference is to maintain the direct 
relationship we have had with our employees, who we call 
partners.

    We have a track record that demonstrates the values that we 
have shown and the value that we have created. But we maintain 
a level of respect for everyone who wears the green.

    Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you. There has been 
considerable questions about the shrinking middle class. This 
is--I am not asking you to be an economist, sure in this sense, 
although you clearly know more about economics than I will ever 
know. But when you look at the charts, and we have got a chart 
behind me, that demonstrates that as the middle class has 
shrunken and as income inequality has increased dramatically, 
it has directly coincided with the decline in unions.

    I certainly respect the desire to be directly connected 
with all your employees, but in many ways, that right to 
organize and that opportunity for people to be part of a union 
is a crucial building block for the middle class that I think 
gave this country stability that we don't see in the same way 
that we used to.

    At its core, I think union organizing is about having a 
greater say in their workplace, and I think everybody always 
wants that. Some of the studies show that entrepreneurs start 
new business not necessarily to make money but to have someone 
bossing around.

    What do you say to the workers who want to join together 
with their peers to unionize their workplaces, despite however 
great Starbucks has been for them?

    Mr. Schultz. I have said before and I want to repeat it, I 
think unions have served an important role in American business 
for many years. And if you look at the 50's and the 60's, 
unions generally were working on behalf of people in a company 
where those people have not been treated fairly, where there 
has been, in some cases, nefarious acts by the employer taking 
advantage of the employee.

    I can only say in my own company, based on the tracker that 
we have had, we do not believe, and it is our preference, that 
we are that kind of company. We treat our people fairly. We do 
nothing that is nefarious. We put our people first. We make 
decisions based on our people and we have the track record to 
prove it. Starbucks is probably one of the best, if not the 
best first job in America.

    As I said in my opening statement, 65 percent of baristas 
are now managers. I walked into her store an hour ago, just at 
24th and M, just walked in, was met by a guy named Nico. Never 
met him before. 22 years with Starbucks and he tells me his 
story.

    He came from Senegal. He is an American citizen, started as 
a barista, became a manager, district manager. And the thing 
that he wanted me to know, this is an hour ago, is I bought a 
house and I have a car, and I raised two kids because of Bean 
Stock at Starbucks. Now, you put that overall, in the last 15, 
20 years, over $2 billion of equity because of Bean Stock, 14 
percent of the----

    The Chair. Senator Hickenlooper, your time has expired.

    Mr. Schultz. But it is an important point, $2 billion of 
equity because of everyone being an owner comes back to our 
employees. It is unprecedented. And that is why Starbucks 
doesn't need a union.

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully notice 
that you took 7 minutes on yours and Mr. Schultz should have 
been allowed to finish his statement.

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz will have as much time as he needs 
to respond to the questions of 15 people. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. I defer to Senator Romney.

    Senator Romney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Cassidy. I recognize at the outset there is some irony to a 
non-coffee drinking Mormon conservative defending a Democrat 
candidate for President in perhaps one of the most liberal 
companies in America.

    That being said, I also think it is somewhat rich that you 
are being grilled by people who have never had the opportunity 
to create a single job, and yet they believe that they know 
better how to do so and what is best for the American worker, 
and what is best for the American economy, and what is best for 
growth.

    I also think it is rich to not recognize the extraordinary 
conflict of interest we have, which is our Democratic 
colleagues overwhelmingly get their campaign funds from unions 
and therefore would like to find every possible way to extend 
unions, even if an enterprise feels that it is in their best 
interest to pursue a different course.

    Now, I know that there are a number of reasons why you 
might wish not to have union organization in your various 
enterprises. At the same time, I agree with Senator Cassidy and 
with your own comments, Mr. Schultz, which is that people have 
a legal right to form a union.

    There are some employers that are not good employers, and a 
union is necessary to protect the rights of those individuals, 
and that if any enterprise, including yours, has broken the 
law, then it should be held accountable for having done so.

    At the same time, there are legitimate reasons why 
enterprise might choose not to become unionized. I first would 
note that within your company there are probably some stores 
that are union, some that are nonunion. Do the nonunion store 
employees get paid less than the union store employees?

    Mr. Schultz. The starting wage has been the same. The only 
difference is the benefits that we created in May, and my 
understanding under the law, is that we were not allowed to 
provide those benefits to people who are organizing to join a 
union.

    Senator Romney. In fact, the nonunion stores are actually a 
little better total package than the union stores. Let me ask 
you another question, which is just make another point, and 
that is, I wouldn't understand why you would not want to have 
an adversarial relationship between the store manager and the 
employees that work there.

    I would also understand that sometimes in some union 
enterprises there are work rules that prevent someone from 
going from a, let's say, a barista to becoming a manager. And 
you have indicated that, if you will, career opportunities for 
people are enhanced when they are able to move from position to 
position and become a manager. Is that a concern of yours?

    Mr. Schultz. No. I mean, can I tell one story, if I can?

    Senator Romney. Please.

    Mr. Schultz. It happens to be in the State of Vermont. I 
think this is indicative of the situation that we are currently 
experiencing. There are seven stores in the State of Vermont 
that Starbucks has. Of the seven, one of them voted to join the 
union. This is important fact. 21 Starbucks people, partners 
work in that store. How many people do you think voted to 
either become a union or not a union? Take a guess.

    Senator Romney. Got me. I would presume the majority.

    Mr. Schultz. When you hear the number, you will understand 
the problem. 21 people in the store, 6 people voted, 6. Four 
voted to become a union and two voted for not. Now, I am not 
saying why the other people didn't vote.

    That is up to the Committee to decide. But you can imagine 
there is issues going on in a store like that where people work 
close together and influence people to do one thing versus the 
other. But here is the problem.

    Since that store, since six people voted to do the union, 
of the seven stores in Vermont, this particular store has twice 
the level of attrition, and the majority of the people have 
left the store.

    The tension that exists in any store that Starbucks has 
since its individual stores voting in a small group of people, 
there is lots of issues that we are dealing with, and overall, 
in the stores that have voted for union, about 300 are twice 
the level of attrition that we currently have in the 99 percent 
of stores that have not voted for union.

    But the Vermont thing is not a proxy. The Vermont thing is 
exactly what is going on around the country.

    Senator Romney. Thank you. I appreciate that perspective, 
and would just turn to one other point, which is we talk about 
corporate greed all the time as if it is something brand new. 
Of course, profit, incentive, and greed has been there for the 
beginning of humankind. But there is also union greed.

    Greed exists throughout our society through various 
enterprises. But let me ask, your company is highly profitable. 
It was profitable, I presume, very early on, became profitable 
as time went on.

    Where does all that profit go? Does it go to all pay you 
and the senior executives? Where does the profit go of an 
enterprise? Did it all go out in dividends or stock buybacks? 
Where has your profit gone over the history of your company?

    Mr. Schultz. The majority of profits that Starbucks has 
made has gone back into infrastructure, roasting plants, 
$800,000 to $1 million to build a store. The profits of the 
company have gone back to the business.

    Now, what is most important, though, is when we create 
shareholder value, as we have for Starbucks through the years, 
our employees, our partners are sharing our shared success 
model in that profit because everyone has been an owner.

    The first day that I came back, April 4th, 2022, the first 
day, what did I do? The one thing that would get shareholders 
across the country on Starbucks stock angry with Howard 
Schultz, and that is I stopped our buyback program on the first 
day. Our stock went down. I was not concerned about that.

    I took that money and I invested it right back into our 
people, which resulted in higher wages 1 month after I came 
back. Now, that is the only evidence I have, which is the fact 
that my operating style, which has been 40 years, is to build a 
company that balances profitability with a level of shared 
success for our people, and we have the evidence to prove it, 
sir.

    The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Schultz--Senator Murray.

    Senator Murray. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Schultz, for 
coming before the Committee. I appreciate it. You have--I have 
listened carefully and throughout your testimony, you have made 
it very clear that Starbucks prefers its workers not to be 
unionized. But I think that decision is up to workers under 
Federal law.

    I just have been disappointed, I have to tell you, from a 
number of my constituents I have been hearing from about some 
of the widespread anti-union efforts at Starbucks, including in 
Washington State, where the NLRB has certified 19 elections, as 
you know, at Starbucks stores.

    They have issued 71 complaints covering 31 unfair labor 
practice charges. NLRB judges have issued two decisions now 
finding that Starbucks violated Federal law. So let me just ask 
you a simple question. Do you agree that it is workers who get 
to decide whether they want a union?

    Mr. Schultz. Well, Senator Murray, I agree that the person 
at Starbucks has the right under the law to decide whether or 
not they want to join a union.

    Starbucks Coffee Company also has the legal right to 
provide a vision for our employees, which currently represent 
99 percent of the 250,000 who wear the green apron, that our 
vision is a preference to maintain our direct relationship.

    In terms of what you said, as I said to Chairman Sanders, 
those are allegations, and Starbucks Coffee Company 
unequivocally has not broken the law.

    Senator Murray. Let me just share with you, and I heard you 
answer to Senator Hickenlooper, with treating your employees 
with dignity and respect, which I appreciate. But I am hearing 
from a number of really troubling reports about Starbucks 
refusing to allow credit card tipping, cutting employee hours, 
holding the loss of critical benefits like health care 
insurance and gender affirming care over the heads of employees 
who are trying to exercise their rights.

    I have even heard reports, so you know, about uncertainty 
for union employees about whether or not they would receive 
abortion travel benefits, which all your workers receive. I am 
concerned when I hear from my constituents about unfair threats 
of any kind or denying benefits unfairly, even when the union 
agrees to waive its right to bargain.

    I would assume you would agree that doesn't constitute 
treating someone with dignity or respect if they are being 
threatened.

    Mr. Schultz. Senator Murray, you and I have known each 
other for quite a while, you being the Senator of our home 
state. I think you have many times actually talked about 
Starbucks as a model employer in many of the meetings that you 
have had and speeches that you have given. I do take offense, I 
have to admit, because it is quite personal when you bring up 
things that you have heard that are not true.

    We have never, ever taken any benefit away and we never 
would of anyone who was interested in joining a union. We 
simply have said that under the law, our understanding is we 
did not have the right to provide incremental benefits during 
the bargaining process.

    Howard Schultz, the leadership team of Starbucks, the board 
of directors, some of whom are here today, would never take 
benefits away of any kind of someone who was involved in trying 
to join a union.

    Senator Murray. Thank you for the answer. I am giving you 
the question, so you have a right to respond. That is why I am 
asking. But you should know that those are some of the things 
that I hear, and I wanted to hear your response.

    Mr. Schultz. Okay.

    Senator Murray. I have also heard allegations that 
Starbucks has interfered with employees' ability to testify, 
including in Seattle, where an administrative law judge found 
that Starbucks did that. Can you respond to that charge?

    Mr. Schultz. I have no knowledge of that, Senator Murray.

    Senator Murray. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much.

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. I defer to Senator Tuberville.

    Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Cassidy. Mr. Schultz, thank you for being here. Thank you. I 
know this is pretty tough at times, but it is good to hear your 
side of the story. I came from the coaching profession. You 
know, for years I talked to young kids every year at the 
beginning of the year about they all wanted and needed 
something. I always told them one thing.

    Only thing you get from me and from this country is an 
opportunity. And you took that opportunity and ran with it, and 
you have got a lot of people that work for you over the years 
and work for your company--and made something themselves. So, 
thank you for that. You have been a huge idol for this country 
in terms of what you have done.

    You know, we have heard a lot about what you give to your 
employees, health care and all that. You know, I fully support 
unions. If people want to join a union, then that is fine. I 
mean, I think that is what this country is about.

    Sounds like Starbucks employees as a whole, what we have 
heard so far, have had a great working environment. I 
understand collective bargaining processes have ongoing with 
almost 300 individual stores, and you have to negotiate with 
each one of these individuals in each store, each individual at 
each store.

    I know that there have been difficulties in trying to 
navigate these individual negotiations. I am sure obstacles 
have come up that are unique to each store. Is that correct?

    Mr. Schultz. That is correct, sir.

    Senator Tuberville. Thank you. You want to be respectful, 
as we all do, to a request of any employee, and you want to 
make sure that every person or group that you deal with feels 
that their rights are being respected and their voices heard. 
This could even include employees with specific rights and 
protections in the workplace. Is that correct?

    Mr. Schultz. That is correct.

    Senator Tuberville. I know this has been a long process 
that requires considerable effort on your side to do all this. 
So, can you speak to me about the difficulties that you have 
been having in bargaining processes, specifically in the unique 
issues that your average person might not understand?

    Mr. Schultz. Yes. Thank you very much for that. When 
Buffalo first emerged and there was a process to try and decide 
whether or not we were going to negotiate per individual store 
or by district or region, it was the position of the union to 
have it one store at a time.

    That created significant complications and obstacles in the 
collective bargaining process. We now have to be put in a 
position to negotiate individual store, one by one, across the 
country and set up individual meetings.

    Now, because in this process, Starbucks managers and 
district managers have had safety issues in which the union 
organizers have been at their home, they have been outed on 
social media, there have been significant challenges for our 
people to maintain their personal safety, we have said we do 
not want these meetings to be anything but face to face so we 
know who is in the room.

    We don't know, if there is a Zoom meeting, of who is taping 
the meeting, who is in the background, and who is looking in on 
the meeting and whether or not they are part of the company, 
part of the union, or whatever.

    We have asked respectfully, we will show up as we have 85 
separate times in a face to face meeting and we have tried to 
set up over 365 meetings. It is a very difficult scheduling 
issue and very difficult logistics issue, and we should not be 
held accountable for not showing up when all we are asking for 
is face to face bargaining.

    Senator Tuberville. Thank you. I would like to hear your 
story about your employee, if you would tell it. You have got 
about a minute and a half.

    Mr. Schultz. About?

    Senator Tuberville. About the employee that you had the 
discussion.

    Mr. Schultz. This morning?

    Senator Tuberville. That you had an argument about----

    Mr. Schultz. Oh, okay. Thank you for that. When I came back 
to Starbucks, I held about 100 co-creation collaborative 
meetings across the country to understand from our employees 
what they were experiencing and the challenges of a post-COVID 
environment on their life at home, on their work life, work 
balance, etcetera.

    Those meetings were not about union negotiations. In fact, 
we made it clear we are not here to talk about the union, we 
are here to talk about Starbucks. In a meeting in Long Beach, a 
Starbucks partner was trying to interrupt the meeting and start 
talking about the union, and she happened to be sitting next to 
me.

    I didn't know she was recording it. I didn't know she was 
filming it. But it was clear that there was a disruptive 
mentality. I just turned to her and I said, if you don't like 
the company, if you hate the company, you could work somewhere 
else. It was not a threat, and going back to Chairman Sanders 
question before, I can understand she may have misinterpreted 
what I said. It wasn't a threat.

    I didn't know I was being filmed. I just simply said, if 
you hate the company, you could go work somewhere else. Those 
hundred sessions that I attended are based on what we have done 
to improve the company, to understand the empathy and 
compassion we need to have for our people in a post-COVID 
environment. They were not union meetings. They were meetings 
to discuss Starbucks and the opportunity for our people. Thank 
you for the question.

    Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair. Senator Casey.

    Senator Casey. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much and thanks 
for calling the hearing. Mr. Schultz, welcome. I want to 
welcome the workers in this room who have had to do so much--
expend so much effort over many years to have the right to 
organize and bargain collectively, so we stand with you in that 
effort.

    I think that you are right that every single worker in the 
United States of America should have the right to bargain 
collectively, to organize for fair wages and benefits. And too 
often in our Country, workers don't have that right. I 
represent a state where workers over generations marched and 
mobilized and literally bled and died for the right to 
organize. It wasn't conferred upon them by some CEO or some 
boss.

    They had to fight for it. And that resulted, of course, in 
the National Labor Relations Act, which is still, in effect, 
still the law of the land, despite repeated corporate attempts 
to undermine it. So, we have a lot to talk about, not just with 
regard to Starbucks, but for workers generally.

    I wanted to start, Mr. Schultz, with a discussion about one 
of the firms that Starbucks hired. I am told that when--during 
your tenure as CEO, you hire Littler Mendelson, one of the 
largest and most notorious union busting firms in the country 
that reportedly charges upwards of $600 an hour for their 
services.

    It has been reported that in 2021, Starbucks shut down all 
stores in the Buffalo area, rented out the Hyatt Regency Hotel, 
flew you, Mr. Schultz and Starbucks senior executives into 
town, and forced workers to hear you give anti-union talking 
points. While Starbucks refuses to say how much they have spent 
on anti-union efforts, it is clear the company is willing to 
spend a significant amount of money on union busting tactics.

    Guess what? Under current law, Federal law, Internal 
Revenue Service law, Starbucks is able to write off those costs 
as a run of the mill business expense, meaning taxpayers, 
taxpayers are subsidizing union busting in the United States of 
America, including that of Starbucks.

    Mr. Schultz, I would ask you, as a private citizen, in your 
personal capacity, do you believe that corporations should have 
the right to get a tax break, a taxpayer provided 
subsidization, a tax break for union busting activities?

    Mr. Schultz. Senator Casey, you said a number of things I 
would like to respond to, but----

    Senator Casey. Just answer that question first.

    Mr. Schultz. No, I will. I mean, Starbucks Coffee Company 
is following the tax laws and the law that Congress--Senator 
Casey. I didn't ask you about Starbucks. I asked you about your 
personal view, do you think that provision should stay as the 
law or should be changed?

    Mr. Schultz. My personal view is we should follow the law 
that Congress has set up.

    Senator Casey. Do you support that?

    Mr. Schultz. I support the law.

    Senator Casey. You support--you support the provision that 
allows a company to hire union busting firms and conduct other 
activity that interferes with the rights of workers to 
organize? I understand it is the law, but you are saying you 
support it--you would not support a change, is that correct?

    Mr. Schultz. I support the law. I also take offense with 
you categorizing me or Starbucks as a union buster when that is 
not true.

    Senator Casey. Well, look, you go to just March of this 
year, administrative law judge issued a 218-page decision 
finding, ``egregious and widespread misconduct, demonstrating a 
general disregard for the employees' fundamental rights,'' in 
Buffalo, New York.

    I think there is plenty evidence on the record in terms of 
what the National Labor Relations Board has said forth in their 
opinions and their work. Let me ask you another question before 
my time has expired.

    There have been complaints, and I want you to answer this, 
if you know anything about it, that Starbucks is spying on its 
workers as they try to organize. Again, another National Labor 
Relations Board administrative law judge recently wrote that 
Starbucks used headsets, headsets to, ``closely supervise, 
monitor, and create the impression that employees' union 
activities are under surveillance.''

    We have heard about this with regard to other companies. Do 
you believe, and again, this is in your personal capacity and 
you realize where you are now, do you believe that workers have 
should have the basic dignity at work not to be surveilled by 
their employers?

    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I am incredibly proud of how we treat 
Starbucks partners and have since 1987.

    Senator Casey. I understand you are----

    Mr. Schultz. I am not aware of anyone surveilling anyone, 
anyone----

    Senator Casey. You are not aware of that?

    Mr. Schultz. I am not.

    Senator Casey. Do you support that?

    Mr. Schultz. No, I would not support that.

    Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Schultz. Can I come back and just address something you 
said, if you don't mind. You talked about Buffalo. I just want 
to clarify, from what I understand the activities in Buffalo 
began in August 2021. I was not the CEO at the time.

    I came back in April 2022. But I want to share with the 
Committee what we have found out about the organizing in 
Buffalo. I think this is important for everyone to know. The 
organizing in Buffalo began with an individual who we later 
found out was paid for and joined Starbucks at an employee in 
2020.

    Even though we hired her on her own merit, we found out 
that she was paid for by the very union trying to organize 
Starbucks.

    The Chair. I am going to have to cut you off. Senator.

    Senator Cassidy. That was a good story. We will come back 
to that because it sounds like something to do.

    Mr. Schultz. I hope you do.

    Senator Cassidy. I will defer to Senator Markwayne Mullin.

    Senator Mullin. Thank you. And considering the Chairman 
doesn't want to hear any of that information, because I believe 
he is pretty biased in his opinion already, Mr. Schultz, I will 
give you an opportunity for you to finish that but do it 
quickly.

    Mr. Schultz. Thank you very much. So, as you might imagine, 
we are very curious to understand what happened in Buffalo.

    We later found out that this individual, which was hired in 
2020, was paid for and under the employment of the union that 
was basically trying to organize Starbucks. We later found out 
there was more than one person.

    You might want to ask yourself, where is the fairness, the 
objectivity, and the integrity of what we are talking about 
here today.

    Senator Mullin. I mean, if you are anti-union as a CEO, you 
are anti-union busting or you are for union busting, I am not 
saying you are anti-union. I am just saying that it seems like 
to me, as a former CEO, not nearly as the success that you are, 
sir, and I am not trying to defend your company because quite 
frankly, politically, we are on a totally different as a 
spectrum. The irony of this hearing is actually kind of funny.

    I do want to point out some hypocrisy about this hearing 
with the Chairman. I am not trying to get personal. All this 
information is going to be very public. But the fact that you 
can't defend your company because you want to have a good 
relationship with your employees and you believe in employee 
value, which we all do--any CEO knows that success of our 
companies are based on our employees.

    We get that. But it seems like unions today, all they want 
to do is fight with their employees or their employer, the same 
employer that is hiring those team members. And that friction 
causes a very volatile and tough workplace.

    If the company and employees aren't in the same boat rowing 
in the same direction, then they can't--neither one can be 
successful. And unions themselves, if you are part of a union, 
you can never be an executive, you can never be a manager and 
never be a CEO.

    If you can't be executive or a manager of the CEO, then how 
are you actually going to implement the changes that the unions 
want in those in those positions to begin with? And it seems 
like they actually hold back their team members. But I take 
offense to the Chairman pointing out that all CEOs are corrupt 
because they are millionaires.

    You know, if you make a lot of money, you are corrupt. Yet 
it is bothering to me because, Mr. Chairman, you yourself have 
been very successful, rightfully so, glad you have. And you 
have been in office for 28 years and you and your wife have 
amassed a wealth of over $8 million.

    In fact, you are quote on being of being wealthy and being 
a millionaire was, well, if you write a bestseller, you can be 
a millionaire, too. If you can be a millionaire, why can't Mr. 
Schultz and other CEOs be millionaires and be honest, too? If 
that is the case, then why is it that Mr. Schultz, who actually 
creates jobs and a bestseller and the book isn't creating new 
jobs, why is it that he is corrupt and you are not?

    Why is it that all CEOs are corrupt because they are 
wealthy, and yet our Chairman, who is wealthy, and I am glad 
you are, you are not? Guys, the Government's role is to create 
an environment for entrepreneurs, for go getters, for jobs, for 
world changers to be successful in life.

    The U.S. Government is designed for people that want to 
succeed, can. We can go out and achieve anything that we choose 
to. But when you lean toward socialism, what you think is 
Government is the answer and unions are the choice. And if you 
are against us, then you are dead wrong and you must be 
corrupt.

    That is not the world we are living in. That is not the 
America that we believe in. I am not against unions. If you 
want to choose to be in a union, be in a union. But if you 
choose not to, then you choose not to. And that is why I am 
good with right to work states.

    That is honestly why unions actually thrive in Oklahoma and 
we are right to work states because it creates a happy 
environment and a good environment, because employees get to 
choose what they want to be part of and the employer can have a 
say in it.

    What is wrong with choice? What is wrong with employees 
having a choice? What is wrong with a CEO defending his company 
and openly saying that he is providing good benefits and paying 
higher than everybody else? But yet, if you are not part of a 
union, you are also paying starvation wages.

    What hypocrisy? What bias? Chairman, you are Chair of the 
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. We shouldn't 
have a biased approach. We should have what is best for America 
and all those that want to thrive and work in it.

    While we politically disagree, Mr. Schultz, I applaud you 
for your success, and I applaud all the CEOs out there for 
their success and all the employees that work hard that are in 
the same boat, that is making their companies great. Thank you. 
Thank you----

    The Chair. Well, let me respond since the Senator did 
mention my name, I think. I think you have got an all-time 
record here. You have made more misstatements in a shorter 
period of time than I ever heard. Please correct me if I am 
worth $8 billion--excuse me.

    Senator Mullin. All public.

    The Chair. Excuse me.

    Senator Mullin. Yes, go ahead.

    The Chair. All right. Excuse me. Yes, sir. I am worth $8 
million. That is good news to me. I am not aware of it. That is 
a lie. All right, No. 2----

    Senator Mullin. It is under the public records----

    The Chair. You are probably looking at some phony right 
wing internet stuff. It ain't true. All right, you should read 
beyond that. It is not true.

    Senator Mullin. It is part of the record.

    The Chair. No, it is not public record.

    Senator Mullin. Okay. Well, you made--million on your 
book----

    The Chair. It is not public record.

    Senator Mullin. You have made--on your book----

    The Chair. Excuse me, I have got the mic now. No. 2--I have 
the mic now, I have got it----

    Senator Mullin. Did you not make a statement that you want 
to be a millionaire. Did you not make that statement----

    The Chair. You had your time, all right. You are not 
telling the truth. Second of all, you have got no evidence that 
I have ever said all CEOs are corrupt. I have never ever said 
that.

    Senator Mullin. Probably not all but----

    The Chair. Probably not, then you shouldn't say it. 
Furthermore, what this hearing is about is whether or not--and 
you talk about being pro-union. Really what this hearing is 
about is whether or not workers have the Constitutional right 
to form a union.

