ReportWire

Tag: starbucks

  • Starbucks New Fall Menu May Have Been Leaked Online | Entrepreneur

    Starbucks New Fall Menu May Have Been Leaked Online | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Call it Pumpkin Spicegate.

    Instagram influencer Markie Devo just posted a secret fall 2023 menu from Starbucks that he says he got from an employee.

    Starbucks won’t confirm if the leak is real or not, but it’s still causing quite a brewhaha in the coffee world.

    According to Devo’s sleuthing, Starbucks will be bringing back some favorites in the fall and serving up a few newcomers to the menu. The coffee giant will also apparently be discontinuing at least one fan favorite.

    Returning champions

    If the leaked fall menu is accurate, Starbucks will continue to offer its classic Pumpkin Spice Latte, Pumpkin Cream Cold Brew, and Apple Crisp Oatmilk Macchiato.

    Customers will also see the return of the Pumpkin Cream Cheese Muffin
    and Owl Cake Pop

    New grinds on the block

    But Starbucks will also introduce a few new concoctions, including an Apple Crisp Oatmilk Shaken Espresso and something called an Iced Pumpkin Cream Chai Tea Latte.

    New snacks include a Baked Apple Croissant.

    See ya latte

    Some Starbucks items were grounded. If the rumors are correct, the Pumpkin Scone has gone skedaddle, which caused a few Starbucks aficionados to throw some shade.

    “Omg where is the pumpkin scone? I repeat…my favorite scone EVER!” wrote RuRu Rodriguez.

    Others complained about the fall menu’s short shelf life, reportedly running from August 29 to November 1.

    “November 1st is basically like the second week of fall what the hell,” griped Mr. Party Favors.

    [ad_2]

    Jonathan Small

    Source link

  • Alpha Omega Wealth Management LLC Sells 226 Shares of Starbucks Co. (NASDAQ:SBUX)

    Alpha Omega Wealth Management LLC Sells 226 Shares of Starbucks Co. (NASDAQ:SBUX)

    [ad_1]

    Alpha Omega Wealth Management LLC lowered its holdings in Starbucks Co. (NASDAQ:SBUXFree Report) by 6.9% in the first quarter, according to its most recent 13F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission. The firm owned 3,052 shares of the coffee company’s stock after selling 226 shares during the period. Alpha Omega Wealth Management LLC’s holdings in Starbucks were worth $318,000 at the end of the most recent quarter.

    Other institutional investors have also recently bought and sold shares of the company. Spartan Planning & Wealth Management increased its stake in shares of Starbucks by 19.2% in the fourth quarter. Spartan Planning & Wealth Management now owns 590 shares of the coffee company’s stock worth $59,000 after buying an additional 95 shares during the period. First American Trust FSB increased its stake in shares of Starbucks by 3.8% in the fourth quarter. First American Trust FSB now owns 2,649 shares of the coffee company’s stock worth $263,000 after buying an additional 97 shares during the period. Perennial Investment Advisors LLC increased its position in Starbucks by 2.0% during the 4th quarter. Perennial Investment Advisors LLC now owns 4,996 shares of the coffee company’s stock valued at $496,000 after purchasing an additional 98 shares during the period. FSM Wealth Advisors LLC increased its position in Starbucks by 2.8% during the 4th quarter. FSM Wealth Advisors LLC now owns 3,626 shares of the coffee company’s stock valued at $360,000 after purchasing an additional 99 shares during the period. Finally, Rosenberg Matthew Hamilton increased its position in Starbucks by 3.0% during the 4th quarter. Rosenberg Matthew Hamilton now owns 3,394 shares of the coffee company’s stock valued at $337,000 after purchasing an additional 100 shares during the period. Institutional investors own 69.68% of the company’s stock.

    Insider Activity

    In other news, CFO Rachel Ruggeri sold 679 shares of the company’s stock in a transaction dated Wednesday, June 21st. The shares were sold at an average price of $100.60, for a total transaction of $68,307.40. Following the completion of the sale, the chief financial officer now owns 54,761 shares of the company’s stock, valued at approximately $5,508,956.60. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available through the SEC website. Insiders own 1.98% of the company’s stock.

    Wall Street Analysts Forecast Growth

    A number of research analysts have issued reports on the stock. Credit Suisse Group boosted their price objective on shares of Starbucks from $122.00 to $128.00 in a research report on Wednesday, May 3rd. Royal Bank of Canada reduced their price objective on shares of Starbucks from $115.00 to $110.00 in a research report on Wednesday, May 3rd. Barclays boosted their price objective on shares of Starbucks from $123.00 to $127.00 in a research report on Wednesday, May 3rd. Robert W. Baird boosted their price objective on shares of Starbucks from $105.00 to $110.00 in a research report on Wednesday, May 3rd. Finally, BTIG Research boosted their target price on shares of Starbucks from $120.00 to $125.00 in a report on Wednesday, May 3rd. Twelve equities research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating and thirteen have given a buy rating to the company’s stock. According to MarketBeat, Starbucks currently has a consensus rating of “Moderate Buy” and an average price target of $110.31.

    Starbucks Stock Performance

    Shares of NASDAQ:SBUX opened at $99.06 on Friday. Starbucks Co. has a fifty-two week low of $75.73 and a fifty-two week high of $115.48. The business has a 50-day simple moving average of $102.96 and a two-hundred day simple moving average of $103.44. The firm has a market cap of $113.56 billion, a price-to-earnings ratio of 32.16, a price-to-earnings-growth ratio of 1.71 and a beta of 0.96.

    Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUXFree Report) last issued its earnings results on Tuesday, May 2nd. The coffee company reported $0.74 earnings per share for the quarter, topping analysts’ consensus estimates of $0.64 by $0.10. Starbucks had a negative return on equity of 41.99% and a net margin of 10.46%. The business had revenue of $8.72 billion during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $8.43 billion. During the same quarter in the previous year, the firm earned $0.59 EPS. Starbucks’s revenue was up 14.2% on a year-over-year basis. As a group, research analysts predict that Starbucks Co. will post 3.43 earnings per share for the current year.

