Breaking Down Witness Testimony from the Starbucks Congressional Hearing

Part one of our breakdown focused on former CEO Howard Schultz. Part two analyzes the testimony of witnesses, including employees, lawyers, and policy experts.

If you appreciate the articles and insights from this newsletter, I encourage you to switch your subscription from a free to paid model. There’s a button below to help you do so, and if you can’t, please share this story out with your network — helping the newsletter grow is another way you can help the work stay sustainable.

Photo by Hamza Inayat on Unsplash

On March 29, Howard Schultz appeared in front of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) to discuss anti-union activity at Starbucks. Last week, we broke down Schultz’s testimony, including the most salient questions from committee members and the ridiculous responses from Schultz, including how often he claimed Starbucks had never broken the law (it has) and implied its record of “progressive” policies should be enough for workers.

This week, we’re focusing on the witnesses that were called to both affirm and rebuke Starbucks’ anti-union activity—including specific statements made by Schultz. You can watch the entire televised hearing here, but here’s a timestamped breakdown of the most important points.

---

02:18:10 — Maggie Carter gives a statement. She shares how she applied for a job at Starbucks because she was seeking a role with flexible hours and benefits for part-time workers and was encouraged by the brand’s reputation as a progressive employer for LGBTQIA+ workers. 

Carter worked at a store in Jackson, Tennessee, starting in May 2019. She was paid $8.30 and worked through the pandemic. She requested a transfer from her store in Jackson to one in Knoxville and was told she could quit and try her luck on getting rehired in Knoxville or take a leave of absence—without pay—and wait to be transferred. It was this treatment that inspired her to organize. 

As her store organized, Carter says workers who showed interest in unionizing were disciplined for minor infractions that had been ignored in the past, like dress code violations or being a few minutes late. “Every day, it felt like there was a concerted effort to build a case against partners who showed even the smallest bit of support for the union.” 

Carter’s store won its union election a year ago, and workers say Starbucks has yet to negotiate with them. She says they had only one scheduled bargaining session—to counter Schultz’s claim that multiple attempts were made to schedule sessions—and that Starbucks representatives walked out. She calls their anti-union efforts a “scorched Earth” campaign and quotes from her colleague, Michelle Eisen, who testified in front of the House of Representatives in 2022: “It should not take an act of bravery to ensure you have a voice at work.” 

She ends by stating how much policy and power favor corporations versus workers and urges Starbucks to bargain in good faith. “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.” 

02:23:43 — Jaysin Saxton was illegally fired from a Starbucks store in Augusta, Georgia. Saxton lists his accomplishments and notes the company recognized him for his hard work and dedication, including winning “Partner of the Quarter.” 

Once he and his co-workers decided to begin organizing, he says he was met with an increasingly hostile environment, including frequent visits from district and regional managers and being constantly surveilled. He then details how partners were let go, including one who reported sexual harassment to their manager. 

Like Carter, Saxton talks about captive audience meetings, where workers “were being threatened with losing their benefits if they join a union.” The workers still filed for a union in March 2022 and won the election in April. Saxton reports continued surveillance after the union victory, with higher-ups listening through headsets and firing at least seven unionized workers. 

Saxton then details his own firing: He was told it was for being “disruptive” despite no previous writeups or disciplinary action. “I was fired after organizing like so many union leaders across the country.” 

02:28:32 — Next is Sharon Block, a professor at Harvard Law School and the Executive Director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy and formerly a member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  

She testifies about the integrity and hard work of NLRB workers, then details the provisions behind the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which protects the right to unionize but doesn’t confer any specific rights once workers exercise their rights. “Instead, it guarantees them a fair process to decide for themselves whether they want to exercise these rights. It is always the workers who make these decisions.” 

She then makes three points: 

1. “The scope of Starbucks’ violations alleged and found so far is beyond the scope of anti-union campaigns that I have witnessed during my career as a labor lawyer.” On this first point, she notes over 500 allegations of Starbucks violating the NLRA “and have found merit in more than half of those charges.” 

2. “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.”

3. “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 Starbucks cup.” 

She also talks about “hallmark violations,” which impact not just one person but rather “the organizing rights of co-workers” generally. Specifically, she’s talking about workers illegally fired during a union push. 

She also talks about the impact of Starbucks’ anti-union messaging and alleged illegal activity from a broader perspective: “Each time the company commits a new violation in a new location or at a new stage in the union’s campaign, it is communicating to all of its workers that the rights accorded to them by the law can be defeated—that the company has the resources, the will, and the stamina to undermine the exercise of their rights at every turn.” 

02:34:13 — Now, Senator Cassidy gets to call witnesses. The first to testify is Bradley Byrne, a former representative and now attorney in private practice. 

He’s speaking on behalf of a whistleblower, a “longtime 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.” He’s referring to allegations made against NLRB workers at one Starbucks location in Kansas City. 

He continues to talk about the importance of neutrality of the NLRB and talks about the integrity of voting—we should note here that Byrne was one of 126 Republicans who supported a lawsuit challenging the results of the 2020 election, so I’m gonna go ahead and say this guy doesn’t give a shit about the integrity of voting. 

02:39:29 — Rachel Greszler of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has supported and shaped Trump-era policies and political appointments, does what every conservative has done in this hearing: asserts vehemently the right of workers to unionize, then shifts the argument to delegitimize the current Starbucks union effort. 

It’s fascinating how often conservatives have to assert their support of unions, even though they’re siding with Schultz in refusing to believe that one is necessary Starbucks. This is because they have to. Unions are the ultimate blue-collar, working-class symbol, and despite these commenters being ideologically opposed to unions in practice, they continue to express support in words and speeches. It’s weird to watch. 