    The evidence is overwhelming, not from me, but from the 
National Labor Relations Board, is that time after time after 
time, despite what Mr. Schultz is saying, Starbucks has broken 
the law and has prevented workers from joining unions to 
collectively bargain for decent wages and benefits. Senator 
Baldwin.

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Schultz, I 
want to begin by acknowledging the leadership role your company 
has played in providing benefits to workers. You talked about 
it in your testimony with great pride, comprehensive health 
benefits to full and part time employees starting in 1988 and 
stock awards to all employees since 1991.

    You noted, I think, that these benefits allow you to 
attract and retain a workforce that you call the secret sauce 
of the Starbucks success. Given this history, though, it is all 
the more puzzling to me that you are fighting this union drive 
so fiercely. You have said that a union will sever the direct 
relationship you have with employees, which you call crucial to 
anticipating their needs.

    Instead of leaving it up to your anticipation, a union can 
ensure that you receive clear feedback about what your workers 
actually need free from fear of retaliation. While you call 
them partners, your workers are limited in their ability to 
engage with you directly because there is a power differential 
and you have power over them and the benefits that they 
cherish, a power you have shown your willingness to wield 
involving employees attempting to organize.

    I find it particularly ironic, especially given your own 
powerful story, that you don't see this power dynamics. 
Further, I think this number is right for your U.S. employee 
base, but you employ over 235,000 people and over 3,000 in my 
home State of Wisconsin alone. You can't possibly have a direct 
relationship with all of them.

    Some intermediary is necessary. If you truly want a direct 
relationship with your workforce. I would suggest to you that a 
union can provide that. I also want to note in your written 
testimony that you returned to Starbucks in April of last year 
and noted that the company had gone astray, had fallen--lost 
its way on many levels.

    You talked about short-termism, an issue on which I agree 
profoundly. And who are these partners to turn to with this 
direct relationship during this time that the company had gone 
astray?

    In Wisconsin, when I met with Starbucks union organizers, 
it was immediately clear to me that they take significant pride 
in their work. You talked a little back and forth about the 
quote of hating Starbucks so much, why don't you quit or get a 
job somewhere else? These workers don't want to quit. They want 
to work.

    In fact, they seem to share so many of the same goals for 
the company that you have laid out so eloquently in your 
testimony. All of these workers are asking is that you respect 
their right to organize, which would require you to treat them 
not just as partners, but as equals. It is that power dynamics 
that I was talking about.

    On that note, Mr. Schultz, it has been almost 1 year since 
the first Wisconsin store voted to unionize. I want to ask you 
on the record when Starbucks will begin bargaining in earnest 
with those workers. And when can I expect that I will hear that 
the first contract has been signed?

    Mr. Schultz. I would love to answer your question. I wonder 
if I can have more time to respond to some of the things you 
have said. But we are prepared in the State of Wisconsin and 
other states that we have partners who want to join a union to 
meet face to face, as we stated consistently, and begin a 
bargaining process.

    We are prepared to do that in Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I 
wonder if I could just speak to a few things that the Senator 
mentioned.

    The Chair. You have about 50 seconds.

    Mr. Schultz. Okay. Starbucks has had almost 5 million 
people wear the green apron, 5 million. So, we have created 
close to 5 million jobs--5 million jobs. Just think about how 
many families have benefited from Starbucks.

    The majority of those partners have participated in an 
equity plan unprecedented in American business. 14 percent of 
their base pay is how we started. In addition to that, 99 
percent of the 350,000 who work for Starbucks want a direct 
relationship with the company.

    In addition to that, what's the most important metric of 
any business? And that is trust with your people. And as a 
result of that, we have the highest level of retention of any 
company in our sector. That is hundreds of companies, the 
highest level of retainment----

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz, I have--there are time limits here. 
Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. I defer to Senator Braun.

    Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chair and 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 have 
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 3 
to 4 percent of it unionized.

    One of the reasons, since I had a small business for 17 
years, 15 employees before it grew, and the best avoidance of a 
union is to treat your employees like family, pay good wages, 
have good benefits. You do that, you are probably never going 
to have a union knocking at your door.

    But we are 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 is in a business. It is got a 
high fatality rate due to the nature of it. I don't know 
currently what you are paying your average employee on the 
line. That is going to be the first question.

    Then what the average pay of senior middle management, 
senior management would be. I always thought it was good, as 
long as you are earning equity in whatever you are doing, that 
you would probably be reasonable there. Don't pull in with a 
Maserati and all of that. I would love to know where you are at 
on that wage stratification first.

    Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Senator. The average wage is 
$17.50. That is higher than the minimum wage of every state in 
America. The--with benefits, and a majority of our people take 
the benefits. That is a $27 an hour. 65 percent of our managers 
across the country were baristas, and all in, the manager 
salary is about $80,000.

    Senator Braun. Very good. And then you have a stratum of 
management above that?

    Mr. Schultz. District manager, regional manager, and I 
think what we are 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 it was a union. Those were created because of 
the decisions----

    Senator Braun. I think that is important to note, but I 
think what you represent here is a watershed case because you 
are large. And you generally get large because you are 
successful along the way.

    We have got to be careful because, I am going to pivot to 
something that the other side of the aisle has proposed, is 
like the Pro Act. And again, I am probably the most outspoken 
Republican on the benefit of unions, but you have got to be 
careful where they go. If they are 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 
are doing to impede the law in terms of unionizing. You have 
already made that point that you don't think you have been 
doing it. All I am saying, this is important because this will 
have a ripple effect way beyond your business.

    The one thing we can't have is to suffocate what has 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 have done that throughout the 
history of your company? I know you have mobility. It sounds 
like there are several different ways you can grow. You have no 
mobility unless you are growing as a company. But have you 
honestly done that?

    Mr. Schultz. Yes, we have, Senator. I wonder if I could 
just give you one prime example that I think the Committee 
should understand. You know, during COVID, as you said, the 
restaurant industry was really plummeted.

    I mean, they--we had it very, very tough. We had thousands 
of Starbucks stores closed. Many of our peers started cutting 
benefits during COVID. Starbucks did not cut one benefit during 
COVID, and we paid every single partner during COVID with no 
exception.

    Senator Braun. What was your average wage before COVID? 
Because you said you are at about $17 now. Did you have to 
raise it over the last couple of years?

    Mr. Schultz. We raised wages in May, that is correct.

    Senator Braun. What was it before?

    Mr. Schultz. About $15 an hour, went to $17.

    Senator Braun. One final point, even $17 an hour, that is 
not a living wage in this day and age. I am proud that in our 
company we pay the highest starting wage in a low unemployment 
county, and any large corporation 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 if companies like yours and the 
larger companies don't do it, you are going to be constantly 
grappling with maybe here.

    But on the other hand, union 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 will 
leave it at that.

    Mr. Schultz. Thank you, sir.

    The Chair. Senator Smith.

    Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. We have respect for every single partner who 
wears a green apron, regardless of their choice to vote for a 
union.

    Senator Smith. So yesterday I had the opportunity to meet 
with some unionized Starbuck workers from Minnesota, Gracy and 
Elizabeth, and they tell me that Starbucks is cutting their 
weekly hours.

    They estimate that they are losing $4 an hour in wages 
because the company won't allow them in unionized stores to 
access credit card tipping when that is available to workers in 
nonunionized shops.

    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?

    Mr. Schultz. When we raised wages in May, we were, my 
understanding was that under the law, we did not have the 
unilateral right to provide those benefits to partners who were 
involved in collective bargaining. And that is why.

    Senator Smith. You have said that several times during this 
meeting. You have said that you cannot legally provide these 
benefits without bargaining over them. But I am sure that the 
union has specifically stated in this letter, from July 15th, 
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 
representative employees with any wage or benefit improvements 
provided to unrepresented employees. I don't think this--I just 
think you are wrong.

    Mr. Schultz. Let me try and explain. There are an array of 
wages and benefits that need to be negotiated in the collective 
bargaining process. It just, it would not be proper to take one 
piece of the puzzle out of the negotiating process since the 
union, the people who have joined the union have decided that 
they want to negotiate a contract. It is our preference and our 
right to negotiate that contract fairly and objectively, but 
not in piecemeal.

    Senator Smith. 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 an unmistakable waiver to bargaining.

    But let me ask you about this, because 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?

    Mr. Schultz. I am not involved in any of the meetings.

    Senator Smith. The Minnesota folks tell me that those 
negotiation sessions have not lasted longer than 6 minutes. So 
that seems to me, sir, as a failure to negotiate in good faith.

    Mr. Schultz. When, from my understanding and in many of the 
meetings that we have showed up to have, face to face meetings, 
the other side has decided to put on a Zoom or a teams, and 
then we decide and we have told them upfront that we will not 
negotiate unless the meeting is in person and we know who is in 
the room.

    We have left those meetings as a result of the fact that we 
could not preserve the privacy and the integrity of a face to 
face meeting.

    Senator Smith. My observation here is that this feels like 
sort of a catch 22 because you are not willing to bargain on 
issues like credit card tipping while simultaneously you are 
not coming together to bargain at all.

    I think that is why the employees are feeling, who are 
wanting to join the union, feel so frustrated. But I want to 
just touch on one other thing. I have been listening really 
closely to you today, and I also come from the private sector. 
I had my own company at one time before I moved into the public 
sector, and I have 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 is 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. 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.

    Mr. Schultz. Senator, I agree with you that I do not have 
the right to decide who can vote for a union or not. But I am 
the chairman, I am the CEO of the company, or I was the CEO of 
the company and I have the preference and the right to 
communicate to our people about what it is we believe is right 
for Starbucks.

    I want to repeat, 99 percent of the 250,000 want a direct 
relationship with the company. The last thing you said, and it 
has been said many times by the Chairman, I just want to make a 
point of that. This moniker billionaire, let's just get at 
that, okay.

    I grew up in federally subsidized--let me finish. I grew up 
in federally subsidized housing. My parents never owned a home. 
I came from nothing. I thought my entire life was based on the 
achievement of the American dream. Yes, I have billions of 
dollars. I earned it. No one gave it to me, and I have shared 
it constantly with people----

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Mr. Schultz [continuing]. people of Starbucks. Anyone who 
keeps labeling this billionaire thing, is----

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz, I don't mean to cut you off. We 
have time limits here. And you have--I am not cutting you off.

    Mr. Schultz. I am just saying, it is your moniker 
constantly, it is unfair.

    The Chair. No, it is not. You have had more time--I have 
been generous with the time. I am sorry----

    Mr. Schultz. But Mr. Chairman----

    The Chair. We have a room full of people. We have a panel 
to go after. You are not the only person to testify.

    Mr. Schultz. Okay.

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. Defer to Senator Marshall.

    Senator Marshall. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, 
Chairman. Mr. Schultz, I want 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--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 noisemakers this past Christmas.

    One of our colleague's 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?

    Mr. Schultz. Thank you, Senator. We do, in fact, have a 
significant issue of safety in urban cities around America. And 
Starbucks has closed many, many stores that were profitable as 
a result of the fact that our own people do not feel safe 
working in the stores.

    We have a situation of homelessness, drugs, mental illness. 
And as a result of that, and many of the societal issues that 
we are facing today are difficult for Starbucks to address 
because we don't have the power or the responsibility to 
address these things as you have described.

    Senator Marshall. You know, thank you for your answer and 
your honesty. It is 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.

    I have to note for the record that every single location 
you closed, all 16 of them were in Democrat ran cities. We have 
another saying--I want to change the subject here again. We 
have a saying back home that pigs get fat and hogs get 
slaughtered. You do have 645 unfair labor cases brought against 
you.

    Based upon the size of the crowd, 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 like that there has been a fair negotiation process?

    Have you been--have you and your company been open to 
negotiation process? This is--give you a minute here, a minute 
and a half. Just tell me your side of the story.

    Mr. Schultz. Thank you. First off, with regard to the NLRB, 
Senator Cassidy mentioned a number of issues. Starbucks Coffee 
Company will abide by the law and follow the process. I hope 
the Committee does investigate many of the things that are 
going on within the NLRB and the courage of the whistleblower 
to come forward with regard to the allegations that she has--
that she wants to discuss with the Committee.

    This process, unfortunately, has played out publicly in 
many different ways. And unfortunately, a public company in 
America today is unfortunately guilty before the--before 
anything----

    Senator Marshall. This is your chance----

    Mr. Schultz. Yes.

    Senator Marshall. So why are you innocent?

    Mr. Schultz. You know, we are innocent because we have done 
everything that we possibly can to respect the right under the 
law of our partners' ability to join a union. But conversely, 
we have consistently laid out our preference, without breaking 
any law, of communicating to our people about what we believe 
is a vision for the company.

    When I went to Buffalo, even though it was cited before by 
Senator Casey, I never mention the word union once. I talked 
about the vision for Starbucks, and the reason is post-COVID, 
95 percent of the people wearing the green apron had worked for 
the company less than a year.

    They didn't know anything about Starbucks. I went to 
Buffalo to share the story of Starbucks. What we have done as a 
company, equity in the form of stock options, comprehensive 
health insurance, all the things that we have done to provide 
opportunity for our people.

    I didn't go there to talk about the union. I went there to 
lay out our vision for the company, and I consistently have 
done that as well as the leaders of Starbucks. We have not 
broken the law. We have simply tried to defend ourselves and 
tell our employees, all of them, what we stand for, our future, 
the aspirations we have, the growth of the company, and the 
opportunity.

    Starbucks is in many ways the quintessential 
entrepreneurial company of the last 30 years. We have created 5 
million jobs from a cup of coffee, and we have shared the 
profits with our people.

    We have done all these things because--not because of the 
union, but because of the compassion, the empathy, and in many 
ways, my own story of understanding what happened to my father 
and trying to build the kind of company that my father never 
got a chance to work for. And that is the story of Starbucks.

    The Chair. Senator Murphy.

    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You 
know, collective bargaining is a fundamentally conservative 
idea. I sort of lost track of that. I mean, it is 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.

    It is kind of disappointing and sad and wild to me at how 
sort of partisan this debate has become. Democrats standing up 
for unions. Republicans saying, they support collective 
bargaining, but not seeing that there is real genius in the 
idea, in a free market society that workers get to come 
together.

    You know, it is 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. Mr. Schultz, what do you mean when you say that you 
abide by the law?

    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 practice 
egregious and--calling your practices egregious and widespread 
and 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. 
So, when you say you don't break the law, you abide by law, you 
are you mean you disagree with all of these decisions from the 
NLRB? You think they got it wrong in all of those cases?

    Mr. Schultz. I think what you are talking about is 
allegations that we look forward to in the process to defend 
ourselves. But if I can give you one specific case----

    Senator Murphy. These are all--but these are--but some of 
these are orders from NLRB judges to reinstate employees based 
upon violations of contract. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. Well, in Memphis, as----

    Senator Murphy [continuing]. in every case?

    Mr. Schultz. In Memphis, as an example, we do have----

    Senator Murphy. I am not actually looking for--I am not 
looking to litigate each case. Just 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 have gotten it wrong?

    Mr. Schultz. We will follow the law and follow the judge's 
order, but we look forward----

    Senator Murphy. 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.

    Mr. Schultz. I believe the allegations will prove that 
Starbucks was correct. I can give you a perfect example if you 
are willing to listen.

    Senator Murphy. Sure. I'm willing to listen.

    Mr. Schultz. Okay, so let's take Memphis, which has been a 
clear, isolated case, but I think indicative of the process. 
Safety at Starbucks is critically important. We want to protect 
and preserve the safety of every one of our people. In 1997, we 
had a tragedy in Georgetown where three Starbucks partners were 
murdered.

    As a result of that, we have always taken safety very 
seriously. But after that, everything we do is about partner 
safety. Now, in Memphis, a Starbucks person, and who agreed to 
join the union, after hours opened up that store for activities 
that were not consistent with safety and procedures at 
Starbucks. No one should open up a store that is closed.

    The manager took a disciplinary approach and terminated 
that person. That person was reinstated. That is the fact. 
Safety is key at Starbucks, so we can't be held accountable for 
things that we believe under the procedures of Starbucks, that 
are based on safety for our people. And that is a clear 
violation of our procedures.

    Senator Murphy. I understand. I just, I am trying to square 
your testimony in which you insist that you rigorously follow 
the law----

    Mr. Schultz. Yes.

    Senator Murphy. With overwhelming evidence from the 
organizations that are charged with enforcing American labor 
law, that is not the case. It is akin to someone who has been 
ticketed for speeding a hundred times, saying I have never 
violated the law, because every single time, every single time 
the cop got it wrong.

    That would not be a believable contention, if someone was 
to make it up before the Committee. 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.

    Mr. Schultz. I don't believe Starbucks has broken the law.

    Senator Murphy. All right. Thank you.

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. Let me just make a couple of observations 
relative to what has been said on the other side of the aisle--
of the dais. First, we should have, as I mentioned earlier, an 
investigation of the NLRB activities.

    They are being made out as if they are a totally objective 
player in all the circumstances. But here I have a letter from 
NLRB confirming that they--the OIG is investigating allegations 
of misconduct by the NLRB employees in Region 14. Now we can 
say, oh, my gosh, NLRB is supposed to be neutral.

    There is tangible evidence that they are not. Second, I am 
sorry Senator Merkley left. Republicans down here have totally 
supported the right of people to organize. I would also point 
out that it was Republicans who were standing up for the trade 
unions when in the 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.

    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, employing more workers in my state, refining that 
oil in the most environmentally sensitive way. I kind of stand 
by our side.

    Mr. Schultz, let's explore a little bit. There is this 
impression that the unionization effort has occurred 
organically, but you mentioned earlier, and I think I have the 
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 is called salting.

    But it wasn't as if there is this organic ``let's just all 
come together and unionize.'' No ``workers of the world 
unite.'' It was no, somebody was paid to go in there and create 
an environment where four out of six people might support it. I 
don't know if that was a four out of six pro-union vote. Any 
comments upon this person getting paid by the union when she 
came to your store in an attempt to organize it?

    Mr. Schultz. Well, if that is not a nefarious act, I don't 
know what is.

    Senator Cassidy. Yes, 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 have been charged, and yet you are pointing out that you 
have not been found to violate the law. Will you try to 
reconcile those two statements?

    Mr. Schultz. That is correct. We have not been found guilty 
of any violation. These are allegations. We look forward to the 
process that Congress has set up and to--and I think we will 
avail ourselves that these will be proven not true.

    Senator Cassidy. Now, I just made the point. I forget if I 
requested this, but I would like to enter into the record the 
letter from NLRB confirming that they are investigated for NLRB 
employees' misconduct in Region 14.

    The Chair. Without objection.

    [The following information can be found on page 95 in 
Additional Material:]

    Senator Cassidy. Do you have any comments upon what I feel 
is to be the politicization of NLRB? From your perspective, is 
that a real thing?

    Mr. Schultz. I don't really have any comment on that. I 
hope the Committee will look closely at it.

    Senator Cassidy. Okay. Now there has 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 a half took more than a 
full year to sign.

    It has been argued that you are 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 would like to 
make on that?

    Mr. Schultz. I think that is true. As I said earlier, we 
have shown up about 85 times to have a face-to-face meeting. We 
have tried to set up 365 additional meetings, and we are very 
clear, we are ready and able to have face to face negotiations 
and we will do so at a moment's notice.

    Senator Cassidy. Now, 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. 
But any comment about Ms. Abruzzo, who some have found to be an 
advocate for unions, in terms of this particular finding?

    Mr. Schultz. You know, I think--I have been in business for 
many, many years, face to face meetings, negotiations, 
collaborative sessions, they are all better to be had than 
anything that is on Zoom.

    Senator Cassidy. Is there a law that says that you have to 
do it over Zoom if one party chooses to go over Zoom?

    Mr. Schultz. I have never heard of that law, sir.

    Senator Cassidy. Oh, okay. I haven't heard it either. I 
yield.

    The Chair. Senator Hassan.

    Senator Hassan. I am happy to yield to Senator Markey for a 
minute, and then I will follow up after him, if that works.

    The Chair. Senator Markey.

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
this important hearing. And, Mr. Schultz, it is good of you to 
show up, but then again, you face little choice. It is 
disappointing to me that it took such a long time and required 
the threat of a subpoena for you to appear before this 
Committee.

    It is frankly disrespectful to your hundreds of thousands 
of employees, but we do appreciate your finally appearing here. 
All across America, workers are saying that they have 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 as 
a groundswell of working and middle class people were 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, John. Back on the job. 
That was before rights were put on books.

    Ultimately, that is what Starbucks workers are doing. 
Workers in Buffalo are the spark to the fire of organizing its 
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 
percent of Americans approving of labor unions. So, as you sit 
here denigrating your workers, you are not just morally and 
legally wrong, you are in the minority.

    You are 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.

    To help save the Starbucks she once knew and loved, Caitlin 
and her coworkers 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.

    Worse, you and your company set out to punish Caitlin and 
her colleagues, withholding benefits and raises, cutting hours, 
and purposefully understaffing to harm youe most dedicated 
partners.

    When you give us ten pages of testimony extolling the 
benefits that Starbucks offers its employees, that is 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, disregarding their dignity and 
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 is 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 families. I don't think 
you understand that Mr. Schultz. They are just looking to be 
someone who can protect themselves in the way your father could 
not.

    Mr. Schultz, I would just hope that you would understand 
that, but I am afraid you don't. I am afraid that if you step 
down as CEO, that 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 is what they are looking for. It lost its way. You say 
you are 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 the laws, protections, 
unions that stand up for them every single day of the year, and 
that is something, I think, Mr. Schultz, that you just 
fundamentally don't understand. These workers are just like 
your father and they have no rights.

    Mr. Schultz. Can I respond, sir?

    The Chair. 30 seconds.

    Mr. Schultz. Only 30 seconds. I need more time for that.

    The Chair. I am sorry, that is all--every Member here has--
--

    Mr. Schultz. You bring up my father. You don't understand, 
sir. My father was a World War II veteran. Fought for this 
country in the South Pacific. You don't understand.

    Senator Markey. I understand completely. Your father was--
--

    Mr. Schultz. Can I finish, sir?

    Senator Markey. Yes, sure. Your father served our Country, 
and then of the company he worked for----

    Mr. Schultz. Can I respond, Chairman?

    The Chair. Yes, please.

    Mr. Schultz. Okay. I don't understand. Let me ask you a 
question since you cited the union as the answer, is there a 
union contract that you personally are aware of that provides 
comprehensive health insurance, equity in the form of stock 
options, free college tuition? Is there at $17.50 and an 
average of $27 with benefits? Are you aware of a union--sir, 
answer the question--of a union contract that has those 
benefits, sir? Are you aware--?

    Senator Markey. Mr. Schultz, here is your testimony. 
Looking back----

    Mr. Schultz. I asked you a question----

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz----

    Senator Markey [continuing]. it is clear to prior to my 
return last April, the company had lost its way. That it had 
fallen under the dangerous influence of Wall Street short-
termism that I had always tried to----

    Mr. Schultz. I asked you a question, sir. You don't 
understand.

    Senator Markey. Your testimony says that your own company 
lost its way and it will lose its way again unless there is a 
union there----

    The Chair. Okay--Senator Hassan. Thank you.

    Mr. Schultz. In a post-COVID environment----

    The Chair. Mr. Schultz, Mr. Schultz--Senator Hassan, 
please.

    Mr. Schultz. You don't know----

    Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 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 2 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?

    Mr. Schultz. I had no knowledge of that, Senator.

    Senator Hassan. Who decided to move these workers to other 
locations, the workers who were engaged in organizing, or to 
reduce their hours, or fire them?

    Mr. Schultz. I am unaware of that.

    Senator Hassan. You had no participation in decisions about 
moving workers who were engaged in organizing?

    Mr. Schultz. I had no involvement in any specific issue 
that regards a union in a district or a store, no.

    Senator Hassan. Were you or your successor involved in any 
of these decisions? I am just asking again.

    Mr. Schultz. No--no.

    Senator Hassan. 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 have said 
you don't know anything about them.

    You have also, as you discussed with Senator Markey 
indicated in the past that you came back because you felt that 
the company had lost its way. I will just add my--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?

    Mr. Schultz. We said consistently, Senator, that we are 
prepared to have collective bargaining sessions when they are 
face to face, and we are ready, willing, and able.

    Senator Hassan. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. We want to have these meetings. We have 
scheduled 85. We have been to 85. We have tried to schedule 
365, and we are ready to do that.

    Senator Hassan. My understanding is that on multiple 
occasions after you schedule them, the company cancels them at 
the last minute. I would suggest to you that is not acceptable.

    The facts really do speak for themselves on this issue. 
Starbucks is an outlier here, so you need to quickly shift 
course and negotiate with your unionized workers. Earlier this 
month, this Committee heard from labor leaders about employers 
across the country who partner with unions to achieve better 
outcomes for their companies and the economy.

    For example, the President of the Teamsters spoke about how 
they have partnered with United Airlines to build out an 
apprenticeship program that would create a thousand good paying 
middle class jobs.

    Knowing that other large companies successfully collaborate 
with unions, why has Starbucks not done more to collaborate 
with its workers' unions?

    Mr. Schultz. I don't think that is true.

    Senator Hassan. Well, failing to reach a contract over 
450--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 then collaborating with 
it.

