Senators Question Democrat Ties to Unions at Starbucks Labor Practices Hearing

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) accused the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of being weaponized against U.S. employers on behalf of unions and the politicians they support during a hearing with testimony from former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.

Cassidy, ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, made the remarks during the March 29 hearing on labor relations at Starbucks, which was held to address allegations of misconduct filed against the coffee chain with the labor relations board.

He acknowledged the claims of misconduct against Starbucks should be investigated, but he also highlighted the board’s credibility crisis due in part to its donations to Democrat lawmakers who aren’t in support of creating more unions.

According to Cassidy, the agency is currently facing four separate allegations of interference by NLRB employees, three of which involve Starbucks. This raises concerns that NLRB employees are using the agency to benefit politically connected labor unions unfairly.

Cassidy emphasized that federal law and NLRB guidelines prohibit such actions by the agency, which include providing duplicate ballots, supplying union organizers with confidential voter information, and providing voter accommodations to employees selected by the union without offering them to all employees.

Schultz vehemently disagreed with accusations made by senators that his company acted illegally, saying that the allegations, as cited by the lawmakers and laid out in the HELP committee’s majority staff report, were unproven and untrue.

The former CEO asserted that union negotiations required they meet with stores individually and that they had done so on 80-plus occasions but couldn’t commit to a complete proposal exchange within the 14-day timeline requested by HELP Committee Chairman Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Schultz and Sanders also clashed over accusations that the company is withholding benefits to those unionizing.

The Starbucks founder said on several occasions that it was his understanding it was the company’s legal obligation to not extend some benefits to those involved in union negotiations.

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) made similar statements to his Republican colleagues, pointing to both the apparent conflict of interest for Democrats and the partisan attack on Schultz, which has pushed Republicans to become an unlikely ally for the outspoken Democratic businessman.

“I recognize at the outset that 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,” Romney stated.

“That being said, I also think it’s somewhat rich that you’re being grilled by people who have never had the opportunity to create a single job.”

Cassidy called for a bipartisan investigation into the NLRB’s alleged misconduct and weaponization against U.S. employers on behalf of labor unions, as it violates federal law and undermines the NLRB’s mandate to protect the rights of all parties in a labor dispute.

“Let’s be clear, workers have the legal right to unionize. Companies cannot break the law to prevent unionization,” Cassidy said.

“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 are ‘indeed the preferred’ method to gauge worker support of unionization.

“This is a conversation that our committee can 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. That should be something our committee investigates on a bipartisan basis.”

Schultz agreed to testify before the committee following the threat of a subpoena from Sanders.