    Starbucks Announces Dividend

    The firm also recently declared a quarterly dividend, which will be paid on Friday, August 25th. Stockholders of record on Friday, August 11th will be given a dividend of $0.53 per share. This represents a $2.12 annualized dividend and a dividend yield of 2.14%. The ex-dividend date of this dividend is Thursday, August 10th. Starbucks’s payout ratio is currently 68.83%.

    About Starbucks

    (Free Report)

    Starbucks Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, operates as a roaster, marketer, and retailer of specialty coffee worldwide. The company operates through three segments: North America, International, and Channel Development. Its stores offer coffee and tea beverages, roasted whole beans and ground coffees, single serve products, and ready-to-drink beverages; and various food products, such as pastries, breakfast sandwiches, and lunch items.

    Read More

    Want to see what other hedge funds are holding SBUX? Visit HoldingsChannel.com to get the latest 13F filings and insider trades for Starbucks Co. (NASDAQ:SBUXFree Report).

    Institutional Ownership by Quarter for Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX)

    Receive News & Ratings for Starbucks Daily – Enter your email address below to receive a concise daily summary of the latest news and analysts’ ratings for Starbucks and related companies with MarketBeat.com’s FREE daily email newsletter.

    [ad_2]

    ABMN Staff

    Source link

  • Thousands of Starbucks baristas set to strike amid Pride decorations dispute

    Thousands of Starbucks baristas set to strike amid Pride decorations dispute

    [ad_1]

    Several thousand Starbucks workers are slated to go on strike over the next week amid a dispute with the coffee giant regarding LGBTQ store displays during Pride month.

    Starbucks Workers United, the group leading efforts to unionize Starbucks workers, tweeted Friday that more than 150 stores and 3,500 workers “will be on strike over the course of the next week” due to the company’s “treatment of queer & trans workers.”

    Workers at Starbucks’ flagship store, the Seattle Roastery, went on strike Friday, with dozens of picketing outside.

    Earlier this month, the collective accused Starbucks of banning Pride month displays at some of its stores.

    “In union stores, where Starbucks claims they are unable to make ‘unilateral changes’ without bargaining, the company took down Pride decorations and flags anyway — ignoring their own anti-union talking point,” the group tweeted on June 13.

    In a statement provided to CBS News Friday, a Starbucks spokesperson vehemently denied the allegations, saying that “Workers United continues to spread false information about our benefits, policies and negotiation efforts, a tactic used to seemingly divide our partners and deflect from their failure to respond to bargaining sessions for more than 200 stores.”

    In a letter sent last week to Workers United, May Jensen, Starbucks vice president of partner resources, expressed the company’s “unwaveringly support” for “the LGBTQIA2+ community,” adding that “there has been no change to any corporate policy on this matter and we continue to empower retail leaders to celebrate with their communities including for U.S. Pride month in June.”

    Since workers at a Starbucks store in Buffalo, New York, became the first to vote to unionize in late 2021, Starbucks has been accused of illegal attempts to thwart such efforts nationwide. To date, at least 330 Starbucks stores have voted to unionize, according to Workers United, but none have reached a collective bargaining agreement with the company.

    Judges have ruled that Starbucks repeatedly broke labor laws, including by firing pro-union workers, interrogating them and threatening to rescind benefits if employees organized, according to the National Labor Relations Board.

    In March, former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz also denied the allegations when he was grilled about them during a public Senate hearing.  

    “These are allegations,” Schultz said at the time. “These will be proven not true.”

    — Irina Ivanova and Caitlin O’Kane contributed to this report. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Some Starbucks workers say Pride Month decorations banned at stores, but the company says that’s not true

    Some Starbucks workers say Pride Month decorations banned at stores, but the company says that’s not true

    [ad_1]

    As Starbucks continues to battle unionization efforts by baristas, the company has been accused by some U.S. employees of banning LGBTQ Pride decorations. The company says this isn’t true and that their policy around Pride Month has not changed. 

    Starbucks Workers United, the labor group leading unionization, claimed in a series of Tweets that during Pride Month, the company has for the first time disallowed Pride decorations, which “have become an annual tradition in stores.”

    “In union stores, where Starbucks claims they are unable to make ‘unilateral changes’ without bargaining, the company took down Pride decorations and flags anyway — ignoring their own anti-union talking point,” the group claimed in a tweet. 

    But Starbucks says there has been “no change” to its policies, and that the company “unwaveringly” supports the LGBTQ community. 

    “There has been no change to any policy on this matter and we continue to encourage our store leaders to celebrate with their communities including for U.S. Pride Month in June,” the spokesperson said in a statement, adding that the company is “deeply concerned by false information that is being spread especially as it relates to our inclusive store environments, our company culture, and the benefits we offer our partners.”

    “Starbucks has a history that includes more than four decades of recognizing and celebrating our diverse partners and customers – including year-round support for the LGBTQIA2+ community,” the statement reads. The company said it empowers employees to show support for several heritage months.

    On its website, Starbucks has a timeline of its history of inclusion of the LGBTQ community, starting in 1988 when the company began offering full health benefits to employees including coverage for same-sex domestic partnerships.

    Starbucks Workers United claims several employees have reported the alleged ban on Pride decor. The group is calling on the company to stand up for the LGBTQ community and to negotiate union contracts “that legally locks-in our benefits, our freedom of expression, and ways to hold management accountable.”

    Starbucks and the labor union don’t see eye to eye on a number of issues. Since October 2022, Starbucks has filed more than 100 Unfair Labor Practice charges against the union, saying they have failed to appoint representatives for several bargaining sessions and have failed to bargain in good faith. Meanwhile, the National Labor Relations Board accused the company of using an “array of illegal tactics” against the union, and a judge ruled the company violated labor laws “hundreds of times” during a unionization drive in Buffalo, New York.

    Companies’ support for Pride Month and the LGBTQ community has become a target of protests, with Target deciding to remove some Pride merchandise from their stores, saying employees had received threats. Bud Light also received backlash this year after partnering with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, which resulted in a drop in sales of the beer.

    Starbucks recently launched a collaboration with artist Tim Singleton, who designed bright, reusable cups as part of the company’s Artist Collaboration Series. In an Instagram post, he referred to the six rainbow-themed cups as “this year’s Pride Collection,” and Starbucks describes it as “a mish-mash of pop culture, queer culture and nostalgia with bold visuals and rainbow-bright colors.”