    Mr. Schultz. Senator, we respect the right of every person 
who wears a green apron if they want to join a union. But we 
also have the right to communicate to the 99 percent, 350,000 
people who want a direct relationship with the company.

    Senator Hassan. My question is, why not work with the union 
and collaborate? And why not get the input from the unions to 
actually improve things for workers?

    Mr. Schultz. Well, we have we have we have sat down 85 
times to have those meetings and we hope to have some more.

    Senator Hassan. So again, I would 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. I would urge you to take that 
approach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair. Senator Lujan.

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

    Mr. Schultz. Yes.

    Senator Lujan. You are proud that Starbucks, does it?

    Mr. Schultz. Very proud.

    Senator Lujan. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. I am not sure that is correct, sir. I have to 
get back--I don't think that is correct.

    Senator Lujan. I don't want to ask one of your lawyers. I 
believe that to be true.

    Mr. Schultz. Okay.

    Senator Lujan. I see a lot of head nodding from employees 
behind you. But nonetheless, we can--I can submit a question to 
the record so that you can definitively say yes or no to that. 
Mr. Schultz, what happens if workers hours fall below a 
threshold, as I suggested? Are you able to answer that 
question, to their benefits?

    Mr. Schultz. I think their benefits would be in question 
and a manager would try and get their schedule up so they don't 
lose their benefits.

    Senator Lujan. I understand that Starbucks has a widespread 
pattern of reducing worker hours in stores that have unionized. 
After conversations with constituents from New Mexico, that is 
what I have learned. And why does Starbucks reduce workers' 
hours at unionized stores?

    Mr. Schultz. I am not aware we do that, sir.

    Senator Lujan. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. Yes. My understanding was that we were not 
allowed, under the law, to provide benefits unilaterally to 
stores and partners that were involved in unions.

    Senator Lujan. Was there a finding at the end--at NLRB 
along these lines as well?

    Mr. Schultz. I am unaware of that.

    Senator Lujan. Related to that statement?

    Mr. Schultz. I am unaware of that.

    Senator Lujan. Yes or no, do you claim that Starbucks 
cannot make changes to benefits without good faith collective 
bargaining?

    Mr. Schultz. That is my understanding.

    Senator Lujan. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. Yes.

    Senator Lujan. 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?

    Mr. Schultz. That is correct.

    Senator Lujan. The reason that I asked the question about 
the reduction in hours, Mr. Schultz, is I certainly commend and 
appreciate but decisions were made about respecting employees, 
about valuing employees as well.

    What concerns me is practices that have been shared with me 
where 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 will suggest that I believe it 
is because of unionization and look forward to getting your 
response there, but then the employees, I am told, have to be 
on call or made available if Starbucks decides to add a shift 
or something. Is that true?

    Mr. Schultz. Sir, I am unaware of a specific store 
situation in New Mexico, I am sorry.

    Senator Lujan. I am not asking about a specific store. 
Starbucks across the country in many properties has reduced 
hours of employees. That is a fact. Is that correct?

    Mr. Schultz. For union workers?

    Senator Lujan. For anyone. They have reduced hours.

    Mr. Schultz. We adjust the schedule based on our business.

    Senator Lujan. When someone's hours are reduced, if it is 
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 are not scheduled for?

    Mr. Schultz. You----

    Senator Lujan. Your head nod indicates a yes. I believe the 
answer to be yes.

    Mr. Schultz. Let me try and answer that. The manager and 
the assistant manager works very closely with the people in the 
store to adjust hours to accommodate people's work life balance 
as much as we possibly can.

    Senator Lujan. Well, that is not my understanding. I would 
be happy to send something into the record. My concern is this, 
if a store changes its hours, reduces its open hours, staff's 
schedules are changed, they are reduced from 36 hours to 20 
hours, but they are told they need to stay available, how do 
they get another job?

    If they can't get another job and they are trying to go to 
school or do something to broaden whatever they are doing in 
their lives, but then a policy is put in place that says no, we 
are going to reduce your hours and you have to stay on call. 
So, whether it is a manager or not, that is a Starbucks policy.

    I just hope with all of this--that it's not a policy. Well, 
we would be happy to pull you in to visit with folks from New 
Mexico and review some of those areas as well that I have been 
taught from others. I look forward to that as well. But I hope 
that can be done here in all of this--there is a lot of 
interest.

    There are cameras outside and all the rest. Mr. Schultz, 
this company started in a strong way with what it did with its 
anchor stores out in Seattle and around Washington. You know, 
there is an NLRB case where they got closed and there is 
allegations that they have got to open up again. I don't know--
and there has been an appeal, so I don't want to get into all 
of that stuff.

    But going to what Mr. Markey said with testimony that we 
lost our way, I certainly hope that we can find that way back, 
because a lot of folks support Starbucks because the employees 
were treated well. I just hope that is something that we can 
work on together, but I look forward to following up with your 
staff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Schultz. I am incredibly proud of the long term track 
record----

    Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, if I can't speak any longer--I 
didn't ask a question to Mr. Schultz, but I would be happy to 
ask a question, if he would like a response.

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

    Senator Lujan. Mr. Chair----

    The Chair. Yes.

    Senator Lujan. Just for 30 seconds, can I be recognized to 
submit a letter into the record from the Albuquerque store that 
sent it to Mr. Schultz?

    The Chair. Without objection.

    [The following information can be found on page 98 in 
Additional Material:]

    The Chair. Let me conclude this session with Mr. Schultz in 
saying that we are looking at a situation where one side has 
all the money, has all the power, has all the consultants can 
hire and fire at will. We are looking at another side where 
workers are making not very good wages, wages that were forced 
stopped, as I understand it, by the threat of unionization.

    You now have a $15 an hour minimum wage. We are looking at 
a situation that Senator Lujan just mentioned--it was in a 
lovely room here. This is one world. Out there in the real 
world, whether it is Seattle or Vermont or wherever it is, 
people are given arbitrary schedules as to when they can and 
cannot get to work. Sometimes they are working 20 hours a week, 
sometimes the working 30 hours a week. It is hard to build a 
budget around that.

    But at the end of the day, this hearing is not about my 
bestselling book. It is not about Venezuela. And it is a good 
book. People should read it. But it is--but the issue is pretty 
simple, workers have a right to join a union. 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, and you have said you are prepared to 
sit down face to face. Is that what I heard?

    Mr. Schultz. Yes.

    The Chair. Do it. Sit down in the next 2 weeks, come back 
to us and tell us the success that you have had in finally 
negotiating a first contract. That is my hope. And with that--
--

    Senator Cassidy. Do I get to say----

    The Chair. You do.

    Senator Cassidy. Yes. I would also say this hearing is 
about how we should have a neutral process by which NLRB is not 
placing 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.

    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 are promoting 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 rather than from Canada.

    Why in the world that would be, I don't know, rather 
employing American workers in American trade unions. Why that 
would be, I don't know. But nonetheless, that is their call and 
it is 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.

    The Chair. NLRB is not under investigation for anything. 
All right, with that----

    Senator Cassidy. Their employees are--their employees are.

    The Chair. Thank you very much for being with us. We are 
going to recess for 10 minutes and then we are going to have a 
very excellent panel joining us. Thank you.

    [Recess.]

    The Chair. Okay, thank you all very much for your patience. 
It was an important vote that we had to cast. We are now going 
to begin the second panel, and we are delighted to have an 
excellent panel which will include Maggie Carter, Jaysin 
Saxton, Sharon Block, Bradley Byrne, and Rachel Greszler.

    Our first witness is Maggie Carter. Ms. Carter began 
working at Starbucks part time 4 years ago to get health 
benefits and pay while attending University of Tennessee. Her 
store in Knoxville, Tennessee, was the first Starbucks store in 
the South to unionize, and since then, Ms. Carter has helped 
workers at numerous other stores organize, and I am delighted 
to have her here to talk about her experience. Ms. Carter, 
thanks for being with us. Turn the mic on and----

  STATEMENT OF MAGGIE CARTER, STARBUCKS BARISTA, KNOXVILLE, TN

    Ms. Carter. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair. You are welcome.

    Ms. Carter. My name is Maggie Carter, and I am a single mom 
to a beautiful 8 year old boy named Colson. Being his mom is 
the absolute greatest gift of my life. He is why I ended up at 
Starbucks, the only place to offer me part time benefits and 
what I thought would be flexible scheduling while in school. As 
a lesbian, I was also drawn to Starbucks by its reputation as a 
progressive employer.

    I started working in Starbucks in Jackson, Tennessee, in 
May 2019. I was paid $8.35 an hour. Then March 2020 came and it 
felt as if the world shut down, just not at Starbucks. I worked 
consistently from day one of the pandemic because as a single 
mom, I didn't have a choice.

    In April 2020, I told my manager I needed to move from 
Jackson to Knoxville. It wasn't until 2 months later, she 
responded, telling me I had only 48 hours to decide between 
quitting and being rehired in Knoxville, losing all of my 
seniority and benefits, or taking a leave of absence without 
pay and crossing my fingers to see if I would be transferred to 
a Knoxville store.

    Because of COVID, the company had frozen the normally easy 
transfer process. I couldn't risk losing my benefits, so I 
chose the second option, but it meant that I went without pay 
for 3 months. Luckily, I was able to begin work at a Knoxville 
store in August 2020. The whole situation was a punch to the 
gut and the emotional impact of the disrespect I felt 
ultimately contributed to my belief in the need to organize a 
union.

    In October 2021, Starbucks announced that starting pay 
would increase to $15 an hour almost a year later. I scoured 
the internet searching Starbucks wages, benefits, pay 
increases, and I learned about Starbucks workers organizing.

    I shared this information with my coworkers and we decided 
to stand together to file for an election on Christmas Eve. We 
were proud to be the first store in the South, but it wasn't 
without an epic fight because Starbucks resisted us every step 
of the way. Just 5 days after announcing our union drive, our 
regional director drove to our store from out of state and was 
working alongside my partners attempting to make drinks.

    It is the first time in my entire time with the company 
that I have met a regional director in person. Partners 
suddenly started getting disciplined for minor dress code 
violations or being five or so minutes late every day.

    It felt as if there was a concerted effort to build a case 
against partners who showed even the smallest bit of support 
for the union. Days prior to ballots being mailed out for the 
election, managers closed our store for our long periods, most 
during peak operating time to hold impromptu captive audience 
meetings.

    It felt like the company was suddenly paying full attention 
to us and were willing to throw absolutely anything at us to 
deter us from organizing. We won our vote 1 year ago today, 
March 29, 2022. Since then, we have made every attempt to try 
to bargain in good faith with the company. Starbucks walked out 
on our stores only scheduled bargaining session after just 30 
minutes.

    On May 3d, the company announced that partners who were 
organizing or had already unionized would not receive a series 
of important benefit increases that nonunion stores would be 
granted. My partners, along with thousands of partners across 
the country, still do not have access to these benefits.

    Nor do we have a company that is willing to sit across the 
table with us and bargain for them. This is part of my store's 
campaign story. But if you look to the 7,500 plus members of 
Starbucks Workers United, you will find thousands of stories 
that detail similar or more grotesque accounts of Starbucks 
behavior during their scorched earth union busting campaign.

    My coworker Michelle Eisen stated it perfectly when she 
testified before the House, it should not take an act of 
bravery to ensure you have a voice at work. Stated laws allow 
so much room for companies to harshly assert themselves. 
Unequal resources combined with unparalleled unbalanced power 
dynamics ensure that the company's voice will often be louder 
than the collective voice of workers.

    Schultz has made a career selling that idea of offering 
benefits to part time workers because he wanted to operate a 
different kind of company. I am a single mother working 
tirelessly for this company for 4 years, and I am certainly not 
alone in feeling nothing but left behind during a time where 
everything we knew about the world was uncertain. You cannot be 
pro-partner and anti-union.

    It is well past time for the company to bargain in good 
faith. Help us hold them accountable. Thank you for allowing 
partners to have a seat at this table alongside former CEO 
Howard Schultz, because that is significantly more than he was 
willing to offer.

    To Starbucks new CEO Laxman Narasimhan, you have an 
opportunity to chart a different course to truly make Starbucks 
the different kind of company Schultz promised, but failed 
epically to produce.

    This is a chance for your company to stop its unprecedented 
campaign of union busting and instead partner with us, your so-
called partners, and our union to build a company that truly 
lives up to its stated progressive values. Thank you so much.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Carter follows:]
                  prepared statement of maggie carter
    My name is Maggie Carter, and I am a single mother to a beautiful 
8-year-old boy named Colson. Being his mother is the absolute greatest 
gift of my life. He's why I ended up at Starbucks, as it was the only 
place to offer me benefits as a part-time worker, and what I thought 
would be flexible scheduling while I sought out higher education. As a 
lesbian woman living in Tennessee, I was also drawn to Starbucks by its 
reputation as a progressive employer. Plus I had been a faithful 
customer for years.

    My partnership with the company began in Jackson, Tennessee in May 
of 2019, where I was paid $8.35 an hour. At first, I was eager to step 
into my position as a barista, despite being pretty overwhelmed with 
the lengthy drink menu. As I grew more comfortable making drinks and 
serving customers, it became clear to me that Starbucks doesn't 
actually uphold the values they profess to the public. Starbucks refers 
to us workers as ``Partners,'' because they give us a minor share of 
the company through our benefits package--but they treat us more like 
we are problems.

    However, when we as Partners wanted a true partnership in the 
company by organizing a union, I realized just how little depth there 
was to the term.

    Not even 1 year into my tenure with Starbucks, March of 2020 came 
and it felt as if the world shut down, just not at Starbucks. I worked 
consistently from day one of the pandemic, because as a single mom, I 
didn't have a choice. The world was calling service workers ``essential 
workers,'' but we weren't treated as if our labor was essential. I 
personally felt disposable in this situation.

    In April 2020, I told my Manager I needed to move from Jackson to 
Knoxville. For reasons I'll never know, she didn't respond until almost 
2 months later. In normal times, I would have just entered the transfer 
pool to be transferred to a new store, but with the pandemic, transfers 
were frozen company-wide. Instead, she told me I had two options, and 
only 48 hours to decide. Option one; I could quit and risk being re-
hired once I moved to Knoxville, losing all my seniority and benefits. 
Option two; I could take a leave of absence without pay, but retain my 
benefits, and enter the indefinitely frozen transfer pool. I'd have to 
cross my fingers to see if I would be transferred to a Knoxville store. 
I couldn't risk losing my benefits, so I chose the second option, but 
it meant I went without pay for about 3 months.

    When I got to Knoxville, I visited the store closest to the one 
bedroom apartment I now share with my son, and was lucky that the 
Manager there somehow got my transfer approved. I started working at my 
current store in August 2020. During that time, My son and I were faced 
with burdens that we shouldn't have had to face, and that has stuck 
with me throughout this process. The whole situation was a punch to the 
gut and the emotional impact of the disrespect I felt ultimately 
contributed to my belief in the need to organize a union.

    Shortly after transferring to my new store, I realized that every 
Starbucks store has its own unique environment. There was a sort of 
hierarchy in my new store that didn't ``inspire and nurture the human 
spirit'' as Starbucks claims is one of its core values. Specifically, 
Partners were asked not to test for COVID so we wouldn't have to shut 
down in the case of positive tests. The veil of Starbucks ``values'' 
completely faded for me as a Partner. Partners in my new store told me 
working conditions deteriorated during the pandemic. We got hazard pay 
for a while, bringing wages up to $12 an hour, but Starbucks cut that 
off even as the hazards of working in a deadly pandemic persisted.

    In October of 2021 Starbucks announced starting pay would increase 
to 15$ per hour company-wide, but that increase would not be made until 
the ``end of Summer 2022''. \1\ I was intrigued by this announcement, 
as I was paid almost half that amount when I started with the company 3 
years prior. I went to my Store Manager and asked, ``Why are they 
announcing this raise so far ahead?'' She told me Starbucks made so 
much money in the pandemic that they weren't quite sure what to do with 
it. Eager to learn more, I scoured the internet searching different 
combinations of ``Starbucks wages, Starbucks benefits, and Starbucks 
pay increase.'' It was then I learned of the effort by workers in 
Buffalo to join together in a union with Workers United. I immediately 
began searching for every ounce of information I could find to teach me 
everything about unions and what they stand for. It seemed as if 
Starbucks had bumped the starting pay to decrease Partners' incentive 
to organize. I immediately began talking with my coworkers about the 
union, ultimately bringing them information I found. In November, I 
reached out for the first time to Starbucks Workers United and was put 
in direct contact with an organizer from the union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  An NLRB Administrative Law Judge would later find that the 
announcement of this increase and the implementation of it both 
constituted violations of workers' rights under the NLRA. See Starbucks 
Corp., JD-17-23, NLRB Case 03-CA-285671, p. 145 (March 1, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I wasn't sure unionizing was possible for workers in the South. How 
was I going to take on all of this work of educating myself and then 
relaying that to my coworkers? In spring of 2021 we started to notice a 
persisting horrendous odor of what smelled like mold coming from the 
grout in our floors. It got worse and worse as the grout was scrubbed 
away during each night's cleaning. We reported the smell to our 
superiors, but there was never any movement from management to address 
the issue.

    In November of 2021, we were going through an increasingly tough 
period due to an influx of customers around the holidays. Pumpkin spice 
is the precursor to the full holiday beverage launch, and we were 
bombarded with customers on Starbucks's so-called ``Red Cup Day,'' the 
day when many Starbucks stores give out reusable red cups. Overworked 
and feeling unheard, we realized the people above us didn't have our 
best interests at heart. It was the second week of December when my 
Partners told me they wanted to stand together and file for a union 
election, like the workers in Buffalo.

    At first, only a few of us were willing to put ourselves at risk to 
lead this effort for fear of being fired. But we began meeting and 
planning how we would go about organizing our coworkers. Just days 
before Christmas, we started talking to fellow Partners and on 
Christmas Eve, reached a majority on cards to officially petition for 
an election with the National Labor Relations Board. It was then when 
we went public with our campaign and officially announced our intent to 
become the first unionized store in the South, which I am proud to say 
we eventually accomplished.

    But it wasn't without an epic fight because Starbucks resisted us 
every step of the way. Just 5 days after announcing our union drive, I 
received a text from Partners that our Regional Director was at our 
store, working alongside my Partners on bar, attempting to make 
beverages. Bar is a planted position on the floor where your sole 
responsibility is to make each drink that comes out of the ticket 
printer. It is highly abnormal for any supervisor to be working in this 
planted position. This is not only uncharacteristic of the Partner 
experience, it's the first time in my entire time with the company at 
two different stores that I've met a Regional Director in person. Soon, 
it also became routine to see our District Manager in our store. Prior 
to this point, he would come by our store and chat with our Store 
Manager outside without ever even entering to speak with us. Suddenly, 
we had full access to contact him and chat anytime we wanted. It also 
felt as if every aspect of our performance was now under a microscope. 
Partners suddenly started getting disciplined for minor dress code 
violations and being five or so minutes late, which didn't happen 
before we went public with our intent to unionize. Every day it felt as 
if there was a concerted effort put forth to build a case against 
Partners who showed even the smallest bit of support for the union.

    Our Regional Director also sent an email to Partners across both 
districts in Knoxville explaining that ``Starbucks had no choice but to 
petition for every one of you to have a vote in this union election.'' 
The company was trying to expand the bargaining unit beyond our store 
in a misguided effort to attempt to crush support for our organizing 
drive. We had to have a hearing before the National Labor Relations 
Board to fight for the right for our store to vote as a unit. In this 
hearing, I testified and it felt like I was being interrogated by the 
company's legal representatives about my private conversations with 
Partners in Buffalo who helped us organize. Starbucks' legal team even 
interrogated me about tweets posted on my social media.

    The judge ruled in our favor, but the company's anti-union campaign 
was just getting started. The very next day after the hearing, my 
coworkers and I were called to our first captive audience meeting. We 
were split into two groups with the same four Managers in the room for 
both meetings. It's difficult preparing for a captive audience meeting, 
because it's challenging to know what to expect. Starbucks chose the 
path of trying to paint distrust amongst Partners, referring to those 
leading the organizing as ``outsiders,'' or ``third parties,'' when 
just 1 day prior these same Managers saw two of the Partners in the 
room testifying against them to win our right to organize our store. It 
felt as if we were being taken advantage of and bullied by a company 
who calls us ``Partners,'' but refuses to listen to us when we are 
quite literally begging to simply be heard.

    The ``progressive'' brand that Starbucks marketing aspires to 
represent completely faded from our view, and it truly felt as if we 
were at a standoff. Our store was the only one in our district to stay 
open throughout the entirety of the pandemic. Unfortunately, this 
captive audience meeting exposed both groups in both meetings to COVID 
and our store had to be shut down for 5 days. Multiple Partners caught 
COVID as a result of this meeting, but this careless mistake definitely 
didn't deter Starbucks from forcing us to endure more.

    Just 2 days before the captive audience meeting, January 17th to be 
exact, I was first introduced to Partners organizing at the Poplar and 
Highland store in my hometown of Memphis, Tennessee. I was so excited 
to work with them because after growing up there, Memphis has always 
been a place that is so dear to me. These Partners were so excited to 
organize, and mentioned that the majority of their store was on board 
too. They decided to go public with their campaign on Martin Luther 
King Jr. Day to honor Dr. King, and it was truly a beautiful moment to 
witness. Part of their motivation to unionize included COVID-related 
policies, exposed electrical lines that cold brew leaked on frequently, 
and being told to operate business in a store where standing water was 
present. In their letter to former Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson, these 
workers asked Starbucks to honor Martin Luther King Jr. Day by signing 
the Fair Election Principles \2\ and ending their union busting 
campaign. Instead, Starbucks only doubled down.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  See the attached copy of the Fair Election Principles workers 
sent to Starbucks.

    A few weeks later these Partners participated in a media interview 
inside their store, a matter in which Starbucks normally would take no 
issue with. Starbucks regularly reposts or shares videos taken in their 
stores by outside parties on their website and social media. These 
Partners confided in me once their District Manager began interrogating 
them about the interview with a member of Starbucks Partner Resources. 
They were fearful they would be fired. On February 8th, 2022, the 
Poplar and Highland store lost power during an ice storm when many 
Memphis residents were without power. Starbucks Managers decided to 
open the doors of the store anyway, powering the store with a generator 
They then proceeded to terminate seven Partners--almost all of them 
core members of the store's organizing committee, alleging minor 
violations of policy that are typically not enforced in most Starbucks 
stores across the nation. Prior to the Memphis 7 firings, I was helping 
organize a store from my home district in Jackson which just so 
happened to be under the same Regional Director that testified for 
Starbucks in the Memphis 7 10(j) injunction hearing. \3\ This store was 
excited to organize, but once the Memphis 7 were fired, the Partners 
shared their fear and would no longer have contact with us. The impact 
of those firings, and the over 200 more firings that have followed 
since then, have had a very broad reach and significant chilling impact 
on people's willingness to speak up or express themselves for fear of 
facing retaliation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes 
the National Labor Relations Board to seek temporary injunctions in 
Federal district courts to stop unfair labor practices while a case is 
being litigated before administrative law judges and the Board. https:/
/www.nlrb.gov/what-we-do/investigate-charges/10j-
injunctions#:?:text=Section percent2010(j) percent 20of 
percent20the,law percent20judges percent20and percent20the 
percent20Board.

    Throughout all of the chaos around the Memphis 7 firings, Starbucks 
was still aggressively trying to fight off the threat of unionization 
in my store. Suddenly, our moldy grout lines were swiftly repaired and 
COVID was the sole blame for no contractor being able to fix it for 
over 6 months. It felt like every day we were walking into a different 
one-on-one meeting with our Store Manager, where she would highlight 
all of the ``lovely'' benefits Starbucks provided. But these benefits 
have become so costly over the years that most Partners can't even 
truly afford to use them. For example, when I surveyed my store, only 
one Partner used the Starbucks health insurance plan. What Starbucks 
failed to realize is that they should have been listening to us all 
along, and they were actually showing some of our Partners that by 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
standing together we can facilitate change at the store level.

    Days prior to ballots being mailed out for our election, Managers 
closed our store for hour-long periods, most during peak operating 
times, to hold impromptu captive audience meetings. There were even 
more Managers from the area in these meetings to speak at us about the 
Partner experience. One Store Manager spoke about working in a job that 
had a union and signing the contract to become a member without 
realizing it. It was clear this was a distant memory as she talked of 
being ``forced'' to pay dues, but when asked what the terms of her 
contract was she couldn't share a single detail and ceased speaking for 
the rest of the meeting. It felt like the company was suddenly paying 
full attention to us, but not listening to us, and were willing to 
throw absolutely anything at us to deter us from successfully 
organizing.

    Throughout the campaign, I personally faced numerous accusations 
from my Store Manager about my motives for organizing, with some 
comments even taking aim at my character. Partners were pulled aside 
while on the clock to have conversations that were supposed to be 
geared toward ``performance development.'' Rather than focusing on 
Partners' concerns and development with the company, Partners told me 
that these conversations were mostly centered around my presence in the 
organizing drive. They tried to turn the Partners who I care about so 
deeply and share the floor with day in and day out against me, and 
unfortunately it was successful with some, which pains me still to this 
day.