Greszler talks about the United Auto Workers, and how workers’ “excessive” wages meant more expensive cars and fewer available jobs. Basically, she blames the decline of the U.S. auto industry on unions. “Domestic auto production today is one-third what it used to be two decades ago.”  

She also says this bizarre line: “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.” So she implies that it’s because workers are moving from job to job that pensions are not “desirable,” rather than depressed wages causing workers to move positions for more money and a concerted effort by corporations to lobby Congress to get rid of pension plans. Many Congresspeople get pensions, but Greszler thinks average workers wouldn’t want pensions upon retirement. 

She also talks about Scabby the Rat, an inflatable rat you might find in front of union-busting businesses. “Depicting company management as a 12-foot diseased rat is dehumanizing and destructive.” She disparages unions, calling them political entities and incorrectly ascribing the decline in unions to people simply not needing them anymore, with employers being “more responsive” to worker needs. She also talks about the decline in worker participation (which is untrue) and incorrectly correlates fewer worker benefits with government overregulation. 

I thought Greszler’s comments would be more competent—still wrong, but logically sound—since she works for a think tank. I was wrong.  

02:45:03 — Sanders questions his witnesses. Carter talks about a captive audience meeting where a regional manager she’d never met infected many of the employees with COVID. 

Saxton tells how his store manager—who was well-liked and supported the union—was fired. Starbucks brought in a “management team” that would regularly rearrange the store and force workers to relearn where everything was. Saxton also reports that the management team would listen to employees and write down the names of people who would be disciplined later or fired. 

Professor Block talks about the “power imbalance” between workers and Starbucks, and cautions that Starbucks’ anti-union campaign is not only a deterrent to other workers but serves as a model for corporations in the future to employ. “This ability to play things out over a long time just exacerbates that kind of power imbalance.” 

02:49:38 — Sen. Cassidy questions his witnesses. With Byrne, he asks about the alleged unfair practices by the NLRB—allegedly, two workers were allowed to vote in person even though the vote was stipulated as mail-in only. 

Sen. Cassidy calls the communication between the NLRB and the union “fairly benign” before saying he’s not a lawyer so he’s unsure, but Bryne’s argument continues to center around neutrality and that any communication that happened with the union should have happened with Starbucks. 

I get this argument, but they’re trying to ignore the jump from “mistake” to “intentional favoring.” A procedural error does not equate to favoritism. Byrne tries to allege that the NLRB’s behavior is a pattern, but doesn’t present any proof (he does mention the whistleblower is under subpoena right now by the House, so that could factor into his ability to speak more on the topic). 

Sen. Cassidy also asks about the NLRB complaints that are thrown out, and Byrne alleges that complaints are a tactical tool by the union. So that’s cool and fun—turning an accountability measure into a tool for the union. 

Greszler talks about modernizing union efforts using Major League Baseball as an example. She talks about merit and worker choice and makes no compelling arguments. 

02:55:00 — Sen. Tina Smith of Minnesota asks how Schultz can have a “partnership” with hundreds of thousands of workers. 

She also asks Carter why she’s organizing, and Carter says something interesting: She notes that, during the pandemic, store upkeep declined, but also that the benefits Starbucks supplies are often cost-prohibitive. 

Schultz talked at length about the “unprecedented” benefits afforded to workers, but according to Carter’s testimony, those benefits may be out of reach for many workers. “Rather than forego a paycheck, we just choose not to have health insurance,” Carter says. 

Smith asks Saxton about union workers getting their hours cut, and he talks about a colleague who used to get 25 hours a week regularly but now only gets five. “I think that speaks for itself.” 

Then Smith asked Professor Block about Schultz’s earlier claim that he could not extend benefits to unionized workers. “Once the union waived its right to bargain over those particular benefits, it would not have been unlawful ... for Starbucks to grant those benefits to the stores that had unionized.” 

03:00:26 — Sanders asks a few more questions, specifically about what it feels like to live off $15 or $16 an hour and if Starbucks employees have any foresight into the number of hours they’ll receive every week. Again, Starbucks ties access to benefits to hours worked—you have to work 20 hours a week to access benefits. 

Carter states that she had no problem meeting that requirement until recently. “Having your benefits tied to your hours when you don’t get to determine the hours you work doesn’t really seem conducive.” 

Sanders asks Saxton how he budgets money if he doesn’t know how many hours he’ll receive. “You simply can't do a budget when you don’t know.” Saxton affirms how common it is for workers to receive 25 hours one week, then 10 the next week. Many employees have second jobs, yet Starbucks demands “180% availability,” which Carter describes using an example: If you want to work 12 hours, you must have 18 hours available to Starbucks—but you’re only getting scheduled for 12. Saxton affirms that getting Starbucks to accommodate your schedule is nearly impossible. 

And that’s the hearing! You can watch all three hours here. 
 

I want to end by pointing folks to an excellent article by my colleague, Fionn Pooler, for his newsletter, The Pourover. He recently defined the term “coffeewashing,” which is “when coffee companies deceive or mislead the public about the positive social, economic and environmental impact of their products or actions.” This is what Starbucks is doing when it continues to tout its “progressive policies.” Healthcare for part-time workers doesn’t matter if most cannot access it. Flexible scheduling means nothing if workers are assigned wildly different hours from week to week. 

These benefits are merely talking points that have been further weaponized against unionized workers. If you question why unions matter or are necessary—even though the right to unionize is protected, and you don’t need a reason to want to organize—it’s because of such practices. Nothing promised to you is ever guaranteed.