    While June is a month designated for celebrating LGBTQ pride, the community has been facing an increase in threats and political backlash from the right. This year, more than 520 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced at the state level — a record — and 74 such laws have been enacted, according to the Human Rights Campaign.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Starbucks to pay $25 million to former manager Shannon Phillips allegedly fired because of race

    Starbucks to pay $25 million to former manager Shannon Phillips allegedly fired because of race

    [ad_1]

    Coffee giant Starbucks has been ordered to pay $25.6 million to a former store manager who a jury determined had been fired because she was White. 

    The former regional manager, Shannon Phillips, who oversaw dozens of Starbucks coffee shops, was fired by the company in the aftermath of a 2018 incident that took place at a Starbucks in the Rittenhouse Square neighborhood of Philadelphia.

    The incident involved two Black men in their 20s who were awaiting a third party for a business meeting at the Rittenhouse Square Startbucks when one of them, Rashon Nelson, was denied permission to use the restroom, because he hadn’t purchased anything. 

    A store employee then asked Nelson and his business partner, Donte Robinson, if they needed help. The pair declined. Shortly thereafter, having been summoned by Starbucks staff, police arrived, handcuffed the pair and escorted them from the cafe. 

    Their arrests were captured on video and shared widely. Protests ensued, with the company closing all of its stores to hold anti-bias training for workers

    “Scapegoat”

    Phillips, the regional manager, was fired, while the manager of the Rittenhouse Square coffee shop, who was Black, kept his job. Phillips sued Starbucks in 2019, alleging that race had been a determining factor in her termination. 

    Her lawyers argued that “upper management of Starbucks were looking for a ‘scapegoat’ to terminate to show action was being taken” following the incident involving the two Black men. 

    A federal jury in Camden, New Jersey, on Monday agreed with their claim and awarded Phillips $600,000 in compensatory damages and $25 million in punitive damages after finding that Starbucks violated her federal civil rights in addition to a New Jersey law that prohibits discrimination based on race. 

    The case is unusual in that traditionally, anti-discrimination laws have protected individuals who fall into minority categories, according to Wilk Auslander employment attorney Helen Rella.

    “The decision in the Starbucks case, that found Starbucks liable for race discrimination relative to a white employee who was terminated, sends the signal that all races are protected from discrimination – not just those who are considered minorities,” she told CBS MoneyWatch. “It serves as a reminder to employers to carefully consider their actions to ensure that they are compliant with anti-discrimination laws across the board.”

    Starbucks did not immediately respond to CBS MoneyWatch’s request for comment. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A growing push from some U.S. companies for workers to return to the office

    A growing push from some U.S. companies for workers to return to the office

    [ad_1]

    Oakland, California — It may be back to the office at Credit Karma’s headquarters in Oakland, California, but it’s not business as usual for senior manager Lupe Romo, who is working on his pool game.

    “These are partners of mine,” Romo told CBS News. “This is an investment in people. This is an investment in my relationships with this group.”

    It’s exactly what Credit Karma CEO and founder Kenneth Lin wants to see after three years of working from home.

    “We think there is more energy, there’s more creativity,” Lin said of his staff being back in the office. “People work better together.”

    To encourage brainstorming there’s a game room, yoga and a coffee bar — all free.
     
    “Well, it’s by design, right?” Lin said of the long line for the coffee bar. “We actually want interaction.”

    While the reviews app Yelp announced this week it was closing its last office in Phoenix — and will now have all its workers go fully remote — companies like Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, are going the opposite direction.

    Meta this week announced that it was mandating that all workers return to the office for three days a week starting in September. Across the country, company leaders are making headlines with calls to return to the office. 

    “I got data that about 30 of you didn’t even open or crack open laptops, and those are all remote employees, including their manager, for a whole month,” James Clarke, CEO of Clearlink told his staff in April in a video obtained by Vice.

    A 2020 study published in the Harvard Business Review found that 38% of managers either agree or strongly agree that “the performance of remote workers is usually lower than that of people who work in an office setting.” Forty percent of respondents disagreed, and 22% were unsure.

    Amazon, Apple, and Starbucks are among the companies now requiring employees to come in three days a week, despite some push back. A February survey by the recruiting firm Robert Half found that 32% of workers who go into the office at least once a week would be willing to take a pay cut to work remotely full-time.

    “The job market was on fire,” said Patrick Carroll, CEO and founder of commercial real estate investment firm Carroll. “And so it gave the employee a lot of leverage. Now, that the market is slowing down drastically, I believe that leverage is shifted to the employer.”

    Carroll supports a return to the office.

    “I think it’s going to take mandates,” Carroll said. “It’s going to take, you know, fear of losing their job.”

    Lin takes a different tact on the issue.

    “I think people frame it the wrong way when they talk about return to the office as a function of productivity or compensation,” Lin said. “It’s about the culture that you want to work in.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Starbucks introducing nugget ice to some stores

    Starbucks introducing nugget ice to some stores

    [ad_1]

    Pebble ice lovers, rejoice — Starbucks is introducing the chewable nugget ice pellets in some stores this year.

    The coffee giant said it has been receiving positive feedback from customers on the different ice form, which would replace Starbucks’ current ice cubes, which are non-uniform, thin squares.

    “Customers who have tried the nugget ice in our hand-crafted iced beverages during testing had a resoundingly positive response,” Starbucks spokesperson Megan Adams told CBS News in an email. “Like many of our recent investments, this machine allows partners to focus on delivering the Starbucks Experience while hand-crafting the same delicious, high-quality iced beverages our customers have come to expect from Starbucks.”

    This change is perhaps a bigger deal than it seems, as 75% of the chain’s beverage sales were from cold drinks, it reported in an earnings call last year.

    Nugget ice is a softer, easier-to-chew type of ice. Sonic Drive-In, Chick-fil-A, Which Wich and others are known for using the ice in their drinks, and even selling it separately in bags to customers.