    My Store Manager began working on the floor regularly on shifts I 
worked, something that only happened maybe once in my 2 years at this 
store prior to organizing. She would heavily scrutinize my performance 
to the extent that my Partners would check in with me, and ask if I was 
mentally okay. It's a lot of pressure to be under, feeling as if every 
aspect of your performance is suddenly under a microscope. My Store 
Manager made unprovoked comments like, ``I don't have time to retrain 
you on bar,'' in front of a cafe full of customers whose names and 
drinks I know and make daily. I remember feeling powerless, and, quite 
frankly, pretty embarrassed that customers witnessed my Manager 
unfairly lambasting my performance. One Partner told me that our 
Manager even told them that she believed the union organizers ``would 
walk straight past her if she was passed out on the floor,'' and 
referred to me personally as a narcissist for helping our store file 
the paperwork to organize. The Partner who was told this ended up 
getting fired from her 6-year position, and we will take part in a 
Federal hearing pursuing immediate reinstatement for them next month.

    We ultimately went on to win our vote 1 year ago today, March 29, 
2022. We won by a vote of 8-7. Since then, we've consistently attempted 
to try to bargain in good faith with the company. Our store's 
bargaining committee first sent our request to bargain on April 7, 
2022. To date, the company has scheduled one bargaining session with 
our store that took place on December 6, 2022, in which the company 
walked out on us within 30 minutes of the session starting. I have been 
able to attend a few virtual bargaining sessions with the Elmwood and 
Genesee Street locations in Buffalo, New York. These sessions were 
usually around three to 4 hours, and being in them felt exhausting. We 
came to the table with proposals in hand, eager to finally bargain and 
it seemed as if the company wasn't willing to participate in any 
meaningful way. It felt as if they were checking a legal box, only 
agreeing to bargain on what appeared to be a surface level.

    Shortly after my store voted successfully to join Starbucks Workers 
United, the company announced that Partners who voted to join the union 
before May 3d would not receive the $15 per hour wage increase first 
announced in October 2021. The company also announced an entirely new 
and generous benefits package that, coincidentally, included core 
proposals we had brought up at the bargaining table in Buffalo, such as 
credit card tipping, a more lax dress code, and a larger percentage 
wage increase for tenured workers. At the bottom, Starbucks wrote, 
``New pay and benefits changes will be applied to stores where 
Starbucks has the right to unilaterally make these changes, not where 
Starbucks lacks the right to make these changes''--meaning it would not 
apply to unionized stores. My Partners and I spoke about feeling like 
the company was using this new package like a cat toy, dangling them in 
front of our faces as reasons why we should be completely comfortable 
not having a voice in the workplace.

    It's hardly a coincidence that these generous benefits were 
announced at a time where unionized stores were growing in numbers. 
I'll never forget the day that I watched over Zoom as 16 stores won 
their union elections. My Partners, along with thousands of Partners 
across the country, still do not have access to these benefits, and it 
doesn't appear as if we have a company that is willing to sit across 
the table from us and bargain for them.

    This is part of my store's campaign story, but if you look to the 
7,500 plus members of Starbucks Workers United, you will find thousands 
of stories that detail similar or more grotesque accounts of Starbucks' 
behavior during their scorched earth union busting campaign. My co-
worker Michelle Eisen stated it perfectly when she testified before the 
House Committee on Education and Labor last year, ``it should NOT take 
an act of bravery to ensure that we have a voice at work.'' The laws in 
place now allow so much room for companies to harshly assert themselves 
over their workers. Unequal resources combined with unbalanced power 
dynamics and inadequate labor laws ensure that the company's voice will 
often be louder than the collective voice of workers.

    We as a movement are challenging that notion, and are therefore in 
turn challenging the world to stand with us against billionaire 
bullies. We desperately need action in the form of updated labor law, 
such as passing the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, to attempt to 
level the unequal balance of power between workers and billion dollar 
corporations and their wealthy CEOs. Workers need the National Labor 
Relations Board to have a larger budget, so that when companies do 
choose the worst form of retaliation possible, termination, they won't 
have to wait months or years for their lives to return to a semblance 
of normal. Most of all, we need stronger protections to be able to hold 
greedy CEOs like former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz accountable.

    Schultz has made a career trying to sell the myth of him offering 
benefits to part-time workers because he wanted to operate a 
``different kind of company'' after being raised by a struggling 
father. I am a single mother working tirelessly for this company to 
support my family for 4 years, and I'm certainly not alone in feeling 
nothing but left behind by the company during a time where everything 
we knew about the world was uncertain. Starbucks is not building a 
``Partner-first'' culture, nor are they showing a ``commitment to 
support the shared success of all Partners,'' by essentially refusing 
to negotiate with the workers who sought union representation. I don't 
believe you can be pro-Partner and anti-union, and it's well past time 
for the company to meet us at the table and bargain a fair contract 
with their workers. Help us hold them accountable. Thank you for 
allowing Partners to have a seat at this table alongside Howard 
Schultz, because that is significantly more than he has been willing to 
offer.

    To Starbucks' new CEO, Laxman Narasimhan, you have an opportunity 
to chart a different course, to truly make Starbucks the ``different 
kind of company'' Schultz promised, but failed, epically, to produce. 
The transition in the C-Suite is a chance for your company to stop its 
unprecedented campaign of union busting and instead partner with us, 
your so-called Partners, and our union, to build a company that truly 
lives up to its stated progressive values.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of maggie carter]
    My name is Maggie Carter, and I am a single mom to a beautiful 8-
year-old boy named Colson. Being his mom is the absolute greatest gift 
of my life. He's why I ended up at Starbucks, the only place to offer 
me part-time benefits and what I thought would be flexible scheduling 
while in school. As a lesbian woman living in Tennessee, I was also 
drawn to Starbucks by its reputation as a progressive employer. I 
started working at Starbucks in Jackson, Tennessee in May 2019. I was 
paid $8.35 an hour. Then March 2020 came and it felt as if the world 
shut down, just not at Starbucks. I worked consistently from day one of 
the pandemic. As a single mom I didn't have a choice.

    In April 2020, I told my Manager I needed to move from Jackson to 
Knoxville. I only had 48 hours to decide between quitting and being re-
hired in Knoxville, losing all my seniority and benefits, or taking a 
leave of absence without pay and crossing my fingers to see if I would 
be transferred to a Knoxville store. Because of COVID, the company had 
frozen the normally easy transfer process. I couldn't risk losing my 
benefits, so I chose the second option, but it meant I went without pay 
for about 3 months. Luckily, I was able to begin work at a Knoxville 
store in August 2020. The whole situation was a punch to the gut and 
the emotional impact of the disrespect I felt ultimately contributed to 
my belief in the need to organize a union.

    In October 2021 Starbucks announced that starting pay would 
increase to $15 per hour almost a year later. I scoured the internet 
searching for information about the pay increase and I learned about 
Starbucks workers organizing. I shared information with my co-workers. 
We decided to stand together and file for an election on Christmas Eve. 
We were proud to be the first store to file in the South. But it wasn't 
without an epic fight because Starbucks resisted us every step of the 
way. Just 5 days after announcing our union drive, our Regional 
Director drove to our store from out of state, and was working 
alongside my Partners. It is the first time in my entire time with the 
company that I've met a Regional Director in person.

    Partners suddenly started getting disciplined for minor dress code 
violations and being five or so minutes late. Days prior to ballots 
being mailed out for the election, Managers closed our store for hour-
long periods, most during peak operating times, to hold impromptu 
captive audience meetings. It felt like the company was willing to 
throw absolutely anything at us to deter us from organizing. We won our 
vote 1 year ago today, March 29, 2022. Since then, we've made every 
attempt to bargain in good faith with the company. The company walked 
out on our store's only scheduled bargaining session after 30 minutes. 
On May 3d, the company announced that Partners who were organizing or 
had already unionized would not receive a series of important benefit 
increases that non-union stores would be granted. We still do not have 
access to these benefits.

    This is part of my store's campaign story, but if you look at the 
7,500 plus members of Starbucks Workers United you will find thousands 
of similar or worse stories. Dated laws allow so much room for 
companies to harshly assert themselves. Unequal resources combined with 
unbalanced power dynamics ensure that the company's voice will often be 
louder than the collective voice of workers. You cannot be pro-Partner 
and anti-union, and it's well past time for the company to meet us at 
the table and bargain a fair contract. Help us hold them accountable. 
To Starbucks' new CEO, Laxman Narisimahn, you have an opportunity to 
chart a different course, to truly make Starbucks the ``different kind 
of company'' Howard Schultz promised, but failed, epically, to produce. 
This is a chance for your company to stop its unprecedented campaign of 
union busting and instead partner with us, your so-called Partners, and 
our union to build a company that truly lives up to its stated 
progressive values.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Thank you, Ms. Carter. Our next witness is 
Jaysin Saxton, who is a former Starbucks shift supervisor. Mr. 
Saxon started working at Starbucks in Augusta, Georgia, in 
2019.

    He and his coworkers successfully unionized their store in 
April 2022, and in July 22, after a 2-day strike, he was 
illegally fired by Starbucks. Mr. Saxton, thanks very much for 
being with us.

  STATEMENT OF JAYSIN SAXTON, FIRED STARBUCKS WORKER LEADER, 
                          AUGUSTA, GA

    Mr. Saxton. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. My name is Jaysin 
Saxon. I am a wrongfully fired Starbucks worker from Augusta, 
Georgia. I started with the company in 2019, hired on as a 
shift 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 2 year old Ava.

    I got to be there for the customers who relied on us during 
the pandemic and support my coworkers, 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 faced many failed and broken systems working at 
Starbucks 1 day when we began to organize a union. We saw that 
Starbucks had failed at honoring its stated mission 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 coworkers.

    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 2 minutes late, which 
had never happened before. Terminations increased to 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 one 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 Seven, 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 coworkers 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 Seven 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. 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 led a 2-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 filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB 
seeking to be reinstated at Starbucks. Starbucks and big 
corporations have a lot of power and money, and they are 
willing to pull out all the stops today to deny workers a voice 
and a seat at the table in a union. That is why I am 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 am proud to 
be a leader of this new labor movement. We are taking on 
corporate power and fighting for all of us.

    One day my daughter's 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. I know 
she will also read that we took on one of the most powerful 
corporations and won. That is why I keep fighting, and that 
makes everything worth it.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Saxton follows:]
                  prepared statement of jaysin saxton
    My name is Jaysin Saxton. I'm a disabled veteran of the U.S. Coast 
Guard, a proud father to a beautiful 2-year old girl, Ava, and a former 
Starbucks Shift Supervisor.

    I grew up in a small, predominantly Black area in Georgia. I always 
say I grew up in Atlanta because it's easier, most people don't know 
Decatur. At a pretty young age, I realized I liked learning, going to 
church on the weekends with my grandmother, and being of service.

    When I was 7-years-old, my grandmother was diagnosed with breast 
cancer and passed away. She was my best friend. I stepped up to take 
care of my mom. Things weren't going too well with my dad, and we were 
preparing to move to a mostly white neighborhood an hour away. I didn't 
grieve much, because I wanted to make sure I was available to show up 
for my family.

    After graduating high school, I began working random jobs to 
contribute to the household. I worked with staffing agencies and 
packaging companies, and it was fine, but I wanted to do more than just 
pay my bills. My dad suggested that my brother and I join the military. 
So we did.

    I joined the Coast Guard, because I wanted to be close to home and 
go on rescue missions. Become a leader in my own right. I did not 
realize that I would be one of two people of color there. I experienced 
racism in the form of daily microaggressions. After 3 years and a 
diagnosis of osteoarthritis impacting my back and foot at the time, I 
was honorably discharged from the Coast Guard.

    In the Coast Guard I did technical drawing and after being 
honorably discharged, I decided to take advantage of the G.I. Bill and 
applied to Savannah College of Art and Design. I took a year off from 
working at Walmart and part-time at a pizza place to focus on school. I 
graduated in 2018, and college opened up so much for me.

    In 2019, my roommate encouraged me to apply for a job at Starbucks 
and I did.

    Previously, I said ``former Starbucks worker'' because I was 
wrongfully fired after helping lead a successful union organizing drive 
at my store in Augusta, Georgia. I never imagined I would lead a union 
organizing campaign. Ultimately, I along with almost a quarter of the 
coworkers at my store were wrongfully fired. The majority of the 
workers who were fired at my store were people of color and/or people 
in the LGBTQ+ community.

    A Starbucks partner at my store was fired just last week. Together, 
we are a dozen of the 211 workers Starbucks has wrongfully fired since 
we started organizing with Starbucks Workers United more than a year 
ago. This hasn't stopped our fight.

    In 2019, I was hired to work as the closing Shift Supervisor \1\ 
from midday to 10 pm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  ``Shift Supervisor'' is a non-managerial position.

    Things certainly weren't perfect, but I could see why I had heard 
it was a progressive company--a good company to work for. And as a 
special bonus, I met my wife, who was a Barista, on the job. So I will 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
forever be grateful for that.

    But then COVID hit and everything changed. Starbucks closed most of 
the stores in my district, but my store remained open. During all of 
this, my wife was having a difficult pregnancy and I was terrified I 
would bring COVID home to her. We were working with people who were 
sick. We were always short staffed. We asked for breaks and were told 
no. I was only being paid $12 an hour at the time.

    Starbucks put in place some policies that they said were to protect 
us Partners--that's what they call us--but then they just took them 
away a few months later while the pandemic was still raging.

    In October 2020, my wife gave birth to Ava. I took family leave and 
added all my vacation and sick time in. When I came back to work, COVID 
was starting to die down a bit, but Starbucks was making our lives 
harder with new changes.

    During the pandemic, there were significant increases in drive-thru 
business and mobile ordering business in addition to regular cafe 
service. Partners were working a lot harder and experiencing more 
stress, but there was no increase in pay or resources to meet these new 
goals and expectations. At the same time, I kept getting passed over 
for promotions by people with less experience.

    I later learned that the Hiring Manager had an issue with me 
wearing sweatpants to work, however my osteoarthritis requires that I 
wear loosely fitted pants or I would suffer sharp pains during my 
shift.

    So in late 2021, when I 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 coworkers.

    We were in constant fear that we might get sick and that we would 
make our families sick. During the pandemic we had so many orders 
coming in over the app, management would turn off the mobile orders so 
we could take a lunch break, but after a certain point they required 
that it be on at all times. Often when people asked for a break they 
were told ``no.''

    Conversations in my store at that time were the same as the 
conversations we heard from workers across the country at that time--
low pay, lack of benefits like good parental leave and affordable 
healthcare, and inadequate training.

    I wanted to be there for the customers who relied on us during this 
uncertain time, and Partners' families were also going through some 
really tough times too. The child tax and stimulus helped my family for 
a bit, but we were still below the poverty line.

    We were ALL dealing with the same concerns and we were all tired of 
it. 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. They would rarely speak to us andjust sit in a corner of the 
cafe and write notes about us.
    The notes would become discipline for minor things that happened in 
the store like being written up for being 2 minutes late, which we had 
never experienced before we started organizing our union.

    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. They would say, ``This is a union card, you do 
not have to sign it.'' Management would tell us that we would lose our 
benefits and hours if we unionized. They posted anti-union materials 
that distinguished and felt like a threat about what unionized stores 
would not get and non-unionized stores would get.

    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. These workers boldly organized to demand better pay, health 
coverage, and stronger safety procedures. 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 our Store Manager with an 
interim one, but it backfired as more people got on board with the 
union. In April, our store won our union election by a landslide, 26-5, 
despite all of the threats and intimidation.

    Starbucks retaliation and union-busting ramped up even more after 
we won our election. Store hours were constantly changing and hours 
kept getting cut. People were fired right on the shop floor for what 
seemed like nothing at all.

    They fired seven of our union members, two of them were Shift 
Supervisors. Two Partners requested medical and maternity leave, 
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.''

    We were constantly being watched. Each person working the floor at 
Starbucks wears a headset to communicate with each other about food and 
drink orders, to take drive-thru orders, and discuss conditions in the 
store as needed. Once we started organizing, Managers would use these 
headsets to listen in on our conversations, never saying anything, just 
listening. We only had enough headsets per store for the employees on 
the floor--so when a Manager took a headset, that meant that one of us 
had to go without. There was at least one person active in the union 
drive fired after management claimed they heard over the headset that 
one of my coworkers cursed on the floor--even though she didn't.

    My headset was denied to me while I was working a few times between 
March 2022 and August 2022, when I was wrongfully fired. As far as I 
have heard, my coworkers are still having their headsets taken away for 
what we believe is surveillance at my store.

    It created a real culture of fear. A lot of my coworkers were 
scared. More often than not, I'd be the most vocal--which put me at 
higher risk for retaliation.

    In July, I led a 2-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--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 National 
Labor Relations Board seeking to be reinstated at Starbucks, but the 
company subpoenaed my text messages with union organizers, and now the 
case challenging my termination has been postponed because we believe 
Starbucks' subpoena is unlawful. I believe the request for my text 
messages has nothing to do with my termination but instead is Starbucks 
trying to pry into private discussions about the organizing campaign 
and an attempt to scare workers like me from standing up against their 
union busting and bullying tactics.

    Starbucks and 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 am thrilled to be here 
today-to have witnessed firsthand Howard Schultz being held to account 
for his company's illegal behavior

    All we want is respect, to have a little more dignity, and to have 
more of a say in what we have to do on a day to day basis. I'm proud to 
be a leader of this new labor movement--when 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. That makes everything worth it.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of jaysin saxton]
    My name is Jaysin Saxton, I am a wrongfully fired Starbucks worker 
from Augusta, GA. I started with the company in 2019 as a Shift 
Supervisor. In time I became the go to, not only for the 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 wife working there, who is now 
the mother of our 2 year old, Ava. I got to be there for the customers 
who relied on us during the pandemic, and support my coworkers', whose 
families were also going through some really tough times.

    Being a disabled veteran, with osteoarthritis of the thoracic and 
lumbar 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. 
So in late 2021, when I started to hear about Starbucks workers in 
Buffalo organizing a union, I thought, `we need this, too.' I reached 
out to Starbucks Workers United and began talking to my coworkers. We 
kept organizing, despite increasing retaliation and surveillance. 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. 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.

    In April of last year, our store won our union election by a 
landslide. 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. People 
were fired right on the shop floor. They fired seven of our union 
members, two of them were shift supervisors. In July, I led a 2-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 --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. Starbucks and 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 am 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 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. 
That makes everything worth it.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Mr. Saxton, 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 in the 
NLRB. Ms. Block, thanks so much for being with us.

 STATEMENT OF SHARON BLOCK, PROFESSOR OF PRACTICE, HARVARD LAW 
                     SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE, MA

    Ms. Block. 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 would 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 would 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 NLRB 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 NLRB 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 would 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 will address the scope of the violations. As you 
have heard already, Starbucks is facing more than 500 
allegations that it has violated the NLRB, and already 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 am 
not aware of another company in recent years that has had this 
many allegations leveled against it, or these many allegations 
found to have merit.

    The egregiousness of many of the violations also makes this 
campaign stand out. For decades, Ford Law has deemed the firing 
of pro-union workers during an organizing campaign as a 
hallmark violation.

    That is a violation that is likely to have significant 
impact, not just on the worker who is fired, but also on the 
organizing rights of coworkers. 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.

    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 in 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, especially 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 is 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.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Block follows:]
                   prepared statement of sharon block
    Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Cassidy and Committee Members

    Thank you for inviting me to testify today about the union 
organizing campaign at Starbucks. I'm Sharon Block and I'm a professor 
at Harvard Law School and the Executive Director of the Center for 
Labor and a Just Economy there. I am testifying in my personal 
capacity, not as a representative of Harvard. I also served for a long 
period of time as a career civil servant at the NLRB and then as a 
Member of the Board during the Obama administration.

    It is in the context of my long association with the NLRB that I 
would like to start my testimony by recognizing the great work that has 
been done by the NLRB career staff with regard to the Starbucks 
campaign. They have worked restlessly to process hundreds of requests 
for elections, conduct those elections to ensure their fairness and 
then to investigate and assess the many hundreds of allegations of 
violations that Starbucks workers have made about the company's 
conduct. Nothing about how professionally the career staff has handled 
this monumental task has surprised me. I know them first hand to be 
consummate professionals and dedicated public servants.

    Next, I would 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 in the Act. The Act states in 
Section 1 \1\ that it is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  29 U.S.C. Sec. 151.

          the policy of the United States to . . . encourage[e] the 
        practice and procedure of collective bargaining and . . . 
        protect[s] the exercise by workers of full freedom of 
        association, self-organization, and designation of 
        representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of 
        negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        other mutual aid or protection.

    It is important to understand that the NLRA does not guarantee a 
particular outcome. It does not guarantee workers that they 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--both for deciding questions of 
representation and for negotiating with their employers. Thought of in 
this way, you can say that NLRA establishes the rule of law for the 
workplace, just as our constitution and legal system establish the rule 
of law for our democracy.

    And so the question for this hearing is whether Starbucks has 
undermined the ability of workers to be treated fairly in their quest 
to decide for themselves whether they want to act collectively through 
union representation. Put another way, when faced with the breadth and 
seriousness of the violations alleged by Starbucks workers, the 
question is whether Starbucks is denying workers the rule of law in the 
workplace.

    I would 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 
very seriously because otherwise it will send a message to workers 
across the economy that their rights are not real or have no meaning.

    First, I will address the scope of the violations. As you have 
heard already, Starbucks is facing hundreds of allegations that it has 
violated the National Labor Relations Act. My understanding is that so 
far, in just the 18 months that the campaign has been underway, 
Starbucks workers have .led more than 500 unfair labor practice charges 
\2\ in relation to the Company's conduct in response to the campaign. 
Already the NLRB General Counsel has found merit in more than half of 
those charges. In addition, four Board members (from both political 
pares) \3\ and seven administrative law judges \4\ have found that 
Starbucks has committed violations of the Act. The overwhelming 
majority of the remaining allegations have not yet been dealt with by 
Board agents--very few allegations have been dismissed and no findings 
of violations by ALJs or the Board have been overturned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  Reuters, ``Barista union to ask Starbucks shareholders to back 
labor review,'' Hillary Russ, Mar. 10, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/
business/retail-consumer/barista-union-ask-starbucks-shareholders-back-
labor-review--2023-03-10/.
    \3\  Starbucks Corp., Case 18--CA--293653 (Mar. 3, 2023) (Judge 
Geoffrey Carter), Starbucks Corp., Cases 03-CA-285671 et al. (Mar. 1, 
2023) (Judge Michael Rosas), Starbucks Corp., Cases 07-CA-293742 et al. 
(Feb 9, 2023) (Judge Christal Key), Starbucks Corp., Cases 27--CA--
290551 et al. (Feb. 6, 2023) (Judge Amita Tracy), Siren Retail Corp., 
Case 19-CA--290905 (Jan. 31, 2023) (Judge John Giannopoulos), Starbucks 
Corp., Cases 19-CA-289275 et al. (Nov. 3, 2022) (Judge John 
Giannopoulos), Starbucks Corp., Cases 14-CA-290968 et al. (Oct. 12, 
2022) (Judge Arthur Amchan), Starbucks Corp., Cases 07--CA--292971 et 
al. (Oct. 7, 2022) (Judge Geoffrey Carter), and Starbucks Corp., 372 
NLRB. No. 50 (2023) (Judge Andrew Gollin below).
    \4\  Starbucks Corp., 372 NLRB. No. 50 (Chairman McFerran and 
Members Wilcox and Prouty parcipang), and Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a 
Starbucks, 372 NLRB No. 10 (2023) (Chairman McFerran and Members Kaplan 
and Wilcox parcipang).

    While it sadly has become quite common for companies to respond 
hostilely and often unlawfully to organizing campaigns by their 
workers, I am not aware of another company of any size in recent years 
that has had this many allegations leveled against it--not merely 
viewed on a per employee basis but also when viewed on an aggregate 
basis. Although my career spans too long a period to be able to say 
this with absolute certainty, I am fairly confident that I have never 
witnessed a company amass so many unfair labor practice allegations 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
over a similar period of me.

    The egregiousness of many of the violations also makes this 
campaign stand out. Let's start with allegations and findings that 
Starbucks has .red workers who were serving as union organizers. 
Already, administrative law judges and district court judges have found 
that Starbucks has .red more than 20 workers because of their 
organizing activity or because they cooperated with the Board's 
investigations. \5\ For decades, Board law has deemed the .ring of pro-
union workers during an organizing campaign as a ``hallmark'' violaon--
that is, one that is likely to have a significant impact on both the 
.red employee and the organizing rights of coworkers. In 1941, the 
Fourth Circuit in a case called Entwistle Manufacturing, recognized 
that this kind of conduct ``goes to the very heart of the Act.'' \6\ By 
the Fourth Circuit's logic, Starbucks has struck at the heart of its 
workers' statutory rights again and again over the past 18 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Kerwin v. Starbucks, No. 22-cv-12761,--F. Supp.3d--(E.D. Mich. 
2023), McKinney v. Starbucks, No. 2:22-cv--2292-SHL-cgc, 2022 WL 
5434206,--F. Supp.3d--(W.D. Tenn. 2022), Starbucks Corp., Cases 03-CA-
285671 et al., Starbucks Corp, Cases 27--CA--290551 et al., and 
Starbucks Corp., Cases 07--CA--292971 et al.
    \6\  120 F.2d 532 (4th Cir. 1941).

    Starbucks has been accused of committing a number of additional 
hallmark violations, ranging from threats to close stores to granting 
benefits for the purpose of influencing workers' feelings about the 
union to actually closing stores that had campaigns underway. The 
administrative law judges that have reviewed Starbucks' conduct have 
characterized it as extreme. For example, a judge in the Buffalo cases 
found that Starbucks had engaged in ``egregious and widespread 
misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for employees' fundamental 
rights.'' \7\ It took the judge more than 200 pages to describe all the 
misconduct that he found Starbucks to have perpetrated. In addition, at 
least two Federal district court judges have taken the extraordinary 
step of ordering baristas returned to their jobs even before the Board 
has made a finding because of the seriousness of the allegations that 
the workers had been fired for their union activity and the strength of 
the evidence supporting the allegations. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  Starbucks Corp., Cases 03-CA-285671 et al., slip op. at 196 
(Mar. 1, 2023).
    \8\  McKinney and Kerwin, supra.

    Let's remember two important facts--(1) the Board agents who have 
investigated these charges and the administrative law judges who have 
made these finding of violations are career Federal employees and (2) 
they are just at the beginning of adjudicating the allegations against 
Starbucks. There are more than 80 trials either underway or still to be 
held. So, it seems likely that this catalog of hallmark violations will 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
grow in the coming days and months.

    That observation leads to my second point. What has happened at 
Starbucks is not just a collection of individual violations. To see the 
full extent of the damage that Starbucks has done to its workers' 
rights, these violations must be viewed as part of a single effort to 
stop organizing at the company. In my experience, it simply isn't 
credible to assert that there have been more than 500 isolated 
incidents of misconduct during this campaign. Instead, it is much more 
credible that the company has launched its own campaign--to deny 
workers a fair chance to exercise the rights guaranteed to them by the 
National Labor Relations Act.

    The geographic scope of these violations shows that these aren't 
isolated incidents or the product of a few bad supervisory apples in 
the barrel. The allegations or findings of violations span 38 states. 
Moreover, as was just discussed on the previous panel, Mr. Schultz's 
own conduct is the subject of many allegations of violations. \9\ The 
Board has long accorded particular weight to violations committed by 
high-ranking company officials. During this campaign, until last week, 
there has been no one higher ranking at Starbucks than Mr. Schultz.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  https://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-294579, https://www.nlrb.gov/
case/21-CA-294571, and https://www.nlrb.gov/case/19-CA-297589.

    Most significantly, the violations alleged and found demonstrate a 
pattern to undermine the union at every stage of its campaign to 
represent and bargain on behalf of Starbucks workers. The allegedly 
unlawful conduct started during the onset of the first campaign in 
Buffalo. There have been allegations at multiple sites to threaten or 
intimidate baristas before they file petitions for elections, while 
those petitions are pending and then after the union has won elections. 
The NLRB also has found that Starbucks' unlawful behavior has extended 
to the bargaining table, finding that the company has refused to 
bargain in good faith. The pattern of violations has followed every 
stage of the campaign. As new locations start the organizing process, 
we see the same patterns play out. First, pro-union workers at Buffalo 
were fired, threatened or otherwise retaliated against by the company. 
Then in Tennessee, Michigan, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri 
and on and on as the organizing campaign spread across the country and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
matured in each location.

    The message sent to Starbucks employees by this pattern of 
violations is one of disregard for their rights under the NLRA. Each 
time the company commits a new violation in a new location or at a new 
stage in the union's campaign, it can be understood to be 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.

    As someone who has been inspired by the energy of the baristas that 
I have met and read about, I am now concerned about the wider message 
that Starbucks' vast anti-union campaign sends. Workers across the 
country--especially low-wage workers--also have been inspired by what 
the Starbucks baristas have achieved over the past 18 months. It cannot 
be a coincidence that record high public support for unions according 
to several independent polling organizations has coincided with the 
Starbucks baristas' approximately 300 election victories. Nor can it be 
a coincidence that nascent union organizing campaigns have taken off in 
several other high profile retail chains in the baristas' organizing 
wake. 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 the rights of Starbucks workers to organize and to sit 
at a bargaining table, if they choose, with their employer--even if 
their employer is a huge, Fortune 500 company and even if their 
employer really does not want them to have a union. It is a bedrock of 
our democracy that the law applies to everyone, including the most 
powerful. I believe that labor unions play an important role in 
protecting that bedrock principle. So I also believe that much is at 
stake in ensuring that Starbucks' workers' rights to choose whether to 
unionize are protected and respected.

    Thank you for your time. I am happy to answer any questions.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of sharon block]
    In my testimony, I plan to discuss the following points:

    I will address my experience with the professionalism and 
dedication of NLRB career public servants.

    Next, I will address that the purpose of the National Labor 
Relations Act is to guarantee employees a fair process when deciding 
whether or not to be represented by a union or bargain collectively 
with their employer, not to guarantee union representation or a 
particular outcome at the bargaining table.

    I will make three additional points in my testimony. First, I will 
discuss my observation that 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.

    In support of this point, I will note that Starbucks is facing more 
than 500 allegations that it has violated the NLRA and already 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. I will note that the violations found 
so far include many violations of the type considered to be 
``hallmark'' violations--that is, violations that affect the rights not 
only of the workers directly involved but also the rights of coworkers 
and the integrity of the process.

    Second, I will discuss my opinion that 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, I will share that I believe that it is critical that 
egregious conduct is taken very seriously because otherwise it sends a 
message to workers across the economy that their rights might not be 
valued or respected in their workplaces.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Thank you, Ms. Block. Senator Cassidy is voting, 
so I am going to introduce his witnesses. 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.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRADLEY BYRNE, OF COUNSEL, ADAMS & REESE LLP, 
                           MOBILE, AL

    Mr. Byrne. Thank you, Senator Sanders, and I appreciate the 
opportunity to be here. I have 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 is 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 am 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 is to make sure that the employees make a free 
and uncoerced decision. It is not to protect the management of 
the company. It is not to protect the union.

    It is 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 have 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 of the 
NLRB do exactly that. Unfortunately, we know that at least, in 
at least one case, that was violated. It was violated 
egregiously, and a hearing officer found four different 
violations. Now, here is the problem with all of that.

    If you do something that challenges the integrity of the 
process, you have challenged the integrity of the vote. And if 
you had challenged the integrity of the vote, you have 
challenged the integrity of the entire system. Because, 
remember, it is there to give the employees the final decision, 
not the company, and certainly not the union.

    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 and practice at the NLRB of violating their 
neutrality obligation.

    If there is a pattern of practice, is that pattern practice 
being directed from people in higher echelons of agencies? I am 
very concerned by public statements, public positions taken by 
the General Counsel of the NLRB.

    The General Counsel is a political appointee. There is 
nothing wrong with that. That is true when you have Republican 
Presidents, just like it is true when you have a Democrat 
President. But whether you are a Democratic appointed NLRB 
General Counsel, or a 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 said law, and it also 
flies in the face of what I have been hearing a lot about 
recently, and that is 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, if they have done in some of these 
Starbucks elections, that is the law. They get to have the 
union represent them. But in many cases, they vote no.

    In the vast majority of cases where I represent an employer 
representation election, the employees chose not to have a 
union represent them, fine. Whichever way they vote, it 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.

    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.

    [The prepared statement of Mr. Byrne follows:]
                  prepared statement of bradley byrne
    My name is Bradley Byrne. I have practiced law for 43 years. A 
large part of my practice has been in the area of labor and employment 
law. I have represented clients in numerous representation elections 
conducted by regional offices of the National Labor Relations Board. I 
also served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 7 years during 
which time I sat on the Committee for Education and the Workforce and 
chaired the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections.

    Let me say at the outset that I don't represent Starbucks and have 
no position on whether Starbucks has violated any law or regulation. 
Nor do I have a position on the outcome of the elections involving 
Starbucks stores around the U.S.. I leave that up to the wisdom of the 
workers in those stores.

    I'm here today to express concerns that I have about misconduct by 
NLRB agents in at least one of the Starbucks elections, and my further 
concern that there may be a pattern and practice here. Again, I have no 
objection to a union organizing Starbucks stores, but the process in at 
least one such election may indicate something threatening the 
integrity of representation elections in general.

    Let me give you a brief explanation of the process normally 
followed in representation elections. A union will communicate with 
workers at a particular employer's location and try to convince them to 
sign cards indicating that the worker signing the card wants to be 
represented by the union as to the terms and conditions of his or her 
employment. Once they have a number of signed cards the union will then 
file a petition with the appropriate NLRB Regional office seeking 
recognition. An NLRB agent with that region will contact the employer, 
who may or may not know that the union has been trying to organize its 
employees, and if the employer requests an election to determine the 
true decision of the workers in the unit designated, a process begins 
which will end in a secret vote by each employee in the unit.

    The NLRB agent will attempt to get the union and the employer to 
agree as to the details of the election--exactly who is in the unit, 
when and where the election will be held, etc. Once that stipulated 
agreement is reached, its provisions govern the conduct of the 
election, unless the parties reach a subsequent agreement to amend it.

    The National Labor Relations Act's purpose is not to favor 
employers or unions in the conduct of these elections. Its purpose is 
to assure that the employees in the unit have a full and free 
opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they want to be 
represented by the union, free of coercion. Therefore, once the 
petition is filed, the NLRB agent and region involved must assure 
``laboratory conditions'' during the campaign period.

    Again, the decision is up to the employees in the unit and no one 
else.

    As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in the 1981 decision of First 
National Maintenance Corp. v NLRB, the NLRB agents involved in an 
election must carry out their duties supervising an election in a 
neutral manner, favoring neither party and protecting the integrity of 
the process.

    This neutrality is central to the obligation to maintain laboratory 
conditions, and to the assurance of integrity in the election process.

    The employer and the union can communicate their reasons against 
and for the vote but there are significant limitations on those 
communications which are overseen and enforced by the NLRB agents 
involved, again in a neutral and impartial manner.

    When the day of election comes the NLRB agent conducts the election 
and each employee in the unit who chooses to vote does so by a secret 
ballot to assure there is no coercion. At the end of the voting period 
the NLRB agent counts the ballots in the presence of employer and union 
representatives and then declares the vote. It takes a majority of 
votes in the affirmative for the union to be certified as the 
representative of all the employees in the unit as to the terms and 
conditions of their employment.

    One important note is that during the pandemic representation 
elections were conducted by mail which adds another set of details to 
work through to assure the integrity and accuracy of the vote.

    In my experience, NLRB agents overseeing elections have been 
professional and completely neutral, and have followed the applicable 
law and process. My clients haven't always received the results they 
desired but it wasn't because of NLRB misconduct.

    I presently represent a NLRB agent who has courageously come 
forward as a whistle blower regarding a specific representation 
election as to a Starbucks store. She is a consummate professional who 
doesn't care about the outcome of an election and therefor has no 
position as to whether Starbucks employees should or should not vote to 
be represented by the union. But she has knowledge of specific 
instances where NLRB personnel violated their neutrality obligations 
during this particular representation election and has brought that 
information to the Inspector General for the NLRB.

    I am not here today to testify for her. I can point you to the 
transcript and exhibits of a hearing held regarding neutrality 
violations in a Starbucks election and the findings of the Hearing 
Officer in that election, wherein he noted instances of violation of 
the duty of neutrality. Reading that transcript and those findings 
causes me to have great concern about the integrity of the 
representation election process. My concern is as a lawyer and as a 
former Congressman charged with oversight responsibilities over the 
NLRB.

    I respectfully ask this Committee to conduct an active 
investigation into this matter. Is the behavior in this one election a 
unique instance, a rogue ``one off'', or is there a pattern and 
practice of doing so in other representation elections? And, if there 
is a pattern and practice, is it being led or encouraged by those 
higher up?

    I am also concerned by the overt efforts by the NLRB's General 
Counsel to do away with elections altogether. This would mean that 
employers would be forced to recognize unions merely based on cards 
even when the employer has reason to believe that the cards don't 
reflect the views of the majority of employees in the unit. Unions lose 
many elections even when they present cards indicating a majority want 
union representation. Representation elections insure the purposes of 
the National Labor Relations Act are followed and that employees make 
their choice freely and without coercion.

    Representation elections have been conducted when employers have 
requested them for decades now, since the passage of the Taft Hartley 
Act, and ensconced in NLRB case law since the 1974 decision in Linden 
Lumber Division, Summers & Co. V NLRB. It has been recognized by the 
U.S. Supreme Court in the 1969 decision of NLRB v Gisselle Packing Co. 
The General Counsel's hostility to representation elections flies in 
the face of this well settled law.

    These NLRB agents supervising elections operate under the General 
Counsel's ultimate control. Given the present General Counsel's 
hostility to elections in general, I hope this Committee will use its 
oversight powers to assure that longstanding law and Board precedent is 
indeed being followed.

    I appreciate this opportunity to be heard and look forward to your 
questions.
                                 ______
                                 
                  [summary statement of bradley byrne]
    1. I do not represent Starbucks and have no position as to whether 
Starbucks has acted inappropriately in any union election nor do I have 
a position on the outcome of such an election.

    2. I am concerned by at least one instance of NLRB agent 
misconduct, specifically several violations of the obligation of 
neutrality, in a Starbucks election, reported by my client who is a 
whistleblower.

    3. I am not here to testify for my client but can point to a 
hearing officer's determination in a Starbucks election case that NLRB 
agents violated the obligation of neutrality.

    4. The obligation of neutrality is central to the NLRB's obligation 
to maintain laboratory conditions in representation elections.

    5. Such violations have hitherto unheard of in my years of labor 
and employment law practice.

    6. I am asking the Committee to conduct an oversight investigation 
as to whether these violations are limited to this one election or 
whether they are part of a pattern and practice, potentially guided by 
one or more persons in the NLRB hierarchy.

    7. The NLRB General Counsel's open hostility to representation 
elections make my concern more acute.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Mr. Byrne, thank you very much. Rachel Greszler 
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. 
Greszler, thanks very much for being with us.

 STATEMENT OF RACHEL GRESZLER, SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, GROVER 
  HERMANN CENTER FOR THE FEDERAL BUDGET, HERITAGE FOUNDATION, 
                         WASHINGTON, DC

    Ms. Greszler. Good morning--good afternoon and thank you 
for the opportunity to be here.

    The Chair. Is your mic on?

    Ms. Greszler. Yes, I will----

    The Chair. Okay, hold it close.

    Ms. Greszler. 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 of 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 competition--compensation.

    While that benefited union workers in the short run, it 
meant more expensive cars, fewer people to 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 9 to 5 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, union advantages have been waning. Since 
2007, nonunion 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 disease rats 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.

    But 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 the 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 is 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, 
the 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 they bring workers together 
to pull benefits. And worker choice models, would allow more 
workers who want to be in a union to have that option while not 
forcing anybody who doesn't want to be in the union.

    The Employees Right Act would secure fundamental rights 
like privacy, secret ballot elections. It would elevate the 
voices of and the opportunities of union and nonunion 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 unnecessary 
regulations that prevent employers from offering more flexible 
and generous benefits.

    Additionally, it is the NLRB's job not Congress, to 
investigate unfair labor practices and to render consistent and 
impartial decisions. It is 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 are 
doing something right.

    Running a business and attracting and retaining workers 
isn't easy, and employers shouldn't have to fear congressional 
harassment if they don't want a union coming between them and 
their workers. Thank you.

    [The prepared statement of Ms. Greszler follows:]
                 prepared statement of rachel greszler
    My name is Rachel Greszler. I am a senior research fellow in 
Economics, Budgets, and Entitlements at The Heritage Foundation. The 
views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be 
construed as representing any official position of The Heritage 
Foundation.

    My testimony briefly summarizes the state of the labor market since 
the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Then, I discuss the changing nature 
of work, which has become less conducive to traditional union models 
that have failed to evolve substantially to meet the needs of an 
increasingly specialized and mobile workforce that desires greater 
autonomy and flexibility. I conclude by discussing alternative labor 
organization models that might better elevate workers' voices and meet 
their desires,

    and by providing policy recommendations to protect workers' and 
employers' rights and to modernize labor policies so that more people 
will participate in the labor force and have opportunities to work in 
ways that are best for them.
                 The U.S. Workforce Still Lacks Workers
    The labor market is strong, but the workforce still lacks workers. 
Although the unemployment rate is on par with the pre-pandemic and 
half-century low of 3.5 percent, employment today is 2.5 million 
workers below the pre-pandemic rate of employment. \1\ The current 10.8 
million job openings are 3.3 million above the pre-pandemic record 
high. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  For the methodology of the employment gap, see Rachel 
Greszler, ``What Is Happening in This Unprecedented U.S. Labor Market? 
February 2022 Update,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3684, 
February 8, 2022., http://report.heritage.org/bg3684.
    \2\  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Job Openings and Labor 
Turnover Survey,'' https://www.bls.gov/jlt/ (accessed March 21, 2023).

    The shortage of workers has caused tremendous struggles for 
employers and for consumers who have had to deal with product 
shortages, delays in services and deliveries, and rising prices. While 
employers have responded by raising workers' pay, adding new benefits, 
and creating more flexible work policies, employers' increased costs 
for those changes have added to inflationary pressures. Even with 
significantly above-average wage gains of 4.3 percent per year over the 
past 2 years, inflation has turned those 4.3 percent pay raises into 
2.2 percent pay cuts, with the average worker losing $3,600 in wages 
over the past 2 years. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  Author's calculations using average weekly earnings in real 
and nominal dollars from the Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly 
Employment, Hours, and Earnings data available for download at https://
www.bls.gov/data/home.htm (accessed March 15, 2023).

    While the labor market remains strong for workers, workers and 
employers face growing uncertainty over the strength of the economy and 
the Federal Reserve's ability to maneuver a soft landing following a 34 
percent ($8 trillion) increase in Federal debt over the past 3 years 
(roughly half of which was financed by the Federal Reserve creating new 
money). \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  The total U.S. Federal public debt was $23.410 trillion on 
February 28, 2020, and $31.459 on February 28, 2023. U.S. Department of 
the Treasury, ``Debt to the Penny'' dataset, https://
fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny 
(accessed March 7, 2023).

    A particularly troubling part of the recent decline in labor force 
participation is that it has been most pronounced among young workers 
ages 20 to 24, who should be launching into the work world, gaining 
experience and life skills that will increase their future work and 
income opportunities. While employment among workers ages 25 to 54 is 
not back on par with pre-pandemic employment rates, employment among 
20-to-24-year-olds is 2.0 percent below pre-pandemic rates. Sitting on 
the sidelines at such a crucial stage could have lifelong consequences 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
for those individuals and the economy at large.

    Work is foundational to human flourishing and societal well-being. 
The significant decline in employment over the past 3 years follows a 
more gradual decline in employment--particularly among men and young 
workers--over the prior two decades. Many government policies have 
contributed to these declines. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\  Rachel Greszler, ``What Is Happening in This Unprecedented 
U.S. Labor Market? July 2022 Update,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder 
No. 3716, July 7, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/
2022-07/BG3716.pdf.

    Continued low levels of employment will reduce the rate of economic 
growth, diminish real incomes and output, result in greater dependence 
on government social programs, require higher levels of taxation, and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
exacerbate the U.S.'s already precarious fiscal situation.

    On the other hand, a flourishing workforce will increase incomes 
and output, empower individuals and families to pursue their desires, 
and naturally ease the U.S.'s troubled finances.

    To help to achieve an environment in which more Americans want to 
pursue work, are rewarded for their contributions, and are able to find 
jobs that meet their needs and desires, policymakers need to end 
welfare-without-work policies and break down government-imposed 
barriers that restrict education opportunities, that hold back workers' 
wages, that make it harder for employers to provide flexibility, and 
that limit individual workers' voices. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      The Changing Nature of Work
    While many Americans still hold traditional 9-to-5 jobs that 
require them to report to a workplace, the workforce has become 
increasingly flexible. The establishment of the gig economy and growth 
in freelancing and contract work has enabled tens of millions of 
Americans of all demographics and education levels to engage in be-
your-own-boss work. And COVID-19 caused a giant leap forward in remote 
work capabilities and in flexible, family friendly workplaces. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 27.5 percent of all 
private-sector businesses had employees teleworking some or all of the 
time in August and September 2022. \7\ And the percentage of workers 
with access to paid family leave increased by 79 percent between 2016 
and 2022. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Telework, Hiring, and 
Vacancies--2022 Data from the Business Response Survey,'' March 22, 
2023, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/brs1.pdf (accessed March 24, 
2023).
    \8\  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Employee Benefits Survey,'' 
2022, https://www.bls.gov/ebs/latest-numbers.htm. (accessed March 21, 
2023)

    Even before the pandemic, employers said that workplace flexibility 
was what workers most desired and what they were increasingly providing 
to attract and retain the workers they needed. All kinds of workers 
desire flexibility for many different reasons, and it is especially 
valuable--even essential--for parents and individuals with 
disabilities. Of the 59 million Americans who performed independent 
work in 2021, 32 million (55 percent) said they could not work for a 
traditional employer because of personal circumstances, such as their 
own health condition or their caregiving responsibilities. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\  Adam Ozimek, ``Freelance Forward Economist Report,'' Upwork, 
2021, https://www.upwork.com/research/freelance-forward-
2021#:?:text=Upwork percentE2 percent80 percent99s percent202021 
percent20Freelance percent20Forward percent20'survey percent20confirms 
percent20the percent20finding.,the percent20eight percent20years 
percent20that percent20we percent20have percent20been 
percent20'surveying.'msclkid=af38e75aa94311eca0aa2072597d624b (accessed 
March 24, 2023).

    In addition to a rise in independent work and workplace 
flexibility, today's workers are also increasingly educated and mobile. 
In general, work has become less rote and more specialized, and people 
tend to change jobs--even careers--more frequently. These changes have 
rendered the traditional union model less effective at elevating 
workers' voices and maximizing workers' well-being.
  Politically Weaponized, Industrial-Era Union Model Does Not Benefit 
                              Most Workers
    Labor unions have played an important role in U.S. history--
particularly during the first half of the 20th century--securing worker 
health and safety protections, obtaining just wages in line with 
workers' value, and giving workers a previously unheard voice with 
management. Many of the protections that unions fought to secure are 
now protected by law. And the globally competitive economy has 
simultaneously empowered workers and weakened monopolistic union 
control.

    For example, when the only cars that Americans could buy were those 
produced in the United States, by members of the United Auto Workers, 
the union could impose above-market compensation without the threat of 
competition. But higher costs meant higher prices, fewer people able to 
afford cars, and fewer workers needed to produce them. Domestic auto 
production today is one-third of what it was just two decades ago, \10\ 
and unions undoubtedly contributed to shuttered auto manufacturing 
plants through their excessive compensation demands (two-thirds higher 
than foreign competitors) \11\ as well as the red tape and restrictive 
work rules they imposed. Meanwhile, a globally competitive labor market 
helps workers to leave undesirable, unjust, or unrewarding jobs and 
pursue better opportunities. The largely unchanged industrial-era union 
model is not well suited to the increasingly educated, transient, and 
adaptable workforce. The shift away from lower-skilled manufacturing 
jobs toward higher-skilled manufacturing and more service-oriented jobs 
has rendered one-size-fits-all union policies and pay scales 
ineffective and undesirable for many workers and companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\  Domestic auto production was 137,400 in January 2023, 
compared to 420,400 in January 2023. Prior to the pandemic, in 2019, 
domestic auto production was half of what it was two decades prior, in 
1999. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, ``Domestic Auto 
Production,'' updated March 3, 2023, https://fred.stlouisfed.org/
series/DAUPSA (accessed March 24, 2023).
    \11\  James Sherk, ``Auto Bailout or UAW Bailout? Taxpayer Losses 
Came from Subsidizing Union Compensation,'' testimony before the 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, U.S. House of 
Representatives, June 10, 2013, https://www.heritage.org/testimony/
auto-bailout-or-uaw-bailout-taxpayer-losses-came-subsidizing-union-
compensation.

    One-Size-Doesn't-Fit-All. The union model, with its seniority-based 
pay scales and rigid rules about schedules and time off may have worked 
for 1950's manufacturing plants or coal mines, but it doesn't work well 
for much of the 21st-century workforce that provides increasingly 
specialized products and services and that is living in a culture that 
demands greater flexibility. Yet, instead of adapting to changing 
circumstances, unions have maintained rigid compensation and workplace 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
structures that limit productivity and flexibility.

    Responses to the COVID-19 pandemic were a perfect example of unions 
holding workers and output back, instead of propelling them forward. 
When the COVID-19 pandemic temporarily shut down production for most 
manufacturers, one non-unionized auto company immediately engaged 
directly with its workers, seeking their input on what they needed to 
be safe and feel comfortable returning to work. That enabled the 
company to limit production delays and prevent lost paychecks. 
Meanwhile, unionized car manufacturers were stuck in virtual 
negotiations with union bosses, as facilities and workers sat idle. And 
across all industries, years-long union contracts meant unionized 
workers missed out on the large pay raises non-unionized employers were 
providing in response to inflation and labor shortages. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\  F. Vincent Vernuccio, ``With Inflation High, Unions Suppress 
Wages,'' The Wall Street Journal, August 7, 2022, https://www.wsj.com/
articles/with-inflation-high-unions-suppress-wages-collective-
bargaining-contracts-starbucks-delta-nonunionized-workers-labor-law-
negotiations-11659888541(accessed March 25, 2023).