    There are mixed reactions to the news on Reddit, with some customers worried that the nugget ice would dilute in coffee drinks, and perhaps lead to more watery beverages when blended. But for now, Starbucks said most customers who have tried their beverages with the nugget ice pellets, so far, are fans.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Starbucks Is Changing Its Ice, the Way It Makes Iced Drinks | Entrepreneur

    Starbucks Is Changing Its Ice, the Way It Makes Iced Drinks | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Starbucks fans were up in arms earlier this month when the company announced that it would be charging an extra dollar for certain iced drinks that were asked to be made with “no water,” but now it looks like loyal customers have another bone to pick with the coffee chain.

    A Reddit user, who claims to work at Starbucks, is going viral this week after posting a photo of ice cubes that are much smaller and cylindrical in shape than the standard square ones used by the coffee chain. Dubbed “nugget ice,” the poster says their workplace is one of three locations testing the new ice.

    New special ice (we are 1 of 3 cafe stores testing the new ice). What do you guys think? It looks like the ice at sonic.
    by u/Cupcake_Great in starbucks

    The photo drew mixed results from Reddit users, with many raising concerns about how quickly the new ice would melt.

    “I worry that they will melt too fast in iced espresso drinks,” one user pointed out.

    “I love this kind of ice but wouldn’t want it for coffee, especially espresso bevs,” another said. “It seems to melt faster.”

    Another Starbucks employee on Reddit who claims to work at an Incubation store — where ideas from corporate are initially tested — said the location they work at has had the new ice cubes since last summer.

    “Your light ice will need to be extra light. Think the gentlest tap of ice and it’ll probably be okay,” the barista advised fellow employees on how to best manage using the new ice. “All of your shaken espressos will need to be shaken even more vigorously, otherwise there won’t be foam to speak of. It’s okay for shaking teas and refreshers though.”

    Though Starbucks did not formally announce the new ice, the company confirmed in a statement to Today that the rumors were indeed true.

    “As we continue to innovate and make investments in the Starbucks Experience for our partners (baristas) and customers, we are introducing new machines that make nugget ice to select stores this year,” a representative for the company told the outlet. “Like many of our recent investments, this machine allows partners to focus on delivering the Starbucks Experience while hand-crafting the same delicious, high-quality iced beverages our customers have come to expect from Starbucks.”

    Starbucks is coming off of a strong Q2 2023, with total revenue coming in at $908.3 million, up from $674.5 million at the same time in 2022.

    The coffee chain was up an impressive 46.75% year over year as of Friday afternoon.

    [ad_2]

    Emily Rella

    Source link

  • Starbucks charging $1 for

    Starbucks charging $1 for

    [ad_1]

    Starbucks is famous for encouraging customers to create their own personalized concoctions. But at least one of those special requests will now cost you extra. 

    Starting Tuesday, the coffee chain will charge customers a dollar extra to get their Refresher beverages made without water, angering some brand loyalists. Starbucks said the charge is necessary because the juice drinks are more expensive to make when they’re not diluted. 

    “There will be an additional cost of $1 for Starbucks Refreshers Beverages customized with no water, as this customization requires extra ingredients,” the company said in a statement. 

    Refreshers are cold beverages consisting of flavored juices, freeze-dried fruit chunks, water, various milk choices and lemonade, according to the chain’s website

    “Refresher drinks without water cost more to make, so Starbucks is really just asking customers to pay a fair value for what they’re getting,” Neil Saunders, managing director of retail at GlobalData, said in an email. “In the current environment where raw material costs are rising and margins are squeezed, Starbucks probably finds it necessary to take a more stringent stance on pricing. However, like any change it will not be welcomed by customers some of whom will see it as stingy and a rip off.”

    Fans of the drinks took to social media to express their disappointment. 

    “Bye Starbucks, constant changes, price increases and treat your employees better,” said one Reddit user, referring to ongoing unionization efforts by Starbucks employees at various locations across the country.

    Several Starbucks fans complained that some stores seem to have misinterpreted the new corporate policy, causing confusion among customers. One user shared a photo of a sign outside their local Starbucks saying that Refreshers ordered with “light ice” are also subject to the $1 charge, which is not the case. 

    reddit-starbucks.jpg
    Starbucks fans on Reddit lamented that some stores have misinterpreted the new corporate policy, causing confusion among customers. 

    Reddit r/Starbucks


    “Lmao how are store managers even getting this so wrong,” another Reddit user replied to the post. “It says on every single resource that the $1 upcharge is for NO WATER ONLY, and the resources also back up the fact that ice modifiers will be unaffected and filling it to the top is still standard.”

    Another user expressed doubts that the company’s stores would be able to adjust to the changes without hiccups. 

    “Corporate [is] implementing something that’s just going to create confusion and chaos for the workers,” the Reddit user wrote. 

    This isn’t the first time Starbucks has made its customers frothing mad over cost hikes to its menu. In February, the coffee chain said it would raise its prices for a third time due to inflation.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Starbucks charging $1 for

    Starbucks charging $1 for

    [ad_1]

    Starbucks is famous for encouraging customers to create their own personalized concoctions. But at least one of those special requests will now cost you extra. 

    Starting Tuesday, the coffee chain will charge customers a dollar extra to get their Refresher beverages made without water, angering some brand loyalists. Starbucks said the charge is necessary because the juice drinks are more expensive to make when they’re not diluted. 

    “There will be an additional cost of $1 for Starbucks Refreshers Beverages customized with no water, as this customization requires extra ingredients,” the company said in a statement. 

    Refreshers are cold beverages consisting of flavored juices, freeze-dried fruit chunks, water, various milk choices and lemonade, according to the chain’s website. Fans of the drinks took to social media to express their disappointment. 

    “Bye Starbucks, constant changes, price increases and treat your employees better,” said one Reddit user, referring to ongoing unionization efforts by Starbucks employees at various locations across the country.

    Several Starbucks fans lamented that some stores seem to have misinterpreted the new corporate policy, causing confusion among customers. The user shared a photo of a sign outside their local Starbucks saying that Refreshers ordered with “light ice” are also subject to the $1 charge, which is not the case. 

    reddit-starbucks.jpg
    Starbucks fans on Reddit lamented that some stores have misinterpreted the new corporate policy, causing confusion among customers. 

    Reddit r/Starbucks


    “Lmao how are store managers even getting this so wrong,” another Reddit user replied to the post. “It says on every single resource that the $1 upcharge is for NO WATER ONLY, and the resources also back up the fact that ice modifiers will be unaffected and filling it to the top is still standard.”

    Another user expressed doubts that the company’s stores would be able to adjust to the changes without hiccups. 

    “Corporate [is] implementing something that’s just going to create confusion and chaos for the workers,” the Reddit user wrote. 

    This isn’t the first time Starbucks has made its customers frothing mad over cost hikes to its menu. In February, the coffee chain said it would raise its prices for a third time due to inflation.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Chegg, Arista, Uber, Pfizer, DuPont, and More Stock Market Movers

    Chegg, Arista, Uber, Pfizer, DuPont, and More Stock Market Movers

    [ad_1]


    • Order Reprints
    • Print Article

    [ad_2]
    Source link

  • A Starbucks Closed Abruptly — And Its Workers Say It Was Retaliation

    A Starbucks Closed Abruptly — And Its Workers Say It Was Retaliation

    [ad_1]

    After the workers at a Starbucks store in Ithaca, New York, went on strike last April, a communications specialist from the public-relations firm Edelman emailed a “real-time alert” to corporate Starbucks officials.

    “Flagging an article from The Ithacan that discusses the Cornell University Starbucks strike,” the specialist wrote. “Partners went on strike due to repeated grease trap spills that caused an unsafe environment and lack of action from management.”

    The story renewed discussion among Starbucks management about what to do with the store. A regional director recommended closure because “the space is not meeting our partners or brand needs,” but she also noted they were exploring the possibility of a renovation.

    Starbucks ended up shuttering the store permanently two months later, leading workers and federal labor enforcers to accuse the company of retaliation. The workers had recently voted 19-1 in favor of joining Workers United, making it one of 300 corporate-owned Starbucks stores nationwide that have been organized since late 2021.

    The emails, which Starbucks disclosed in a recent trial at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), shed light on the thinking among Starbucks brass leading up to the closure. The store was in a prime location with great sales potential but suffered serious maintenance issues, chief among them the overflowing grease trap.

    In June, Denise Nelsen, senior vice president of U.S. operations, emailed Rossann Williams, then the head of Starbucks’ business in North America, about the debate over whether to close the store permanently or renovate it.

    “We have to solve these condition issues because we also keep getting media on the store condition there,” Nelsen wrote.

    Kolya Vitek, a barista who worked at the College Avenue location, argued that the walkout’s unwanted attention prompted Starbucks to shutter the store for good.

    “It was retaliation for the strike we went on because we were being forced to work in unsafe conditions,” said Vitek, who now works in a different Starbucks store in Ithaca. “They didn’t care [before]. They cared all of a sudden now when we’re making national news.”

    “We have to solve these condition issues because we also keep getting media on the store condition there.”

    – Starbucks official Denise Nelsen in an email to coworkers

    Starbucks insists it closed the cafe for legitimate business reasons, saying its concerns with the store stretched back to the previous year. The company also denied that negative press played any role in the call.

    “Media attention had no bearing on our decision to close the store,” Andrew Trull, a company spokesperson, told HuffPost.

    It would be illegal for a company to shut down an individual worksite because of union activity there. The NLRB’s general counsel found merit in the union’s claims in Ithaca and brought a sweeping complaint against the company last November.

    According to the union, Starbucks informed workers on June 3, 2022, that the College Avenue store would be closing permanently. But the Starbucks emails suggest the company was still undecided at the time about what it should do with the cafe, partly because the location was so solid.

    A memo on the store’s situation said it had the “strongest real estate trade position in this area” and “any relocation would be inferior.” Operations team members had recommended a permanent closure, while the “real estate recommendation” for the store was to “go dark, reinvest and reopen.”

    Former Starbucks CEO testifying on Capitol Hill last month. The union has accused the company of closing more than two stores as retaliation.

    Anna Moneymaker via Getty Images

    Several days after workers were told the store was shutting down for good, company officials were still discussing whether they should rehab and reopen it.

    “It’s gone dark this is our last ditch effort to get the [landlord] to solve these issues,” Nelsen wrote to Williams.

    Noting the media attention on the store, Nelsen added, “If we can’t get him to respond to this message and cooperate, we will need to discuss permanent closure.”

    Michael Dolce, a lawyer for the union, said the emails show Starbucks was not straight with the store’s workers. He noted that on the same day that Nelsen and Williams were discussing the store’s possibilities, Starbucks’ lawyer sent workers a list of reasons why they were shutting it down permanently, among them the troublesome grease trap.

    “At the bargaining table, they told the union they were permanently closing the store,” Dolce said. “The plan was not to permanently close the store; it was to survey options.”

    Dolce argued that the negative publicity brought by the strike prompted Starbucks to hurry up and close the store even as it was still evaluating what to do.

    Another Starbucks email says the original closure plan was to keep the cafe open through June, but the operations team moved the closure date up nearly three weeks.

    Starbucks says it still considered the closure “permanent” because it could not have restored the cafe in a matter of weeks. Instead, it would have taken one to two years at a cost of $700,000.

    Pressed on why the company told workers the store would be closed permanently when a renovation was still on the table, Nelsen said during the labor board trial that the “depth of issues” at the store made a timeline for reopening uncertain.

    “Our timeline for a new — like for a brand-new store opening is a year,” she said. “So we’re literally talking about something taking that long. Like yes, this would be treated as a permanent closure.”

    Williams played a leading role in the company’s effort to contain the union drive before leaving Starbucks last June. Based in Seattle, the executive visited and worked in stores in the Buffalo area, where the campaign began, when workers considered forming unions ― a presence some workers found intimidating. Emails suggest Williams received detailed updates on the union’s progress.

    “It was retaliation for the strike we went on because we were being forced to work in unsafe conditions.”

    – Starbucks worker Kolya Vitek

    In a June 2022 email, a regional director of operations emailed Williams a “Buffalo executive summary” that called Ithaca a “hot spot” for union activity that “continues to have presence from Buffalo union organizers.”