    Even beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, unions' control over all things 
worker-related make it extremely difficult for managers to accommodate 
workers' circumstances and preferences. Flexibility is extremely 
important for parents, caregivers, and individuals with disabilities, 
but the fact that union policy handbooks--not managers--are what 
determine whether a worker can switch shifts, leave work for an 
emergency without incurring an infraction, or if an employee can work 
remotely when needed makes it extremely difficult for managers to be 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
flexible and accommodating in unionized workplaces.

    Nearly All Workers Prefer Pay for Performance--Not Tenure. Unlike a 
1950's assembly line where workers clocked in at 9 a.m. and out at 5 
p.m., and everyone produced 20 widgets a day, few jobs today are so 
clear cut or routine, and most workers want to be paid and promoted 
based on their unique contributions instead of how many years they have 
been on the job.

    In addition to being considered a more just system, performance-
based pay also enables significantly larger income gains because it 
encourages greater productivity. \13\ Yet, unions not only impose 
seniority-based pay scales--they also explicitly prohibit employers 
from providing performance-based bonuses to employees, even when these 
bonuses are strictly above and beyond the union-negotiated pay scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  Studies show that average pay rises by 6 percent to 10 
percent after companies adopt pay-for-performance structures: Alison L. 
Booth and Jeff Frank, ``Earnings, Productivity, and Performance-Related 
Pay,'' Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 17, No. 3 (July 1999), pp. 
447--463; Edward Lazear, ``Performance Pay and Productivity,'' American 
Economic Review, Vol. 90, No. 5 (December 2000), pp. 1346--1361; Tuomas 
Pekkarinen and Chris Riddell, ``Performance Pay and Earnings: Evidence 
from Personnel Records,'' Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 
61, No. 3 (April 2008), pp. 297--319; Adam Copeland and Cyril Monnet, 
``The Welfare Effects of Incentive Schemes,'' Review of Economic 
Studies, Vol. 76, No. 1 (2009), pp. 93--113; and Daniel Parent, 
``Methods of Pay and Earnings: A Longitudinal Analysis,'' Industrial 
and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 53, No. 1 (October 1999), pp. 71--86.

    While union wages have traditionally exceeded non-union wages (not 
taking into account factors such as the cost of living), non-union wage 
growth has significantly outpaced union wage growth in recent years. 
Between 2007 and 2022, median weekly union wages increased by 41.0 
percent while non-union wages rose by 56.4 percent. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey, 
``Median usual weekly earnings (second quartile), Employed full time, 
Private wage and salary workers,'' available for download at https://
www.bls.gov/data/home.htm (accessed March 23, 2023).

    Unions' Broken Pension Promises. According to the most recently 
available data from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, unions 
had accumulated $677 billion in unfunded pension promises. \15\ As of 
2019, multiemployer or union pensions had set aside only 44 cents of 
every dollar they promised to pay, and this underfunding is pervasive 
across nearly every union pension plan. \16\ In 2019, more than two of 
three workers and retirees with union pensions were in plans that were 
less than 50 percent funded, and more than nine of 10 workers and 
retirees were in plans that were less than 60 percent funded. \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, ``Data Table Listing,'' 
Table M-9, Aggregate Funding of PBGC-Insured Plans (1980-2019), 
Multiemployer Program https://www.pbgc.gov/prac/data-books (accessed 
March 24, 2023).
    \16\  Ibid.
    \17\  Ibid., Table M-13, Plans, Participants, and Funding of PBGC-
Insured Plans by Funding Ratio (2019).

    The unprecedented $90 billion taxpayer bailout of private union 
pensions passed through the partisan American Rescue Plan under the 
guise of COVID-19 relief (and the Administration's extralegal measure 
to retroactively add $4.5 billion more than the law specified to union 
pension coffers) was only the tip of the iceberg. \18\ That bailout did 
not impose a single meaningful constraint on plans receiving bailouts 
and instead encouraged plans to continue making unfunded pension 
promises. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\  Rachel Greszler, ``Biden's Abuse of Power Causes CBO to Raise 
Cost Estimate of Private Pension Bailouts by $4.5 billion,'' The Daily 
Signal, October 12, 2023, https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/10/12/
bidens-abuse-of-power-causes-cbo-to-raise-cost-estimate-of-private-
pension-bailout-by-4-5-billion/.
    \19\  Rachel Greszler, ``What Taxpayers, Workers, and Retirees Need 
to Know About the Union Pension Bailout That Has Nothing to Do with 
COVID-19,'' Heritage Foundation Issue Brief No. 6059, February 26, 
2021, https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/IB6059.pdf.

    It is wrong that many newly unionized workers will be subject to 
the equivalent of wage theft by having significant portions of their 
compensation put into union pension funds that--absent additional 
taxpayer bailouts--will return to them mere pennies on the dollar in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
promised pensions.

    Union Election Structure Suppresses Employees' Voices. A primary 
purpose of the National Labor Relations Act, according to its preamble, 
is ``protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, 
self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own 
choosing.'' \20\ Yet, National Labor Relations Board rules allow 
workplaces to be organized without workers' having the opportunity to 
vote in a secret ballot election and without majority support from 
workers. Moreover, unionization is typically a once-and-done process 
because workers do not get to regularly vote on their representation 
and the process for decertifying a union is extremely difficult. 
Consequently, a 2016 Heritage Foundation report by James Sherk found 
that, ``In practice, only 6 percent of [workers] covered by unions 
under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) have ever voted for union 
representation.'' \21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\  The National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S. Code Sec.  151.
    \21\  James Sherk, ``Unelected Representatives: 94 Percent of Union 
Members Never Voted for a Union,'' Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 
3126, August 30, 2016, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/report/
unelected-representatives-94-percent-union-members-never-voted-union.

    This lack of true workers' voice and choice has been exacerbated in 
recent years as workers have quit their jobs at record paces (nearly 
one in three workers quit their jobs in 2022) \22\ and as unions have 
targeted industries with extremely high turnover rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, ``Job Openings and Labor 
Turnover Survey,'' https://www.bls.gov/jlt/ (accessed March 24, 2023).

    High turnover rates mean that a diminishing share of workers have 
the opportunity to exercise their right to choose their representation. 
For example, Starbucks' reported turnover rate of 65 percent is 
significantly below that of other quick-service restaurant rates of 150 
percent or more. \23\ Yet even with an exceptionally low turnover rate 
for its industry, it is likely that only a small fraction of Starbucks 
employees working at a location that unionized 2 years ago had the 
opportunity to vote for their representation. https://forcebrands.com/
blog/global-food-beverage-companies-employee-retention/ (accessed 
January 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\  Jane Harkness, ``Global Food and Beverage Companies That Have 
Cracked the Code on Employee Retention,'' Force Brands, October 3, 
2018,

    Many Workers Don't Want to Pay for Unions' Politics. Whereas unions 
originally focused on their own workers and workplaces, unions have 
increasingly turned their focus from individual member representation 
to political engagement. Today, up to one-third of workers' dues go to 
unions' political and ideological activities, with some unions spending 
more on politics than on representing their own members. \24\ Many 
teachers, for example, have the majority of their dues handed over to 
state and national teachers' unions, even though local unions are the 
only ones bargaining directly on their behalf. A 2018 report by Rebecca 
Paxton of the Pioneer Institute found that, on average, 84 percent of 
teachers dues went to state and national union organizations--not the 
local union. \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\  Free to Teach, ``Where Do Your Union Dues Go? (2017--2018): 
Teachers Union Spending in Pennsylvania, 2017--18,'' https://
www.freetoteach.org/where-do-your-union-dues-go/ (accessed September 
10, 2020).
    \25\  Rebekah Paxton, ``Where to Teacher Union Dues Go?'' Pioneer 
Institute Public Policy Brief, November 2018, https://
pioneerinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm--uploads/PNR-225-UnionDues-
PB-V05.pdf (accessed March 24, 2023).

    This shift in union spending on politics as opposed to worker 
representation is ostensibly intended to reverse the decline in union 
membership through legislation that forces more workers into unions, 
instead of unions focusing on providing valuable services to the 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
individual workers they represent.

    The use of union members' money and the application of unions' 
power toward political candidates and causes is evidenced by former 
AFL-CIO union leader Richard Trumka's quid pro quo threat to 
Congressional lawmakers ahead of a vote on the union-backed Protecting 
the Right to Organize (PRO) Act: \26\ ``And to those who would oppose, 
delay or derail this legislation--do not ask the labor movement for a 
dollar or a door knock, We won't be coming.'' \27\ That legislation was 
subsequently renamed the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to 
Organize Act of 2023. \28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\  Rachel Greszler, ``6 Ways a Union-Backed Bill Will Upend the 
Job Market,'' The Daily Signal, February 5, 2020, https://
www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/05/6-ways-a-union-backed-bill-will-upend-
the-jobs-market/.
    \27\  Richard Trumka, Twitter, February 5, 2020, https://
twitter.com/RichardTrumka/status/1225128484374294531 (accessed 
September 8, 2020).
    \28\  H.R. 20, 118th Congress, Richard L. Trumka Protecting the 
Right to Organize Act of 2023, https://www.Congress.gov/bill/118th-
congress/house-bill/20'q= percent7B percent22searchpercent22 
percent3Apercent5Bpercent22employee+rights+act+senate+scottpercent22perc
ent5D percent7D&s=1&r=3 (accessed March 25, 2023).

    Many workers have been turned off by unions' political activism, 
their use of intimidation \29\ and deceit \30\ to gain members, and 
union corruption. \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\  F. Vincent Vernuccio, ``Card Check Coercion: Intimidation,'' 
in Protecting the Secret Ballot: The Dangers of Union Card Check 
(Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2019), https://
www.mackinac.org/26958 (accessed March 24, 2023).
    \30\  Sean Higgins, ``Fraud Alleged in Auto Plant `Card Check' 
Union Organizing Bid,'' Washington Examiner, September 26, 2013, 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fraud-alleged-in-auto-plant-card-
check-union-organizing-bid (accessed March 24, 2023).
    \31\  Eric D. Lawrence, ``Feds: UAW's FCA Unit `Riddled with 
Corruption' During Scandal,'' Detroit Free Press, December 12, 2018, 
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/chrysler/2018/12/12/fca-uaw-
scandal/2290892002/ (accessed September 10, 2020).

    Union Membership Rate at Record Low. Despite media reports about 
increased unionization and the Biden administration's ``whole of 
government'' approach to pushing more workers into unions, the 
unionization rate declined to a record low 10.1 percent across all 
workers, and 6.0 percent among private-sector workers in 2021. \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\  News release, ``Union Members--2022,'' U.S. Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, January 19, 2023, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/
union2.pdf (accessed March 24, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Neither Companies Nor Government Agencies Should Be Above the Law
    Companies that violate labor laws should be consistently and 
impartially prosecuted and workers who expose violations should be 
protected. Similarly, government agencies that fail to judiciously 
carry out the law should be held accountable, and agency staff who 
expose violations should be protected.

    Claims of unfair labor practices should be promptly investigated 
with decisions and consequences consistently and impartially applied. 
It is important to note that allegations of unfair labor practices are 
not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing because as anyone can make a 
claim of an unfair labor practice. Alleging unfair labor practices is a 
tactic that unions can use to challenge election outcomes if the 
results do not go their way. Over the past decade, fewer than half of 
all the unfair labor practices alleged by unions have been 
substantiated by the NLRB.

    Moreover, a recent proposal by the NLRB would encourage 
unsubstantiated allegations of unfair labor practices by halting union 
decertification election processes if unfair labor practices are filed, 
even if those charges are unsubstantiated or unrelated to the union 
decertification process. \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\  National Labor Relations Board, ``Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking; Request for Comments,'' Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 213, 
November 4, 2022, pp. 66890-66933 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
FR-2022-11-04/pdf/2022-23823.pdf

    Troubling Claims of Misconduct Within the National Labor Relations 
Board (NLRB). The purpose of the NLRB is to administer and enforce the 
NLRA and to conduct representation elections. Recent claims from 
Starbucks officials about NLRB officials' activity surrounding a union 
election in Overland Park, KS, \34\ and a subsequent NLRB hearing 
officer's report that corroborated some of those claims, suggest that 
NLRB officials engaged in misconduct regarding their duties to conduct 
fair and impartial elections. \35\ A March 7, 2023, letter from Ranking 
Member Cassidy to the NLRB Chairman and General Counsel noted that the 
troubling allegations by NLRB employees include:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\  Letter from Zarina Jenkins, Acting Exec. Vice President & 
Gen. Couns., Starbucks, & Kimberly J. Doud, Couns. for Starbucks, to 
Lauren M. McFerran, Chairman, NLRB, & Jennifer A. Abruzzo, Gen. Couns., 
NLRB, August 15, 2022.
    \35\  Starbucks Corp., No. 14-RC-289926, at 9 (NLRB, February 24, 
2023) (hearing officer's report and recommendations on objections).

          Board employees making secret arrangements with union 
        representatives to vote in-person in what all parties agreed 
        would be a mail-ballot election; providing union agents with 
        confidential, nonpublic information regarding vote counts in 
        order to enable SWU [Starbucks Workers United] to target and 
        intimidate employees; providing unions duplicate and triple 
        ballots; and individualizing voting arrangements for voters 
        hand-picked by SWU. \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\  Letter from Senator William M. Cassidy to Lauren M. McFerran, 
Chairman, NLRB, & Jennifer A. Abruzzo, Gen. Couns., NLRB, March 7, 
2023, https://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/nlrb--weaponization--
letter.pdf (accessed March 24, 2023).

    Moreover, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx of the Education and Workforce 
Committee stated, ``The Committee understands that the NLRB employee 
misconduct in representation elections is more widespread than the 
allegations in the Starbucks letter and findings in the Hearing Office 
report.'' \37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \37\  7Letter from Rep. Virginia Foxx to Rebecca A. Dormon, 
Assistant to the Regional Director NLRB, Region 15, March 22, 2023, 
https://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/letter--from--chairwoman--
foxx--march--22--2023.pdf(accessed March 24, 2023).

    The NLRB's potential interference in union elections is very 
troubling and Congress should continue to investigate allegations 
related to Starbucks Workers United, as well as other similar 
misconduct that could be occurring between NLRB officials and other 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
labor organizations.

    Politicization of Labor Policy Hurts Workers and Employers Alike. 
Important issues in labor policy have swung back and forth in recent 
years, making it difficult for employers and workers to go about their 
business and occupations without risks of lawsuits or even losing their 
livelihoods.

    The Biden administration's NLRB under General Counsel Jennifer 
Abruzzo has pursued an especially political agenda, seeking to overturn 
more than 40 prior NLRB decisions. Moreover, the General Counsel has 
arguably used memoranda to circumvent the court and rulemaking 
processes. Memoranda are supposed to provide useful information and 
guidance for employers, to help them to conform to the law, but they 
cannot be used to overturn past decisions or change the law.

    Yet, Abruzzo's April 2022 memorandum, ``The Right to Refrain from 
Captive Audience and other Mandatory Meetings,'' \38\ for example, 
provides guidance that is counter to a 65-year----old court decision, 
\39\ and which directly violates employers' free speech rights. Just as 
employers may require workers to attend informational meetings about 
safety policies or workplace benefits, employers should be free to 
require workers to attend informational meetings about unions. \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \38\  See Jennifer A. Abruzzo, ``The Right to Refrain from Captive 
Audience and other Mandatory Meetings,'' National Labor Relations 
Board, Office of the General Counsel, Memorandum GC 22-04, April 7, 
2022, available for download at https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/memos-
research/general-counsel-memos (accessed March 24, 2023).
    \39\  Babcock & Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577 (1948).
    \40\  During mandatory employer meetings on unionization, employers 
are not allowed to threaten, interrogate, or make promises to 
employees, and like other mandatory workplace meetings, employees are 
paid for their time in the meetings.

    Recent polling from the Institute for the American Worker found 
that only 12 percent of workers opposed mandatory employer meetings on 
unions, and union households, black voters, and democrats had the 
strongest support for mandatory meetings. \41\ One of the reasons 
workers support mandatory union information meetings is to prevent 
workers from being singled out or intimidated if their choice to attend 
the meeting is viewed by union organizers and supporters as them 
opposing the union.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\  Institute for the American Worker, ``Polling Results for 
Employer Meetings on Unionization,'' conducted August 2-9, 2022, 
https://www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7194 (accessed 
March 25, 2023).https://i4aw.org/resources/polling-results-for-
employer-meetings-on-unionization/ (accessed March 26, 2023).

    Clarity and Employee Rights Needed in Labor Law. Politicized labor 
laws that swing back and forth between Administrations, inconsistency 
in the application of labor laws, and memoranda that directly 
contradict labor laws make it difficult for employers and workers to 
know what they can and cannot do. These uncertainties put employers in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
difficult situations where they risk lawsuits in both directions.

    For example, recent NLRB rulings have found companies to be guilty 
of unfair labor practices for dismissing employees who violated company 
safety policies or who harassed other workers because those violations 
occurred during a unionizing campaign. Yet, not firing workers who 
violate company policies could create liabilities or lead to lawsuits 
from workers who were harmed by their co-workers' violations.

    Complex and shifting labor law also adds unnecessary administrative 
and legal costs that make it harder for businesses to start and to 
expand.

    Congress should codify important components of labor policy into 
law to provide clarity and continuity for employers and employees 
alike. That includes, among other things, creating a single bright-line 
test for independent contractors across all Federal laws based on the 
common law definition, defining joint employer status based on direct 
and immediate control, and protecting important worker and employer 
rights. The Employee Rights Act includes these and other important 
provisions to modernize and stabilize labor law. \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \42\  S. 3889, Employee Rights Act, 117th Congress, and H.R. 7194, 
Employee Rights Act, 117th Congress,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Alternative Labor Organizations
    Unions thrive on adversarial relationships and strong-arm tactics, 
pitting employees against employers and preferring the role of bully 
instead of benevolent mediator. Union tactics, such as using 12-foot 
blow-up rats to depict company management and anyone who does not toe 
the union line, are dehumanizing and destructive to the basic workplace 
ideals of mutual respect and compassion.

    Unions' typically combative stances are counter to the amicable 
relationships that workers and employers desire with one another, and 
are counter to employers' and employees' mutual reliance on one 
another.

    Policies like performance-based pay and bonuses, voluntary paid-
family leave benefits, and promotions from within help workers to grow 
and help companies to succeed. Direct communication is also mutually 
beneficial--whether it is a worker being able to negotiate a schedule 
or compensation package that meets her unique needs, or an employer 
receiving valuable employee input and ideas on how to improve the 
company, everyone benefits from his or her voice being heard.

    So how can workers and employers have more communications with, and 
investment in, one another? The solution is voluntary engagement, 
absent the strong arm of unions or the heavy hand of government. The 
recent rise in wages, benefits, flexibility, and remote work options 
even as unionization has declined is evidence that a strong labor 
market is the best way for workers to achieve what they desire without 
the unintended consequences of government mandates or forced third-
party interventions.

    Workers should never be forced to pay for services they do not 
want, nor should they be prevented from choosing their own 
representation or representing themselves when talking or negotiating 
with their employer. Likewise, employers should not have to succumb to 
micromanagement by an outside organization to meet worker desires. 
Neither should be micromanaged by government regulations that prohibit 
choices or shut off opportunities.

    The following models offer ways to improve employee and employer 
relations, for workers' voices to be heard, and for both workers and 
employers to grow and succeed:

    Worker-Choice Arrangements. The union exclusivity model is flawed 
on both sides: Workers in a unionized workplace can be forced to pay 
for representation they do not want (94 percent of union members never 
voted for a union) and can be prevented from communicating or 
negotiating directly with their employer; and unions must represent all 
workers, including those in right-to-work states and public employees' 
unions, who choose not to join the union and do not pay union dues. 
\43\ Forced solidarity is unjust and unhelpful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\  F. Vincent Vernuccio, ``Worker's Choice: Freeing Unions and 
Workers from Forced Representation,'' Mackinac Center for Public 
Policy, June 1, 2016, https://www.mackinac.org/22471 (accessed 
September 9, 2020), and James Sherk, ``Unelected Representatives: 94 
Percent of Union Members Never Voted for a Union,'' Heritage Foundation 
Backgrounder No. 3126, August 30, 2016, https://www.heritage.org/jobs-
and-labor/report/unelected-representatives-94-percent-union-members-
never-voted-union.

    Worker-choice models would solve the free-rider problem that unions 
lament as well as the forced-representation problem that many workers 
lament. In worker-choice models, workers who want the benefits of the 
union would have to pay union dues, and those who do not could choose 
their own representation. \44\ Unions could even allow workers to pick 
and choose the services they want to contract with the union to 
receive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \44\  States could allow worker-choice arrangements for public-
sector employees by amending their labor laws, while Congress could 
allow them for private-sector workers by amending the National Labor 
Relations Act.

    Professional Worker Organizations. \45\ Workers do not have to be 
employed by the same company or even in the same field of work in order 
to organize around shared interests and pool their resources to obtain 
benefits, such as health insurance at a lower cost. The Association of 
Independent Doctors is a professional organization that provides a 
collective voice for independent doctors who previously lacked 
organization and combined power, while also offering reduced-cost 
insurance. The dues-free Freelancers Union has attracted nearly half a 
million workers across very diverse professions and wide income ranges 
by providing things that workers value, such as education, insurance 
benefits, and advocacy. An advantage of professional organizations is 
that workers can take their benefits with them from one job, contract, 
or gig to another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\  F. Vincent Vernuccio, ``Unionization for the 21st Century: 
Solutions for the Ailing Labor Market,'' Mackinac Center for Public 
Policy, November 11, 2014, https://www.mackinac.org/S2014-07 (accessed 
September 9, 2020).

    Unions as Providers of Education and Certification. As technology 
and trade continue to alter the workplace, unions or worker 
associations could provide valuable education and voluntary 
certifications to help to prepare workers for changes within their own 
career or help them to gain the skills and experience for a new type of 
work. Some unions do provide valuable worker training; expanding 
training beyond the job that workers already perform could be 
particularly beneficial for workers in declining industries. 
Certifications can also improve workers' job options by serving as a 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
trusted measure of knowledge and experience.

    Representation Services. Unions have often focused on compensation, 
but the typical seniority-based structures that unions impose do not 
make sense for workplaces with a wide range of positions, skills, and 
expertise. Moreover, union-negotiated pension benefits are less 
valuable as many workers do not plan to stay in the same job or 
profession for their entire career. Yet, without dictating 
compensation, unions could still provide value through things like 
representation services and setting minimum salary requirements, while 
allowing individual workers to negotiate their compensation packages 
directly with their employer. This is the type of structure that the 
Major League Baseball Players Association provides, for instance.
                Solutions to Protect and Empower Workers
    The only true way to elevate workers' voices is to allow them to 
express their voice how they desire--whether through a union, an 
alternative form of representation, or speaking directly with their 
employer. Government attempts to dictate who gets to speak on behalf of 
workers minimize individual workers voices.

    In addition to laws addressing employer and employee relationships, 
policymakers can help to maximize workers' well-being by removing 
government barriers that prevent them from becoming more productive and 
achieving their goals. \46\ To that end, policymakers should: \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \46\  Rachel Greszler, ``The Future of Work: Helping Workers and 
Employers Adapt to and Thrive in the Ever-Changing Labor Market,'' 
Congressional testimony before the Health, Education, Labor, and 
Pensions Subcommittee and the Workforce Protections Subcommittee of the 
Education and Labor Committee U.S. House of Representatives October 23, 
2019, https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
GreszlerTestimony102319.pdf (accessed September 10, 2020).
    \47\  Rachel Greszler, ``Labor Policies for COVID-19 and Beyond: 
Recommendations to Get Americans Back to Work,'' Heritage Foundation 
Backgrounder No. 3506, June 30, 2020, https://www.heritage.org/sites/
default/files/2020-07/BG3506.pdf.

          Allow worker-choice agreements so that workers are 
        not forced to pay fees to or be represented by unions, and so 
        that unions are not forced to represent workers who are not 
        dues-paying members. The Workers Choice Act would accomplish 
        this. \48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\  H.R. 5147, 116th Congress, The Worker's Choice Act, https://
www.Congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5147/text'r=7&s=1 
(accessed March 25, 2023).

          Protect workers' rights to a secret ballot and in-
        person elections. A stated purpose of the NLRA is ``protecting 
        the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-
        organization, and designation of representatives of their own 
        choosing'' The surest way to protect that right is through 
        secret-ballot, in-person elections. The so-called card-check 
        process allows workplaces to be unionized without a secret-
        ballot vote and through a process that too often includes 
        intimidation, \49\ misrepresentation, \50\ promises, coercion, 
        and threats. Moreover, a recently proposed NLRB regulation 
        would further restrict workers' rights by denying them the 
        ability to appeal an employer's voluntary recognition of a 
        union through the card-check process if they believe that 
        process compromised workers' true desires. \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \49\  F. Vincent Vernuccio, ``Card Check Coercion: Intimidation,'' 
in Protecting the Secret Ballot: The Dangers of Union Card Check 
(Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy, 2019), https://
www.mackinac.org/26958 (accessed March 24, 2023).
    \50\  Sean Higgins, ``Fraud Alleged in Auto Plant `Card Check' 
Union Organizing Bid,'' The Washington Examiner, September 26, 2013, 
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fraud-alleged-in-auto-plant-card-
check-union-organizing-bid (accessed March 24, 2023).
    \51\  National Labor Relations Board, ``Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking; Request for Comments,'' Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 213 
(November 4, 2022), pp. 66890--66933 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/FR-2022-11-04/pdf/2022-23823.pdf (accessed March 25, 2023).

    Moreover, many recent elections have been conducted through mail-in 
ballots, which are subject to increased risks of fraud and coercion, as 
well as significantly lower voting rates. According to the NLRB, worker 
participation for in-person union votes was 79 percent during the 
fiscal year 2020 to fiscal year 2022 period, compared to 68 percent for 
mail-in elections. \52\ Congress should guarantee that a majority of 
employees have a right to a secret-ballot paper election--something 
that 76 percent of union households support. \53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\  National Labor Relations Board, letter to the Honorable 
Virginia Foxx and Rick W. Allen regarding mail-in elections, November 
3, 2022.
    \53\  Employee Rights Act, ``What Does the Employee Rights Act 
Accomplish?'' https://employeerightsact.com/ (accessed March 24, 2023).

          Protect employers' rights to free speech. In light of 
        recent NLRB actions to threaten employers' free speech through 
        memoranda, it may be necessary for Congress to clarify in law 
        the 65-year old precedent that mandatory employer-led 
        informational meetings on unions (so long as they do not 
        include prohibited threats, interrogation, or promises) are 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        protected under employers' free speech.

          Allow unionized workers to receive wages and bonuses. 
        Many union contracts prevent employers from providing pay 
        raises or bonuses to workers. The Rewarding Achievement and 
        Incentivizing Successful Employees Act would allow employers to 
        provide performance-based raises without union consent. \54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\  H.R. 6952, 117th Congress, ``RAISE Act,'' https://
www.Congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/6952'q= percent7B 
percent22search percent22 percent3A percent5B percent22H.R.+6952 
percent22 percent5D percent7D&s=1&r=1 (accessed March 25, 2023).

          Protect union members' pensions by applying the same 
        rules and regulations to union pensions as to non-union 
        pensions. \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \55\  Rachel Greszler, ``Congress's Multiemployer Pension Committee 
Should Act Now: 12 Reforms to Protect Pensioners and Taxpayers,'' 
Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3368, November 20, 2018, https://
www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/BG3368--0.pdf.

          Enact the Employee Rights Act. This proposed act 
        includes important worker protections (including many of those 
        listed above), such as privacy rights, secret-ballot elections, 
        and protections from coercion and intimidation. It also 
        includes modernizations to protect and support successful 
        small-business models and to help to enable more flexible and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        increasingly desirable be-your-own-boss work opportunities.

    While addressing employee and employer relations is important for 
unionized or potentially unionized workplaces, 94 percent of private-
sector workers in the U.S. do not belong to unions and are unlikely to 
belong to unions anytime soon. To help encourage stronger labor force 
participation and opportunities for work that offer rising incomes and 
the flexibility that workers desire, Congress should:

          Reduce regulations to free up resources for more 
        productive uses. When entrepreneurs face fewer barriers to 
        entry, they create more jobs. And when businesses do not have 
        to comply with costly and unwarranted regulations, they have 
        more resources to devote to raising wages, and educating and 
        promoting workers.

          Allow the private sector to provide benefits that 
        workers desire, such as the ability to accrue paid time off 
        through the Working Families Flexibility Act. \56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\  Private-sector employers are currently prohibited from 
offering lower-wage hourly workers the choice between accruing paid 
time off and receiving pay in exchange for their overtime hours. The 
Working Families Flexibility Act would end this restriction so that 
private-sector workers can have the same option as public-sector 
workers to accumulate paid time off. See Rachel Greszler, ``Mike Lee's 
Bill Would Boost Paid Family Leave Without Growing Government,'' The 
Daily Signal, April 11, 2019, https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/11/
mike-lees-bill-would-boost-paid-family leave-without-growing-
government/.

          Allow accessible, affordable, and portable worker 
        benefits. The average worker will change jobs 12 times 
        throughout his career, but no one wants to roll over his 401(k) 
        plan or change health insurance 12 times. Current policies make 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        it difficult for workers to obtain portable benefits.

          Expand apprenticeship options. The Apprenticeship 
        Freedom Act \57\ and Training America's Workforce Act \58\ 
        would help to level the playing field so that apprenticeships 
        could develop across more industries and provide more workers 
        with the option of on-the-job, paid education ending in a 
        successful career.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\  News release, ``Rep. Good Introduces 40th Bill, the 
Apprenticeship Freedom Act,'' Congressman Bob Good of Virginia, 
December 13, 2022, https://good.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-
good-introduces-40th-bill-apprenticeship-freedom-act (accessed March 
11, 2023).
    \58\  News release, ``Thune, Scott Introduce Legislation to Combat 
Workforce Challenges,'' John Thune, U.S. Senator for South Dakota, 
March 7, 2022, https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2022/3/
thune-scott-introduce-legislation-to-combat-workforce-challenges 
(accessed March 25, 2023).

          Refuse to close doors to work opportunities. 
        Excessive wage regulations, prohibitions on independent work 
        options (including the Department of Labor's recently proposed 
        Independent Contractor rule), and attempting to redefine entire 
        business models (including the NLRB's proposed Joint Employer 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Standard) all limit income and growth opportunities.

          Hold agencies and businesses accountable to the law. 
        No business or government agency should be above the law. 
        Unfair labor practices and workplace violations should be 
        prosecuted according to the law. Agencies should be held 
        accountable so that they carry out their mission without 
        prejudice or collusion. Lawmakers should provide clarity and 
        certainty in labor laws by codifying clear definitions so that 
        employers and workers are not subject to the whim of 
        politicized memos and regulations.
                                Summary
    Although uncertainty lingers, the labor market is strong, and 
workers have benefited from increased compensation and improved 
flexibility and family friendly policies. Yet, there are still millions 
of missing workers, with government policies partly to blame.

    Amidst evolving worker skills and desires and a continually 
changing way of work, traditional union structures fail to maximize 
most workers' voices and well-being. Unions' failure to adapt and 
provide services that directly benefit workers and to instead attempt 
to gain members and power through politics has been met with a massive 
decline in unionization in the U.S. Yet, workers' desires for upward 
mobility and increasing flexibility show that workers' voices are as 
important today as at any time before.

    By definition, forced unionization and exclusive representation 
muffle the voices, deny the rights, and extract the earnings of at 
least a minority of workers. That does not mean that collective labor 
organizations are useless; it does mean that a transformation to 
voluntary worker associations would be far more helpful. Choice-based 
worker representation accompanied by reduced government barriers to 
worker pursuits can help to elevate the voices of union and non-union 
workers alike, improve their well-being, and expand their 
opportunities.

    The Heritage Foundation is a public policy, research, and 
educational organization recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) 
of the Internal Revenue Code. It is privately supported and receives no 
funds from any government at any level, nor does it perform any 
government or other contract work.

    The Heritage Foundation is the most broadly supported think tank in 
the United States. During 2020, it had hundreds of thousands of 
individual, foundation, and corporate supporters representing every 
state in the U.S. Its 2020 operating income came from the following 
sources:

          Individuals 66 percent

          Foundations 18 percent

          Corporations 2 percent

          Program revenue and other income 14 percent

    The top five corporate givers provided The Heritage Foundation with 
1 percent of its 2020 income. The Heritage Foundation's books are 
audited annually by the national accounting firm of RSM US, LLP.

    Members of The Heritage Foundation staff testify as individuals 
discussing their own independent research. The views expressed are 
their own and do not reflect an institutional position of The Heritage 
Foundation or its board of trustees.
                                 ______
                                 
                 [summary statement of rachel greszler]
    The U.S. faces a recent and longer-term decline in labor force 
participation, and government policies are partly to blame.

    Over the past decades, workers have become increasingly educated 
and mobile. New ways of working and a more service-oriented economy 
have enabled more flexible work opportunities and more accommodating 
workplace policies.

    Unions have typically failed to adapt by providing workers with new 
forms of value and have instead invested in political causes and 
lobbying for laws that push more workers into unions.

    Unions have engaged in reckless pension management, accumulating 
$677 billion in unfunded pension promises and resulting in nine of 10 
workers with multi-employer pensions having plans that are less than 60 
percent funded. The U.S. Treasury is currently depositing taxpayers' 
dollars--up to $90 billion worth--into a select group of private union 
pensions accounts.

    Unions' adversarial tactics are destructive to mutually beneficial 
employer and employee relationships, and their rigid rules impede 
flexible and accommodating workplaces as well as creative and rewarding 
productivity.

    Labor laws should be clearly defined, and consistently and 
impartially enforced. Recent NLRB actions have created uncertainty and 
heightened legal risks for employers, making it harder for them to 
understand and apply the law consistently across employees and multiple 
workplaces.

    DOL regulations have also complicated labor law, including for the 
overwhelming majority of companies that do business with independent 
contractors and the tens of millions of workers who perform independent 
work. Congress should enact legislation to establish clarity and 
consistency across Federal laws.

    The NLRB is supposed to interpret and enforce the NLRA and was not 
meant to serve as a political pendulum. The NLRB should focus on 
addressing cases that come its way instead of pursuing a political 
agenda. NLRB officials engaged in misconduct must be held accountable.

    Labor organizations can be valuable, but to expand their reach, 
they must adapt and abandon purposefully combative relationships. 
Alternative forms of organization that put individual workers in 
control of their representation and the services they want to pay for 
could help foster more productive and accommodating workplaces, 
relationships, and worker benefits.

    Congress can benefit union and non-union workers alike by 
safeguarding workers' rights, expanding workers' options, promoting 
work, and eliminating barriers to alternative education, rising 
incomes, and flexible work opportunities. More people working in the 
ways that work for them would also help alleviate the Federal 
Government's severe fiscal imbalance.
                                 ______
                                 
    The Chair. Thank you very much. Let me begin my questioning 
with Ms. Carter and Mr. Saxton. 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. Starbucks does 
not engage in union busting. Ms. Carter, what is your 
observation about that?

    Ms. Carter. My observation is that is not my experience 
while working in a store that was unionizing. Thank you for 
your question, Chairman. So 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, meaning a 
member of management who traveled to our store from, I don't 
know where, I had never met them before, gave them multiple 
partners COVID in this meeting and we had to shut down for 5 
days. Now, that is a little bit of union busting and outside 
experiences, but kind of crazy to----

    The Chair. Do workers have any option about whether or not 
they would undergo this meeting with the Starbucks executive?

    Ms. Carter. 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.

    The Chair. Okay. Let me get to Mr. Saxton. You heard what 
Mr. Schultz said. What do you think?

    Mr. Saxton. Thank you for your question, Senator. That 
hasn't been my experience in my store. We when we failed, they 
fired our store manager. We--he was a very well-liked store 
manager.

    He actually helped in our organizing effort once he was 
fired. After that they brought in a 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 in to work with everything moved around.

    Every single day we had to relearned where everything was. 
With that, the interim store manager would take notes about 
what she would hear or see on the floor and she would write 
down partners names.

    We didn't find out until after we had our election that 
those people that--the names that she had written down were 
going to be written up and or fired. So I----

    The Chair. What I am hearing from you is you didn't quite 
accept Mr. Schultz's view that he is not engaged in anti-union 
activity?

    Mr. Saxton. They have definitely engaged in anti-union 
activity.

    The Chair. Let me get Ms. Block. If I heard you correctly, 
I think you indicated that what you are seeing at Starbucks is 
unprecedented and that--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?

    Ms. Block. Yes, I think that is a fair interpretation of 
how this campaign may be perceived. And in my mind, most 
importantly, among the 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.

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

    Ms. Block. I mean, 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.

    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.

    There's this ability to play things out over a long time 
just exacerbates that kind of power imbalance.

    The Chair. Senator Cassidy.

    Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Byrne 
represents a constituent of mine who has bravely provided 
information to the NLRB Inspector General, misconduct that she 
witnessed during the representation election at a Starbucks in 
Overland, Kansas.

    Specifically, a hearing officer found substantial disparity 
between the communications the region shared with Starbucks and 
the communications the region shared with the union. What makes 
this an issue?

    Mr. Byrne. Well, you are supposed to be neutral. And so if 
you are having communications with the union about an issue, 
you need to have communications with management as well. And if 
you are not having that even in communication, then clearly you 
are favoring one side over the other.

    Senator Cassidy. Now, some of the communications seem to me 
fairly benign, but again, I am not a lawyer, but I gather it 
has to be even keeled. Whatever you do for one, you have to do 
for the other.

    Mr. Byrne. That is correct. So one of the things that came 
out in that is, 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 just about small 
things. They were about big things, i.e. the vote.

    Senator Cassidy. So the stipulation that you shall mail in 
is really kind of ironclad. It may have seemed just kind of 
like an accommodation, but really they should have said, no, we 
can't. You have got to go down the street, you've got to put in 
a mailbox or something like that.

    Mr. Byrne. 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 a 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.

    Senator Cassidy. So the guy or gal who might forget to 
mail, and I forget to mail bills all the time, that would take 
out that variable of whether or not they would actually 
remember to put it in the mailbox or don't have stamps at home 
or whatever the variable would be.

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

    Mr. Byrne. 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 details of it, that there are 
documents in there that would indicate that the sort of thing 
that happened at this one particular election has happened in 
other elections as well.

    There is a basis to determine whether or not there has been 
a pattern and practice, not just for Starbucks cases, although 
the House subpoena was limited to Starbucks cases. But if it 
has happened in Starbucks cases, is it happening in other cases 
across the country?

    Senator Cassidy. 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 NLRB, in a 
letter they submitted for the record earlier--I am sorry, in 
other documents, 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?

    Mr. Byrne. In my experience, the union files unfair labor 
practice charges, multiple unfair labor practice charges in 
every election, and it is 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.

    Senator Cassidy. Ms. Greszler, Republicans made it pretty 
clear that we support the right to unionize. But you point out 
that the labor laws we have are a hundred 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 the 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?

    Ms. Greszler. Yes. Now, I think the focus has to be on the 
workers and their choices. And 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 is facing 
different conditions. I think the important there is letting 
the workers have the choice to do that.

    Work states allow this, but they also in those states have 
representation on everybody. So even if the worker isn't paying 
into the union, they are represented by the union.

    Now, the union would say that is a free rider problem. So 
you could eliminate that by saying the union does not have to 
represent you if you are not paying them. So if you want that 
representation, you have 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. But just having the choice actually be focused on 
the worker themselves.

    Senator Cassidy. Got you. With that, I yield.

    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Smith.

    Senator Smith. Thank you, Chair Sanders and Ranking Member. 
And welcome to all of you. It is really--I am 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, and I wanted to 
ask you something. Mr. Schultz talked repeatedly this morning 
about this partner relationship that he says that he has with 
his employees.

    I am just wondering, from your experience, how do you have 
a partnership with hundreds of thousands of people? And when 
you are doing the organizing in your--when you were doing your 
organizing, like what did you find--why were people wanting to 
be part of a bargaining unit?

    Ms. Carter. Thank you so much for your question, Senator. 
So it is 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 are talking sometimes to a wall, as if you are just 
not getting any response.

    That was a huge catalyst to why we wanted to organize, but 
also just the wages and rent rising in our state. It is 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.

    Those are a lot of the reasons why we chose to organize. I 
will say Howard Schultz does not feel like a partner to me as 
well.

    Senator Smith. Thank you. Mr. Saxton, was there anything I 
would like to know what you would like to add to this. I am 
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. And how would being part of a bargaining unit help you 
deal with those kinds of challenges as a worker?

    Mr. Saxton. Thank you. To answer the first question, some 
of the challenges that we faced were, when I talked to some of 
my coworkers, they overwhelmingly were talking about the 
training.

    The training is 1 week where you were learning everything 
and then 1 week where you are practicing everything. And then 
for shift supervisor, it is 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 5 hours a week. I think that 
speaks for itself.

    You know, if they really want to be partners with us, they 
hear those concerns and they make those changes. And they 
feel--so Starbucks has an empty seat that they leave at the 
shareholders table for their partners. They fill that seat and 
hear what we have to say.

    Senator Smith. Thank you. Ms. Block, earlier this morning 
when we were talking with Mr. Schultz, several of us were 
pressing him on this disparity--disparities in which the 
unionized folks were being treated versus the non-unionized 
people who were being treated.

    I particularly was talking about this ability for non--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.

    Now, when I questioned him, he shifted a little bit and he 
said, well, actually it is our preference not to do that. Could 
you just address this issue--could you address this issue?

    Ms. Block. 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----

    Senator Smith. Right.

    Ms. Block [continuing]. it would not have been unlawful for 
Starbucks, at least what I can tell from the information that 
has become public, would not have been unlawful for Starbucks 
to grant those benefits to the stores that had unionized.

    But there is 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 they made that 
judgment.

    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 accurate sense of the law to being an 
unfair labor practice.

    That is the question that will now be before the board.

    Senator Smith. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair. 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 is not just people working at Starbucks, what is 
it like to try to get by on $15 bucks an hour or $16 bucks an 
hour, No. 1.

    No. 2, picking up on Senator Smith's question about 
scheduling, do people know if they are 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.

    Ms. Carter. Thank you for your question, Chairman Sanders. 
So, 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 at the same time and get groceries. So 
just imagine having to ration the most important things that 
you need to do to survive day in and day out.

    Another point that I am really glad you brought up is the 
hour requirement in order to obtain benefits. In my 4 years at 
the company, I have 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 
of----

    The Chair. Explaining that to the world out here. What does 
that mean?

    Ms. Carter. Yes, so basically----

    The Chair. If I am your supervisor, I can reduce your 
workweek. And because I reduce your workweek, you now lose your 
benefits, is that what you are saying?

    Ms. Carter. Yes, sir. We have an hour requirement per week. 
It is 20 hours per week. The threshold was lowered due to 
COVID. However, that has now since, I believe, been removed. 
So, yes, because of that, my hours were cut basically since 
around a little bit before Christmas last year.

    I actually just recently lost my benefits because of that 
hour requirement. So, yes, I mean, having your benefits tied to 
your hours when you don't get to determine the hours you work 
is--doesn't really seem conducive, in my opinion.

    The Chair. All right, let me go to Mr. Saxton. You know, 
people have to pay rent. They have to deal with all of the 
needs of a family. How do you do a budget if you don't know 
exactly how many hours you are going to be working and what 
kind of paycheck you get at the end of the month?

    Mr. Saxton. 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 now had to do--to get a second 
job.

    You know, 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 
3 weeks.

    One week you can have 25, The next week you could have 10. 
The week after that you can have----

    The Chair. That is theoretical. Is that common? Does that 
really----

    Mr. Saxton. It is very common. It is very common.

    The Chair. So how do you know if you are going to be able 
to pay your rent, if you got 10 hours----

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

    The Chair. All right. Tell me about health care. I don't 
want to misquote Mr. Schultz, but he talks something about 
comprehensive health benefits. When I hear that, I think that 
people have universal health care, that they can walk in and 
the doctor not have to take out their credit card or--what is 
going on with health care? Ms. Carter, or Mr. Saxton, jump in.

    Mr. Saxton. With health care, I actually had health care 
with Starbucks. I had myself, my wife, and my daughter covered. 
The thing about the coverage is it is offered in tiers, so 
there is like the gold, silver, and bronze. These tiers, you 
still have to pay your co-pay. You still have to take out your 
card when you go to the doctor.

    The Chair. How much is co-pay out of curiosity or does it 
depend on the----

    Mr. Saxton. It depends on the level that you pick.

    The Chair. Okay. So would I be correct in assuming that if 
I am working 10 hours a week--well, first of all, if I work 10 
hours a week or 15 hours a week, I don't get that benefit. Is 
that correct?

    Mr. Saxton. Correct.

    The Chair. All right. And if I am working 20 hours a week, 
I am not making enough money to pay the co-payment or the 
premium, right?

    Mr. Saxton. Correct.

    The Chair. You want to elaborate on this? It doesn't sound 
like maybe it is quite the comprehensive benefit that Mr. 
Schultz----

    Mr. Saxton. It is not very comprehensive at all. Again, so 
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.

    I have been reduced to going back to just the VA. Besides 
my firing, I have had to go back to the VA to get things that 
Starbucks health insurance would not cover.

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

    Ms. Carter. Thank you, Senator Sanders. Yes, that is 
absolutely one of our proposals, is 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, I mean, 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, what 
like Jaysin said, keeps you from actually pursuing a second job 
or pursuing some other form of income.

    The Chair. What does this availability mean? What does that 
mean?

    Ms. Carter. I believe it was, I don't want to misquote 
around the time that this was instituted, but it doesn't apply 
to union stores. But for nonunion stores, I believe you have to 
have 180 percent of your hours available on top of the 
availability that you have if you want--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 am good at math, so I am just 
going to use that example. But yes, that pretty much explains 
it.

    The Chair. Okay. Anything more that you would like to add, 
Mr. Saxton, Ms. Carter? 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. And for any Senators who wish to ask additional 
questions, questions for the record will be due in 10 business 
days, April 12 by 5.00 p.m.

    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two 
statements from stakeholder groups in support of Starbucks 
workers in their fight to join a union freely and fairly.

    [The following information can be found on page 92-93 in 
Additional Material:]

    The Chair. The Committee stands adjourned.

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

                                     Pride at Work,
          Building Power for LGBTQ+ Working People,
                          815 Black Lives Matter Plaza, NW,
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                    March 17, 2023.
Hon. Bernie Sanders, Chair,
Hon. Bill Cassidy, Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chair Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy:

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. 
Pride at Work is a nonprofit organization that represents LGBTQ+ union 
members as a recognized constituency group of the AFL--CIO. We have 
nearly 30 chapters across the United States that work with state and 
local labor federations to organize mutual support between the labor 
movement and the LGBTQ+ community to further social and economic 
justice.

    Starbucks has historically had a higher concentration of LGBTQ+ 
workers, and we have been proud to support the workers as LGBTQ+ 
baristas have spearheaded the recent organizing efforts across the 
country. At its heart, Pride at Work is a labor organization. Queer 
workers have a long history of supporting the right to organize and 
join a union because we believe a union contract is the best way to 
ensure equity, inclusion, and fairness in the workplace. We are proud 
to stand and fight alongside the members of Starbucks Workers United as 
they work to achieve these goals.

    Pride at Work believes that a union contract is the best way to 
ensure that LGBTQ+ workers are protected on the job. In a recent study 
\1\ 46 percent of LGBTQ+ respondents reported having been harassed at 
work. 34 percent of LGBTQ+ workers reported leaving a job due to 
treatment by their employer. A union contract is enforceable in every 
state, and nearly every union contract contains non-discrimination 
language that protects LGBTQ+ workers from these forms of mistreatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/lgbt-
workplace-discrimination/

    Starbucks has publicly portrayed itself to be an open and affirming 
place for LGBTQ+ workers. In fact, many baristas have identified this 
as a primary factor when choosing to work at Starbucks. Unfortunately, 
Starbucks began showing their true colors as soon as their LGBTQ+ 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
workers started to lead organizing efforts a little over a year ago.

    In Memphis, the NLRB ruled \2\ that they unlawfully fired 7 
baristas for union activity. In Kansas, an unfair labor charge filed 
with the NLRB alleged that Starbucks threatened to deny a pro-union 
trans employee gender-affirming care because of their support for the 
union \3\, and in Upstate New York, Starbucks was found to have 
widespread anti-union activity so egregious that the ruling against 
them \4\ was an astonishing 220 pages long.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-region-15-
wins-injunction-requiring-starbucks-to--rehire-seven
    \3\  https://www.nrn.com/quick-service/starbucks-accused-illegal-
terminations-pro-union-employees-kansas--city-and-memphis
    \4\  https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-region-3-
buffalo-wins-administrative-law-judge--decision-requiring

    Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents, they are just a 
few examples of the widespread union-busting tactics that Starbucks 
continues to employ in its effort to silence the will of the workers 
who have made Starbucks successful and are simply exercising their 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
right under the law to organize.

    Pride at Work unequivocally stands with Starbucks workers and 
demands that Howard Schultz and Starbucks be held accountable for their 
attacks on their workers, and that they cease and desist from their 
union-busting efforts, bargain in good faith, and respect the right of 
their workers to join a union.

            In solidarity,
                                              Jerame Davis,
                                                Executive Director.
                                 ______
                                 
                National Women's Law Center (NWLC),
                                            Washington, DC,
                                                    March 20, 2023.
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Chair Sanders and Ranking Member Cassidy:

    On behalf of the National Women's Law Center (NWLC), I write in 
support of Starbucks workers across the country who seek to improve 
conditions in their workplaces and exercise their right to organize--
and in support of this Committee's efforts to ensure that Starbucks and 
its chief executive, Howard Schultz, are held accountable for 
violations of that right.

    Since 1972, NWLC has fought for gender justice--in the courts, in 
public policy, and in our society--working across the issues that are 
central to the lives of women and girls. NWLC advocates for improvement 
and enforcement of our nation's employment and civil rights laws, with 
a particular focus on the needs of LGBTQI+ people, women of color, and 
women with low incomes and their families. Ensuring that working people 
can exercise their rights to organize, join unions, and collectively 
bargain with their employers is a critical way to advance higher wages 
and better working conditions, benefiting the communities we serve.