    She also gave Williams a rundown of upcoming union elections. She said the company planned to challenge the results of a recent store vote because four workers apparently didn’t receive ballots. The union had won that vote 7-4.

    “It is believed these four partners are no votes,” she wrote. (The challenge ultimately failed.)

    The College Avenue store is one of 25 that the union claims Starbucks closed either permanently or temporarily to disrupt the union campaign. Union members argue Starbucks has two aims with the closures: to break up and disperse a core of union support ― perhaps prompting resignations from baristas who couldn’t or wouldn’t work at a different location ― and to make workers everywhere think twice about trying to organize.

    Starbucks maintains that it hasn’t closed any stores in retaliation for union activity. But an administrative law judge has already ruled that Starbucks illegally closed a mall kiosk that had unionized, deeming the company’s reasons for the closure “clearly pretextual.” The NLRB’s general counsel hasn’t yet announced whether the union’s allegations regarding nearly two dozen other closures have merit.

    After Starbucks announced the closure of the Ithaca store, workers began what’s known as “effects bargaining” with the company to hash out their rights during the closure. Workers were offered positions at other stores. Vitek said they pushed for a severance package for workers who wouldn’t be taking other positions, but the company was staunchly opposed.

    Evan Sunshine, an Ithaca barista who took the lead on that bargaining, said he did not expect Starbucks to close the store permanently. He believed the grease trap was a serious problem and that the company might close the store for a while to fix it, but that ultimately workers would have the same store to return to.

    Sunshine said they crowdfunded money to help cover workers’ wages affected by the shutdown.

    “We didn’t meet our goals every week,” he said.

    In the end, Sunshine said, the shuttering of the College Avenue store had a dramatic effect on the workforce and the organizing campaign in town. When the election was held in April 2022, there were 27 workers at the store. Starbucks said fourteen workers accepted positions at other stores after the closure, while the rest declined. The vast majority have since moved on from the company.

    “Two of the 27 still work at Starbucks,” said Sunshine, referring to himself and Vitek.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Conservatives Explain Why They’re Boycotting Budweiser

    Conservatives Explain Why They’re Boycotting Budweiser

    [ad_1]

    “I boycott any company that tramples on the rights of Americans, whether it’s Bud Light, Walmart, Ford, Tesla, Amazon, McDonald’s, Halliburton, Circle K, basically the entire hotel industry, the vast majority of hospitals, and almost everyone who produces, makes, or distributes food.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Woolly-Mammoth Meatball Is an All-Time Great Food Stunt

    The Woolly-Mammoth Meatball Is an All-Time Great Food Stunt

    [ad_1]

    On Tuesday, two men at a museum in the Netherlands lifted a black sheet off a table to reveal a cantaloupe-size globe of overcooked meat perspiring under a bell jar. This was no ordinary spaghetti topper: It was a woolly-mammoth meatball, created by an Australian lab-grown-meat company called Vow.

    The meatball, made using real mammoth DNA, supposedly smelled like cooked crocodile meat, and in press photos, it looked oddly furry, like it had been coughed up by a cat or rolled around by a dung beetle. Still, meat from a long-extinct behemoth that lived during the Ice Age—how could I not want to try it? Although some on Twitter were clearly grossed out, many others were also intrigued. “Bet it tastes better than Ikeas,” one user wrote.

    Disappointingly, the meatball was not made for consumption. Because it contains proteins that haven’t been eaten in thousands of years, the scientists who made it aren’t sure it would be safe. It was a marketing ploy cooked up by a creative agency that worked with Vow. I eventually realized that I wanted the meatball for the same reasons I wanted the Doritos Locos Taco, KFC’s Double Down Sandwich, and Van Leeuwen’s ranch-flavored ice cream: sheer, dumb novelty. This was stunt marketing 101 applied to the future of food, and I was the sucker falling for it.

    Food marketers have made an art of using stunt foods to draw attention to brands and court new audiences. Starbucks’s unhinged Unicorn Frappuccino begged to be Instagrammed; Buffalo Wild Wings chicken coated with Mountain Dew–infused sauce pandered to anyone who has ever experienced the late-night munchies. Typically unexpected, funny, or edgy, stunt foods are “pure marketing,” Mark Lang, a marketing professor at the University of Tampa, told me. They work because they’re bonkers enough to break through the noise of social media and get people talking, he said. But so far, they have caught our attention by twisting familiar items. Lab-grown meat, and all the permutations of protein it makes possible, is pushing us into a new era of stunt marketing, one involving foods people may have never tried.

    George Pappou, Vow’s CEO and founder, told me that the meatball was meant to “start a conversation about the food that we’re going to eat tomorrow being different from the food that we eat today.” Although the stunt drew attention toward Vow—I am writing this, and you are reading this, after all—the company doesn’t have any products on the market yet, only plans to introduce lab-made Japanese quail to diners in Singapore later this year. So what did it accomplish, exactly? “I don’t think of this one so much as a stunt as a demonstration,” Lang said. “It’s an exaggeration of the physical capabilities of new science.”

    Because lab-grown meat is still meat, just without animal husbandry and slaughter, it’s often held up as the future of sustainable, ethical carnivory. Beef or chicken made in this way probably won’t be widely available at your grocery store anytime soon, but according to an estimate by McKinsey, the industry as a whole could be worth $25 billion by 2030. Lab-grown meat—or “cultivated” meat, as the industry likes to call it—is made by growing animal cells in a large tank until they form a sizable lump of tissue. Then it’s seasoned and processed in much the same way as conventional meat, forming foods such as patties, nuggets, and meatballs. Vow’s meatball was grown from sheep cells that were engineered to contain a short mammoth DNA sequence, sourced from publicly available data. As a result, the cells produced the mammoth version of myoglobin, a protein that contributes to the metallic, “meaty” taste of muscle.

    Theoretically, this process can be used to create meat from any animal whose cells are readily available or whose DNA has been sequenced. Think of DNA as essentially an IKEA manual for building tissue. Even animals whose sequences are incomplete can be partly resurrected: Gaps in the woolly-mammoth DNA were filled in using sequences from elephants, like using Billy-bookcase instructions to build a Kallax shelf. Growing the mammoth meat, in a relatively small amount, was “ridiculously easy and fast,” Ernst Wolvetang, a scientist who worked with Vow, told the Guardian. The same could eventually be said of any type of cultivated meat if the industry can surmount the significant cost and efficiency-related challenges involved in scaling up.