    This is especially important in this moment, as union organizing is 
on an uptick, \1\ as support for labor unions is at its highest level 
since 1965, \2\ and with roughly half of non-union workers saying they 
would join a union if they could. \3\ The Starbucks Workers United 
union drive is clear evidence of this momentum, with more new unions 
formed in 12 months than at any other single U.S. company in the last 
20 years. In December of 2021, zero corporate Starbucks stores were 
unionized; today, there are over 7,000 Starbucks workers in 280 stores 
where the majority of workers have voted for union representation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  See, e.g., Rani Molla, How Unions Are Winning Again, in 4 
Charts, VOX (Aug. 30, 2022), https://www.vox.com/recode/2022/8/30/
23326654/2022-union-charts-elections-wins-strikes.
    \2\  Justin McCarthy, U.S. Approval of Labor Unions at Highest 
Point Since 1965, GALLUP (Aug. 30, 2022), https://news.gallup.com/poll/
398303/approval-labor-unions-highest-point
    \3\  Thomas A. Kochan et al., Worker Voice in America: Is There a 
Gap Between What Workers Expect and What They Experience?, 72 ILR REV. 
3 (Jan. 2019), https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793918806250.

    Most Starbucks workers are women, \4\ and women and nonbinary 
workers are leading Starbucks organizing efforts. \5\ Women especially 
gain from union organizing, because collective bargaining increases 
women's equality at work. \6\ Women union members who work full time 
typically earn about $205 more per week than women who are not 
represented by unions, a larger wage advantage than men typically 
receive. \7\ Among women, Latina workers experience particularly large 
financial benefits from union membership. \8\ And while the gender wage 
gap persists even when women are unionized, women in unions are 
consistently paid wages that are not just higher but also more equal to 
men's wages. \9\ One reason for the smaller gender wage gap among women 
who are members of unions is that unions help to ensure transparency 
around wages, including greater access to and control over information 
about salaries, and set pay scales. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  Workforce Diversity at Starbucks, STARBUCKS (Oct. 14, 2020), 
https://stories.starbucks.com/stories/2020/workforce-diversity-at-
starbucks/.
    \5\  Audrey Higgins, More Starbucks Stores Want to Unionize. These 
Women and Nonbinary Workers Are Leading the Push, WASH. POST (March 4, 
2022), https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/03/04/starbucks-
employees-unionizing/.
    \6\  See generally Amanda Fins, Sarah David Heydemann & Jasmine 
Tucker, Unions Are Good for Women, NAT'L WOMEN'S LAW CTR. (July 2021), 
https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Union-Factsheet-9.8.21.pdf; 
Brief of the National Women's Law Center, The Leadership Conference on 
Civil and Human Rights and 85 Additional Organizations Committed to 
Civil Rights and Economic Opportunity as Amici Curiae in Support of 
Respondents, AFSCME Council 31, et al. (Jan. 19, 2018), https://
nwlc.org/press-releases/nwlc-and-the-leadership-conference-submit-
amicus-brief-in-supreme-court-case-seeking-to-undermine-public-sector-
unions/.
    \7\  Fins, Heydemann & Tucker, supra note 6.
    \8\  Among full-time workers, unionized Latinas typically make 40 
percent more per week ($271 more) than Latina non-union workers. Id.
    \9\  In 2020, unionized women overall typically made 88 cents for 
every dollar made by unionized men, while non-union women typically 
made just 82 cents for every dollar made by non-union men. Id.
    \10\  See Salary Range Transparency Reduces Gender Wage Gaps, NAT'L 
WOMEN'S LAW CTR. (Sept. 2022), https://nwlc.org/wp-content/uploads/
2022/09/Salary-Transparency-FS-2021-9.20.22.pdf.

    Unions also increase access to health and leave benefits that allow 
working people to weather changing family responsibilities or 
unexpected health crises, which often disproportionately affect women 
workers. \11\ And unions can help prevent and address discrimination, 
including sexual harassment at work. Working people with a union are 
better able to raise and address harassment concerns because collective 
bargaining agreements provide more avenues for preventing, addressing, 
and reporting employer wrongdoing, and greater protection from firing 
and retaliation than are available to most non-union workers--and if 
harassment or retaliation does occur, individuals have more mechanisms 
to challenge unjust employer actions. \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\  For example, unionized workplaces are 22 percent more likely 
than non-union workplaces to provide parental leave and are 12 percent 
more likely to allow women to take leave during pregnancy; when women 
in unions do take parental leave, their leave is 13 percent more likely 
to be paid than leave taken by non-union women workers. See Brief of 
the National Women's Law Center et al., supra note 6, at 23.
    \12\  See generally, e.g., Addressing Sexual Harassment in the 
Workplace: There Is Power in My Union, AFL-CIO (Feb. 2019), https://
aflcio.org/sites/default/files/2019-03/1907--SexHarrassToolkit--
eversion-0.pdf.

    Starbucks workers today are fighting for exactly such benefits: A 
fair, safe, and respectful workplace, with grievance procedures and 
protection from unjust discipline; a living wage with reliable work 
hours and transparent scheduling practices; and the right to organize 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
free from fear, intimidation, or coercion from Starbucks.

    Unfortunately, Starbucks has responded to its workers' historic 
organizing drive with an unprecedented anti-union campaign. NLRB judges 
have found at least 127 violations of Federal labor law, with over 
1,000 more alleged violations still in the process of being 
adjudicated, for, among other things, threatening, intimidating, and 
firing hundreds of worker leaders. Starbucks management has targeted 
Black union leaders in retaliation for their organizing; rolled out 
sick leave improvements, \13\ wage increases, \14\ and student loan 
repayment tools \15\ only for non-unionized employees; and threatened 
to cutoff access to health care--including gender affirming care for 
trans workers \16\ and coverage for abortion travel costs \17\--for 
workers who unionize. In New York City, baristas have had their hours 
reduced without just cause and experienced other violations of the 
city's Fair Workweek Law in retaliation for organizing. \48\ And in a 
recent decision resolving a case that combined 33 unfair labor 
practices charges from 21 stores in the Buffalo area, Judge Michael A. 
Rosas ruled that Starbucks committed ``egregious and widespread'' 
violations of Federal labor law while trying to stop union campaigns, 
including promising improved pay and benefits if workers renounced the 
union; surveilling union-supporting employees onsite; refusing to hire 
prospective employees who supported the union; and relocating union 
organizers to different stores to thwart the group's activity. \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\  Aimee Picchi, Starbucks Is Ending COVID-19 Sick Pay for 
Workers Next Month, CBS NEWS (Sept. 19, 2022), https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/starbucks-ending-covid-pay-for-workers-october/.
    \14\  Id.
    \15\  Hilary Russ, Starbucks Adds Benefits for Non-Union U.S. 
Workers Ahead of Investor Day, REUTERS (Sept. 12, 2022), https://
www.reuters.com/markets/us/starbucks-adds-benefits-non-union-us-
workers-ahead-investor-day-2022-09-12/.
    \16\  Josh Eidelson, Starbucks Threatens Trans Benefits in Anti-
Union Push, Staff Say, BLOOMBERG (June 14, 2022), https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-14/starbucks-threatens-trans-
benefits-in-anti-union-push-staff-say'leadSource=uverify-percent20wall.
    \17\  Katie Hawkinson, Unionized Starbucks Employees Fight for 
Abortion Care Benefits, MS. MAGAZINE (Aug. 31, 2022), https://
msmagazine.com/2022/08/31/starbucks-union-abortion/.
    \18\  Janon Fisher, NYC Starbucks Workers, 32BJ Union to Hit Coffee 
Giant for Fair Workweek Law Violations, NY DAILY NEWS (Feb. 14, 2023), 
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-union-starbucks-workers-united-
32bj-seiu-howard-schultz-fair-workweek-law-20230214-
ak5rp7fjgzeydg3gvy5uoxdd3m-story.html. See also Department of Consumer 
and Worker Protection Files Lawsuit Against Starbucks Seeking 
Reinstatement of Wrongfully Terminated Employee, NYC.GOV (Sept. 2, 
2022), https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/media/pr090222-DCWP-Files-Lawsuit-
Against-Starbucks-for-Wrongful-Termination.page.
    \19\  Jacob Bogage, Starbucks Committed ``Egregious'' Violations in 
Battling Union, Judge Rules, WASH. POST (March 1, 2023), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/03/01/starbucks-union-ruling-
buffalo/.

    We agree with Judge Rosas's conclusion that Starbucks has 
demonstrated a ``widespread union animus'' and a ``general disregard 
for . . . employees' fundamental rights.'' \20\ In solidarity with the 
thousands of Starbucks workers fighting for their right to form a 
union, we call on Starbucks to cease its union-busting actions and 
listen to the demands of Starbucks Workers United.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\  Id.

    We thank the Committee for providing a forum to raise these 
concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact Julie Vogtman at 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected] if you have any questions.

            Sincerely,
                                              Emily Martin,
                                                    Vice President,
                                     Education & Workplace Justice.
                                             Julie Vogtman,
                          Director of Job Quality & Senior Counsel.
                                 ______
                                 
                    National Labor Relations Board,
                                      Washington, DC 20570,
                                                    March 21, 2023.
Hon. Bill Cassidy, M.D., Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
428 Senate Dirksen Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.

    Dear Ranking Member Cassidy:

    I congratulate you on your selection as Ranking Member of the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The National Labor 
Relations Board looks forward to a productive and respectful 
relationship with you and your staff during the 118th Congress. On 
behalf of the Agency, I am pleased to provide the following response to 
your March 7, 2023 letter regarding the Agency's processing of 
representation and unfair labor practice cases.

    First, I would like to provide further background on the Agency to 
ensure a shared understanding of its structure and processes as we 
engage on specific matters.

    The National Labor Relations Board is committed to effectuating its 
congressional mandate under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) 
``by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining 
and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of 
association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of 
their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and 
conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.'' \1\ 
The Agency is composed of two separate and independent sides: the 
Board, which primarily acts as a quasi-judicial body in deciding cases 
on the basis of formal records in administrative proceedings, and the 
General Counsel, who is responsible for the investigation and 
prosecution of unfair labor practice cases and for the general 
supervision of the NLRB field offices in the processing of cases. The 
Board plays no part in the General Counsel's investigative or 
prosecutorial functions. Board decisions are the product of 
deliberations by the Board Members and their staffs. Most Board 
decisions are issued by three-Member panels, and more than 80 percent 
of Board cases were decided unanimously in fiscal year 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  29 U.S.C. Sec. 151

    The Agency has no statutory authority to initiate cases on its own 
accord. The Agency's 26 Regional Offices process only those 
representation election petitions and unfair labor practice charges 
filed by members of the public. Within this statutory framework, the 
Agency follows a robust set of rules and procedures to ensure that 
cases are processed fairly and that parties have the ability to file 
objections and otherwise raise any substantive and procedural issues in 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the processing of a case.

    For representation cases, after a petition is filed with the 
Agency, the Regional Office seeks agreement between parties on holding 
an election. Absent an agreement, the Regional Director, through 
delegated authority from the Board, may hold a hearing on the petition 
and direct an election, if appropriate. The election is then conducted 
by NLRB employees in the Region. Parties may challenge ballots during 
an election and file objections after an election if they wish to 
challenge the results of the election on any grounds. A Regional 
Director resolves challenged ballots or objections before certifying 
the results of an election. At various points in this process, parties 
may request Board review of the Regional Director's decisions.

    For unfair labor practices, the Agency operates on a charge-based 
system. As noted above, unlike other Federal regulatory bodies, it does 
not proactively investigate workplaces or choose which charges to 
investigate. Rather, it processes all unfair labor practice charges 
filed with its Regional Offices. Regional Offices, under the General 
Counsel's supervision, then litigate cases determined by their 
respective Regional Directors to have merit. About 60 percent of cases 
are dismissed or withdrawn. Of the remaining cases, about 95 percent 
end in settlement. For the remaining 5 percent of meritorious cases 
that require adjudication, NLRB attorneys in the Regions prosecute 
cases on behalf of the General Counsel. Once the General Counsel issues 
a complaint against a party, the party may file a motion for summary 
judgment or dismissal with the Board if the party believes the 
complaint lacks foundation. For cases that go forward, NLRB 
Administrative Law Judges hold hearings to consider arguments from all 
parties, as well as witness and any expert testimony, documentary 
evidence, and any other relevant evidence before issuing decisions. 
Parties may seek review of an Administrative Law Judge's decision by 
filing exceptions with the Board. The Board then issues its decision 
based on the formal record. Board decisions, however, are not self-
enforcing. In the event of noncompliance, the General Counsel, on 
behalf of the Board, must seek enforcement in an appropriate Federal 
Circuit Court. At the same time, any party aggrieved by a decision in 
an unfair labor practice case may independently appeal to a Circuit 
Court and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. Parties may raise any 
substantive or procedural issues throughout the course of litigation.

    With that background, please see answers to your specific questions 
below.
1. Processes and procedures to investigate allegations of NLRB employee 
         misconduct or interference in representation elections
    If there is an allegation that any NLRB employee engaged in 
misconduct, the Agency will investigate the allegations and take 
appropriate remedial or disciplinary action consistent with Federal 
law, internal processes, and applicable collective bargaining 
agreements.

    Within the case handling process, a party in a representation case 
may raise concerns about issues affecting the outcome of a 
representation election, including allegations of Board employee 
misconduct or interference in an election, by filing a post-election 
objection. If an allegation concerns the conduct of a NLRB employee, 
the processing of the objection is transferred to a different Region, 
if appropriate. The assigned Regional Office investigates the 
allegations and determines whether a hearing is warranted. If so, a 
Hearing Officer in the assigned Region conducts a hearing and issues a 
Hearing Officer's Report that recommends findings and conclusions, 
which a party may contest. The Regional Director from the assigned 
Region reviews the Hearing Officer's Report and issues a decision. If 
the Regional Director's decision sustains an objection, that may result 
in setting aside election results and ordering a new election. A party 
may file a Request for Review (RFR) with the Board to appeal the 
Regional Director's decision.

    Outside of the case handling process, anyone may file an allegation 
of employee misconduct with the NLRB's Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG). The OIG is an independent office established to prevent and 
detect fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. The OIG operates a 
hotline for individuals to submit information, either with contact 
information or anonymously. \2\ The OIG reviews each submission and 
makes an initial determination of what action is required. If the OIG 
determines that an investigation of potential misconduct is necessary, 
the OIG conducts the investigation and reports the results to 
appropriate Agency managers, who then determine whether to take 
corrective and/or disciplinary action. The Inspector General does not 
make recommendations on the disposition of any underlying 
representation or unfair labor practice case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  See https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/fillable-forms/inspector-
general-hotline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2. Allegations that NLRB employees interfered, or attempted to 
           interfere, in representation elections since 2020
    Per the process described above, the Board typically becomes aware 
of an alleged incident of employee misconduct affecting a 
representation election when a party files an RFR. Board staff 
conducted a search of representation cases that have come before the 
Board since 2020 that include allegations of NLRB employee interference 
in that particular election. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  The search covered allegations of intentional interference or 
misconduct potentially affecting an election, not inadvertent errors.

    Since 2020, the Board decided ten cases concerning allegations of 
interference in the election at issue. (The NLRB conducted more than 
3,500 elections during that period.) The Board found that the party 
seeking review did not substantiate the allegations of objectionable 
misconduct in any of those cases. \4\ Nine of the ten were decided 
unanimously. The cases are listed below, and the public case dockets 
are available on the NLRB website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\  In three additional cases, the Board also unanimously denied 
review of Regional Directors' overruling of generalized election 
objections from Starbucks Corporation that were based on allegations of 
NLRB employee misconduct in elections at other Starbucks locations.

 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Employer                       Case No.                Decision Date              Panel \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Planned Lifestyles Services,  22-RC-255558         7/29/2020                       RKE
  affiliated with and related to
               Planned Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      MHN Government Services, LLC                   19-RC-242915         7/31/2020                       RKE
                         (MHNGS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     PromoWest Productions, Inc                      09-RC-261089        11/25/2020                      RKMc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Longmont United Hospit27-RC-275868         3/24/2022                      McKW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               GHG Management, LLC d/b/a Windy       13-RC-271360         4/21/2022             WP, K dissent
                   City Cannabis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              3067 Orange Ave, LLC d/b/a Anaheim     21-RC-264740         6/13/2022                      McKP
            Crest Nursing Center
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Starbucks Corporation                      28-RC-291280         7/13/2022                      McKR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Recology Auburn Placer                      20-RC-296708          9/8/2022                       RWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Starbucks Corporation                      19-RC-295849        12/23/2022                      McKW
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Starbucks Corporation                      14-RC-295709          2/3/2023                      McWP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\  All relevant cases were decided by three-Member panels. The Board Members who served during this period
  were John F. Ring (R), Marvin E. Kaplan (K), William J. Emanuel (E), Lauren McFerran (Mc), Gwynne A. Wilcox
  (W), and David M. Prouty (P).


    Four RFRs with allegations of employee interference are currently 
pending before the Boards.

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Employer                   Case No.            RFR filed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Starbucks Corporation                 13-RC-296747    12/9/2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Amazon.com Services LLC              29-RC-288020    12/9/2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Starbucks Corporation                 14-RC-292753    2/21/2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Starbucks Corporation                 06-RC-308635     3/3/2023
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Chairman and General Counsel also became aware of allegations 
of NLRB employee misconduct in Starbucks Corp., Case No. 14-RC-289926, 
when they received a copy of correspondence from Starbucks Corporation 
to the NLRB Inspector General. In accordance with the Agency's standard 
procedures, an NLRB Hearing Officer conducted a hearing to take 
evidence on the allegations, the Hearing Officer issued a report making 
findings and recommendations, and this report is currently pending 
before the Regional Director overseeing the case. In these 
circumstances, the Board serves as an appellate body, and thus this 
case is not currently pending before it. It will review the case only 
if a party appeals the Regional Director's decision. Any inquiry 
regarding OIG investigations should be directed to that independent 
office.
               3. Briefs concerning Joy Silk Mills, Inc.
    Consistent with NLRB Rules and Regulations, the Board has received 
briefs referencing Joy Silk Mills, Inc. (85 NLRB 1263) from the General 
Counsel and other filers in pending cases. (Nonparties may file a 
motion for leave to file an amicus brief within 42 days after 
exceptions have been filed in a case.) Such briefs are incorporated 
into the public case docket and made available on the NLRB's website. 
The Board cannot discuss issues raised in pending cases outside of 
established processes, as that could interfere with the integrity of 
the Board's decisionmaking and compromise due process for the parties.
      4. Pending petitions for nationwide cease-and-desist orders
    Based on context, your letter's request for ``all pending 
nationwide cease-and-desist petitions filed in all Regional 
Directorates'' appears to refer to pending petitions for injunctive 
relief in Federal court. Upon the issuance of a complaint in a case, 
Section 10(j) of the NLRA authorizes the NLRB to petition a Federal 
district court to seek a temporary injunction for interim relief until 
the Board issues its decision. Such petitions for temporary injunctive 
relief may seek cease-and-desist orders across multiple locations if 
the Board determines such an order is necessary to protect the process 
of collective bargaining and the exercise of employee rights under the 
Act and to ensure that any subsequently issued Board remedial order 
will be meaningful. Potential cases in which injunctive relief may be 
appropriate are identified by Regional Offices and reviewed by the 
General Counsel, who must then seek authorization from the Board before 
filing in Federal district court.

    As of today, the Board has authorized, and NLRB Regional Directors 
have filed, three Section 10(j) petitions currently pending in Federal 
courts that seek ``nationwide'' cease-and-desist orders covering 
operations across several states:

          1. Leslie v. Starbucks Corporation, Western District of New 
        York (Docket No. 1:22cv478), filed June 21, 2022

          2. Kerwin v. Starbucks Corporation, Eastern District of 
        Michigan (Docket No. 2:22cv12761), filed November 15, 2022 \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\  The District Judge granted in part and denied in part the 
petition on February 23, 2023. The case was appealed to the 6th Circuit 
Court of Appeals on March 2, 2023 (Elizabeth Kerwin v. Starbucks 
Corporation, Docket No. 23-1187). Both the District Court and Circuit 
Court denied the employer's motions to stay the injunction while the 
appeal is pending.

          3. Poor v. Starbucks Corporation, Eastern District of New 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        York (Docket No. 1:22cv7255), filed November 30, 2022

    Thank you for this opportunity to answer your questions regarding 
the Agency's case processing. If you have any additional questions, 
please contact me at (202) 701-9226 or [email protected].

            Sincerely,
                                              Matt Hayward,
                        Office of Congressional and Public Affairs.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Starbucks Workers United,
                         Rio Grande and I-40 Store,
                                     Albuquerque, NM 87104,
                                                     July 11, 2022.
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
498 Russell Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC 20510.

    To Howard Schultz,

    We, the partners at the Rio Grande and I-40 store in Albuquerque, 
New Mexico, are expressing our position to unionize. We, like many 
stores across the country, are exhausted by the lack of accountability 
and commitment from the company's end. Starbucks refers to its 
employees as partners because as the company says, ``we are all 
partners in shared success.'' But as yearly profits hit billions of 
dollars, the people who afford you those often record-breaking profits 
are faced with labor cuts, little to no job security, and a severely 
high turnover rate leading to understaffed shifts and unlivable pay.

    We fear that Starbucks as a whole has gone too far from the pillars 
it has set for itself; so much so that it has created an environment 
that is unviable for us, the partners. Earlier this year, you said that 
the company has to do better for its partners. But we are halfway 
through the year and have yet to see that come to fruition.

    Our ambition to unionize is to bring back the true meaning of a 
partnership. A company that champions itself as progressive, while also 
boasting about its competitive benefits, shouldn't be afraid of its 
employees having the desire to use their constitutional right to 
unionize. We hope that you and Starbucks as a company will respect our 
decision and allow us a seat at the table.

            Solidarity,
          Union Organizing Committee at Rio Grande and I-40
                                 ______
                                 
 Non-interference and Fair Election Principles for Partner Unionization
    1. The right to organize a union is a fundamental civil right 
essential to our democracy.

    2. If partners choose to unionize, there will be no negative 
repercussions from management.

    3. Starbucks agrees not to make any implicit threats (lawful but 
unethical) or explicit threats (unlawful).

    4. If Starbucks holds a meeting with partners on company time to 
discuss unionization, then the union may hold a meeting of equal length 
on company time. This holds true for one-on-one meetings or any 
discussions that Starbucks chooses to hold with partners during the 
union organizing effort.

    5. If Starbucks posts any anti-union material on its premises, it 
will provide Starbucks partners equal space to post pro-union material.

    6. Starbucks management must not bribe or threaten partners with 
higher or lower wages or benefits to gain support. Management will not 
make changes in wages and benefits that were not announced or decided 
upon prior to the commencement of the union campaign.

    7. Principled disagreements are part of the campaign process but 
disparaging remarks about Workers United or the labor movement are not 
appropriate and not conducive to a spirit of mutual respect and harmony 
and should not be made. Additionally, ad hominem attacks against 
individuals are unacceptable.

    8. If any partner feels they have been retaliated against in any 
manner due to their union activity, Starbucks will agree to resolve 
this immediately by a mutually agreed upon arbitrator. The partner 
would still have the right to go to the National Labor Relations Board.

    9. A secret ballot election will be conducted by the NLRB or, if 
both parties agree, by an arbitrator or a neutral community 
organization. If at any time Starbucks Workers United secures a simple 
majority of authorization cards of the eligible partners within an 
appropriate bargaining unit, Starbucks and the union may instead have 
the option, if they both agree, to recognizes Starbucks Workers United 
as the exclusive representative of such partners via a card check 
election.
                                 ______
                                 

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

       Response by Bradley Byrne to questions of Senator Sanders

                            senator sanders
    Question 1. Starbucks has embarked on the most ruthless anti-union 
campaign in decades, including by retaliating against workers for 
filing charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and 
testifying at union election hearings. You testified about the subpoena 
your client received from the House Education and Workforce Committee 
and the NLRB documents your client produced in response. I have serious 
concerns about whether employees' personal identifiable information 
(PII) will be protected against unwanted disclosure and the possibility 
of future retaliation. Please provide answers to the following 
questions about your efforts related to the subpoena issued to your 
client:

    Question 1(a). Did you, or others at your firm, take steps to 
determine whether documents provided by your client in response to the 
subpoena contained personal identifiable information before 
transmitting them to the House Education and Workforce Committee?

    Question 1(b). If so, did you, or others at your firm, take steps 
to redact that personal information?

    Answer 1. Senator Sanders, Thank you for allowing me to testify 
before the Senate HELP Committee. I am hereby responding to the QFRs 
submitted to me on April 12.

    My client, a Federal employee whistleblower, received a subpoena 
from the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. She consulted 
with me in the course of complying with the subpoena. My knowledge of 
her actions in preparing the documents to be provided to the House 
Committee comes only from communications I had with her as my client 
and are therefore covered by the attorney/client privilege. I have an 
obligation to protect my client's privilege under the Rules of 
Professional Conduct which bind me and all attorneys.

    I can tell you that my client fully complied with the House 
Committee's subpoena to the letter, and within the protections afforded 
her by the Whistleblower Protection Act. I can further tell you that 
pursuant to the House Committee's instructions subsequent to the 
issuance of the subpoena, the documents were provided to the House 
Committee's Majority and Minority staffs.
                                 ______
                                 
    [Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                [all]