    Imagine the stunts that could be possible then: nuggets for every dinosaur in Jurassic Park, even human meatballs. Already, a few companies besides Vow are pursuing more exotic fare: The New York–based Primeval Foods plans to release cultivated lion burgers, ground meat, and sausages, followed by meat from giraffes and zebras, founder and CEO Yilmaz Bora told me. Diners are always looking for something new, so food “must go beyond the current beef, chicken, and pork dishes and come without the expense of nature and animals,” he said.

    Using stunt marketing to raise awareness about the potential of cultivated meat isn’t a guarantee that people will want to eat those products if they ever become widely available. Sometimes the creations are too gross to even consider seriously, such as Hellmann’s “mayo-nog” or Oscar Mayer’s “cold dogs,” which were, uh, hot-dog-flavored ice-cream weiners on a stick. Yet unlike these stunts, people don’t have the same frame of reference for a meatball made of cultivated mammoth meat. “The risk is that it’s off-putting,” Michael Cohen, a marketing professor at NYU, told me. Or enticing.

    If the mammoth meatball made you think They can do that?, then perhaps it will have done some good. If not, then it was, at the very least, a valid attempt to engage with the science. “The meatball thing was a very well-crafted marketing activity for a product”—lab-grown meat as a category—“that I think is going to have very low adoption,” Lang said. A majority of Americans have “food neophobia,” a reluctance to adopt new foods, he said; many don’t even eat seafood. Still, in the past five months, the FDA granted its first two approvals to lab-grown chicken products, clearing a regulatory pathway for even more cultivated goods. If the technology is ever able to scale, perhaps foods like mammoth meatballs will no longer be seen as a stunt. Eventually, they might just be dinner.

    [ad_2]

    Yasmin Tayag

    Source link

  • Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz testifies before Senate about union-busting allegations

    Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz testifies before Senate about union-busting allegations

    [ad_1]

    Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz testifies before Senate about union-busting allegations – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz testified in a Senate hearing about the company’s labor practices, and allegations that it has been anti-union. Nearly 300 Starbucks stores nationwide have unionized so far. Nikole Killion has more.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawmakers set to grill Starbucks’ Howard Schultz over alleged union-busting

    Lawmakers set to grill Starbucks’ Howard Schultz over alleged union-busting

    [ad_1]

    Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz is set for a showdown with Senator Bernie Sanders and other lawmakers on Wednesday at a congressional hearing focused on allegations of union-busting at the coffee chain.

    Sanders, who chairs the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee, has been calling for months for Schultz to publicly respond to worker complaints, even threatening to subpoena Schultz after Starbucks tried to send a subordinate in his stead.

    Sanders offered a taste of the hearing in its title: “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks.” Schultz is scheduled to testify at 10 a.m. Wednesday.

    “Starbucks has become the most aggressive union-busting company in America,” the HELP committee wrote this week, decrying what Democrats on the panel called the company’s “scorched-earth approach” to labor relations.

     Since the first Starbucks store voted to unionize in late 2022, nearly 300 Starbucks stores have taken that step, although none has yet negotiated a collective-bargaining contract and the company has closed some pro-union stores. Judges have ruled that Starbucks repeatedly broke labor laws, including by firing workers, interrogating them, threatening to rescind benefits if employees organized and threatening to call the police on a worker, according to a spokesperson from the National Labor Relations Board.

    Earlier this month, a judge found that Starbucks engaged in “egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights,” ordering Schultz to personally read the employees a recitation of their rights under the law. The company has faced more than 500 complaints of unfair labor practices filed by workers and labor officials, according to the NLRB.

    Schultz blames union for slowing talks

    In prepared testimony released ahead of the Senate hearing, Schultz said that Starbucks has tried to negotiate with unionized stores but has been thwarted by unnamed pro-union individuals.

    “We have been arranging more than 350 bargaining sessions,” Schultz said, noting that Starbucks officials have physically attended 85 sessions. “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,” he said. 

    Schultz also highlights benefits Starbucks offers to employees, including paid sick leave, paid parental leave, some child care benefits, a paid-for online college degree and, added in the past year, a minimum wage of $15 an hour at company stores and the option for customers to tip on credit-card orders. 

    But Schultz omits that Starbucks rolled out credit-card tipping — a key demand of pro-union workers — only in stores that were not represented by a union. The NLRB filed a complaint this week alleging that Starbucks illegally withheld these benefits from union workers, as first reported by More Perfect Union. Previously, the labor board also charged that Starbucks broke the law when it raised pay and benefits for non-unionized stores only.

    Schultz has served three terms as Starbucks’ CEO, most recently between April 2022 and March 20, 2023, which he ended two weeks ahead of schedule. According to Politico, when Schultz first bought out the coffee chain in 1987, he inherited a unionized workforce at the shop’s roasting plant and store — those workers had secured health care coverage for part-timers, a Starbucks benefit that Schultz often touts. After his takeover, Schultz pushed for major concessions from the workers and was instrumental in the move to de-certify the union, Politico reported

    When the New York Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Schultz last year if he could ever accept a union at Starbucks, the CEO answered quickly, “No.”

    CBS News’ Nikole Killion contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Starbucks’ new CEO plans to work as a barista once a month

    Starbucks’ new CEO plans to work as a barista once a month

    [ad_1]

    Judge rules Starbucks violated federal labor laws


    Judge rules Starbucks violated federal labor laws

    01:14

    The new CEO of Starbucks is going to try his hand at being a barista. Laxman Narasimhan said in a letter to employees he plans to work at Starbucks stores every month – a divergence from the typical schedule of an executive.

    Narasimhan, who was previously an executive at PepsiCo, said before becoming CEO of Starbucks, he trained at the company for six months. Part of that “immersive experience” was learning how to be a barista. 

    March 20 was his first day leading the company, but he promised to be back in a green apron soon – and frequently. 

    “I have learned so much about the retail experience from working in our stores,” he wrote in the letter. “To keep us close to the culture and our customers, as well as to our challenges and opportunities, I intend to continue working in stores for a half day each month, and I expect each member of the leadership team to also ensure our support centers stay connected and engaged in the realities of our stores for discussion and improvement,” he continued.

    Narasimhan didn’t just serve coffee during his training, he also learned about the company’s support centers, supply chain and manufacturing. He also met the farmers behind the coffee. 

    And he spent time with the company’s former CEO Howard Schultz and other executives “discussing the universal need for human connection,” saying Starbucks will prioritize human connection to help its “partners, our customers, our communities, our farmers, our earth, and our shareholders.” 

    He called it a “refounding of Starbucks” and said the company will work to improve many aspects of the business including long-term hiring and retention of employees and investing in their wages and stores.

    Workers at hundreds of Starbucks locations across the U.S. have complained about wages, tried to unionize – which Starbucks has said it opposes – and even staged walkouts last year.

    This week, hundreds of workers went on strike again, alleging the company has been issued more than 70 official complaints from the National Labor Relations Board, according to CBS Minnesota, which reports workers at three Starbucks locations in the Twin Cities planned to strike. But the company has also accused the union of refusing to bargain in good faith, filing 100 Unfair Labor Practice charges against it. 

    In an earlier letter to employees – which the company refers to as “partners” – on Monday, Narasimhan praised Schultz for believing the company must work to “exceed partner expectations.” He told partners “the best days are ahead.” 

    Individual stores are bargaining with Starbucks on contracts as they unionize, a Starbucks spokesperson told CBS News. The company has sat in “more than 85 single-store contract bargaining sessions and has nearly 30 outstanding proposals for additional single-store bargaining sessions through the end of March 2023” and blamed Workers United, the group organizing the unionization efforts, for not naming bargaining representatives for more than 50 stores and canceling bargaining sessions.

    The spokesperson said Starbucks and Workers United had a “productive in-person bargaining session” on Wednesday, discussing the contracts for a store in Seattle, and they hope to continue these in-person discussions for others. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz agrees to testify to Senate committee, Bernie Sanders says

    Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz agrees to testify to Senate committee, Bernie Sanders says

    [ad_1]

    Senator Sanders on anger at capitalism


    Senator Bernie Sanders on new book, Social Security and the future of jobs

    07:17

    Washington — Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has agreed to testify to a Senate committee investigating the company’s labor practices ahead of a vote to subpoena him, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday. 

    Democrats on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Sanders chairs, invited Schultz to testify about the company’s compliance with federal labor laws in a Feb. 7 letter, noting that Starbucks has pushed back against its employees unionization efforts. The Senate panel was set to vote Wednesday to subpoena Schultz if he did not willingly agree to testify. 

    “In America, workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining to improve their wages and working conditions. Unfortunately Starbucks, under Mr. Schultz’s leadership, has done everything possible to prevent that from happening,” Sanders, an independent from Vermont, said in a news release announcing Schultz’s March 29 appearance before the committee. 

    The National Labor Relations Board has filed more than 80 complaints against Starbucks for violating federal labor laws, Sanders said, accusing the company of refusing to negotiate in good faith with workers in more than 280 Starbucks stores who have voted to unionize.

    “I look forward to hearing from Mr. Schultz as to when he intends to end his illegal anti-union activities and begin signing fair first contracts with the unions,” Sanders said. 

    Last week, Starbucks called the threat a “disappointing development” but said it was “optimistic that we’ll come to an appropriate resolution.” In its response to the committee’s initial invitation, the company said Schultz was not the right person to testify, noting that he would be transitioning out of the role of CEO in March. It offered to make another executive available instead. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders Says He’s Going To Subpoena Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz

    Sen. Bernie Sanders Says He’s Going To Subpoena Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz

    [ad_1]

    Sen. Bernie Sanders announced Wednesday that he plans to hold a vote among his colleagues to determine whether Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz should be subpoenaed to testify before a Senate committee.

    The Vermont independent has been hammering the Starbucks co-founder over the company’s anti-union campaign against Workers United, a union that has organized nearly 300 of the chain’s stores. Now, Sanders says Schultz should be compelled to testify before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, which Sanders chairs.

    “Unfortunately, Howard Schultz has given us no choice, but to subpoena him,” Sanders said on Twitter. “A multi-billion dollar corporation like Starbucks cannot continue to break federal labor law with impunity. The time has come to hold Starbucks and Mr. Schultz accountable.”

    Sanders’ office said in a press release that the committee will hold the vote next Wednesday. Democrats hold a slim majority in the committee and the Senate at large.

    Sanders said the subpoena would be related to Starbucks’ “lack of compliance with federal labor law.” He also said he hoped to “authorize a committee investigation into major corporations’ labor law violations.”

    Workers United has encountered aggressive pushback from the coffee chain as the union has tried to organize stores from coast to coast since 2021. The general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has issued dozens of complaints against the Seattle-based company, alleging it illegally fired workers, closed stores, and threatened to withhold raises and benefits so that employees wouldn’t unionize.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders wants Howard Schultz (above) to testify before his committee.

    The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Sanders sent a letter to Starbucks last month requesting that Schultz testify before his committee, but the company responded with a letter saying the CEO did not intend to do so. They recommended that a different executive, A.J. Jones II, appear in his place. Schultz plans to step down from his role atop the company in March.

    “Given the timing of the transition, his relinquishment of any operating role in the company going forward and what we understand to be the subject of the hearing, we believe another senior leader with ongoing responsibilities is best suited to address these matters,” Starbucks general counsel Zabrina Jenkins wrote to Sanders.

    Schultz is the face of Starbucks and has been deeply involved in the campaign against the union, making direct appeals to workers. The labor board’s general counsel has accused Schultz himself of violating the law amid the campaign. In a sign of how contentious the campaign has been, the union’s lead organizer has called Schultz “the Al Capone of union-busters.”

    After Starbucks rebuffed the senator’s request that Schultz appear before the committee, Sanders called the response “disappointing, but not surprising.”

    “Apparently, it is easier for Mr. Schultz to fire workers who are exercising their constitutional right to form unions, and to intimidate others who may be interested in joining a union than to answer questions from elected officials,” Sanders said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link