

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, today led the committee in a hearing titled, “No Company Is Above the Law: The Need to End Illegal Union Busting at Starbucks.”
Sanders’ opening remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below and can be watched here.
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions will come to order.
Let me get to the point of this hearing. Today in America, over 60% of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, and millions are working for starvation wages. Unbelievably, despite an explosion in technology and increases in worker productivity, the average worker is making over $50 a week less today than he or she made 50 years ago – after adjusting for inflation. Unless we change the nature of our economy, it is likely that the younger generation will have a lower standard of living than their parents.
What that means is that workers throughout our country are struggling to pay for housing, struggling to pay for healthcare and prescription drugs, struggling to put food on the table, struggling to pay off their student debt and deal with other basic necessities. And while that is the reality for the working class of our country, here is another reality. And that is that the people on top have never had it so good. Today in America, we have more income and wealth inequality than we’ve ever had with the top 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, with CEOs now making 400 times more than their workers, and with 3 people on top now owning more wealth than the bottom half of American society. That’s the economic reality that exists today. The rich get much richer, working families struggle.
And, as a result of that 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 fighting back and are forming unions in order to improve their wages, their benefits, their working conditions.
These workers know, as I do, that union workers earn nearly 20% more, on average, than non-union 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 non-union workers.
At a time when 71% 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 our country. Between 2021 and 2022, the number of union elections taking place in America has gone up by 53% and since 2020 workers have voted to form a union in over 70 percent of union elections.
That’s 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.
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’s 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 this 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 at more than 360 stores across nearly 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 campaign. 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 it.
A multi-billion dollar company, with unlimited resources, with all kinds of lawyers, advisors, consultants, has 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 six months had permeated every store in the Buffalo market.”
The judge ordered Starbucks to reinstate seven workers who were wrongfully terminated, re-open a pro-union store in Buffalo that was illegally shut down, and pay “reasonable consequential damages” to more than two dozen workers whose rights were violated by Starbucks.
And let’s 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 Reserve Roastery Store in Seattle.
NLRB judges have found that Starbucks illegally threatened to withhold benefits (including health insurance) from pro-union workers in Denver, Colorado; Overland Park, Kansas; Seattle, Washington; and Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The pattern in all of these stores is clear: On the one hand, you have workers making $13, $14 or $15 an hour with minimal benefits, working 20, 30 or 40 hours a week depending on a totally unpredictable schedule dictated by their managers, trying to achieve dignity and justice on the job. On the other hand, we have a corporation worth $113 billion controlled by an individual worth nearly $4 billion who are using their unlimited resources to do everything possible, legal and illegal, to deny these workers their constitutional rights.
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 leader of a large 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 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 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.
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, stall and stall. They understand that the turnover rate at Starbucks is high. They understand that if workers do not see success in getting a contract and improved wages they may get discouraged. So what Starbucks is doing is not only trying to break unions, but even worse. They are trying to break the spirit of workers who are struggling to improve their lives. And that is unforgivable.
In an interview with the New York Times, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey described "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is warning that the Trump administration has crossed a "terrifying line" with its use of federal immigration enforcement agents to brutalize and abduct people in his city.
In an interview with the New York Times published Saturday, Frey described operations that have taken place in his city as "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up," likening it to a military "invasion."
During the interview, Frey was asked what he made of Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent offer to withdraw immigration enforcement forces from his city if Minnesota handed over its voter registration records to the federal government.
"That is wildly unconstitutional," Frey replied. "We should all be standing up and saying that’s not OK. Literally, listen to what they’re saying. Active threats like, Turn over the voter rolls or else, or we will continue to do what we’re doing. That’s something you can do in America now."
Frey was also asked about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's comments from earlier in the week where he likened the administration's invasion of Minneapolis to the first battle that took place during the US Civil War in Fort Sumter.
"I don’t think he’s saying that the Civil War is going to happen," said Frey. "I think what he’s saying is that a significant and terrifying line is being crossed. And I would agree with that."
As Frey issued warnings about the federal government's actions in Minneapolis, more horror stories have emerged involving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minnesota.
The Associated Press reported on Saturday that staff at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis have been raising red flags over ICE agents' claims about Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, a Mexican immigrant whom they treated after he suffered a shattered skull earlier this month.
ICE agents who brought Castañeda Mondragón to the hospital told staffers that he had injured himself after he "purposefully ran headfirst into a brick wall" while trying to escape their custody.
Nurses who treated Castañeda Mondragón, however, said that there is no way that running headfirst into a wall could produce the sheer number of skull fractures he suffered, let alone the internal bleeding found throughout his brain.
“It was laughable, if there was something to laugh about," one nurse at the hospital told the Associated Press. “There was no way this person ran headfirst into a wall."
According to a Saturday report in the New York Times, concern over ICE's brutality has grown to such an extent that many Minnesota residents, including both documented immigrants and US citizens, have started wearing passports around their necks to avoid being potentially targeted.
Joua Tsu Thao, a 75-year-old US citizen who came to the country after aiding the American military during the Vietnam War, said the aggressive actions of immigration officers have left him with little choice but to display his passport whenever he walks outside his house.
"We need to be ready before they point a gun to us," Thao explained to the Times.
CNN on Friday reported that ICE has been rounding up refugees living in Minnesota who were allowed to enter the US after undergoing "a rigorous, years-long vetting process," and sending them to a facility in Texas where they are being prepared for deportation.
Lawyers representing the abducted refugees told CNN that their clients have been "forced to recount painful asylum claims with limited or no contact with family members or attorneys."
Some of the refugees taken to Texas have been released from custody. But instead of being flown back home, they were released in Texas "without money, identification, or phones," CNN reported.
Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for US legal programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, told CNN that government agents abducting refugees who had previously been allowed into the US is part of "a campaign of terror" that "is designed to scare people."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," said one critic.
Critics have weighed in on Amazon MGM Studios' documentary about first lady Melania Trump, and their verdicts are overwhelmingly negative.
According to review aggregation website Metacritic, Melania—which Amazon paid $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market—so far has received a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, which indicates "overwhelming dislike."
Similarly, Melania scores a mere 6% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomameter," indicating that 94% of reviews for the movie so far have been negative.
One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as "a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness" who leads a "vulgar, gilded lifestyle."
Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as "a striking artifact... of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly."
The Guardian's Xan Brooks delivered a similarly scathing assessment, declaring the film "dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," Brooks elaborated. "I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne."
Donald Clarke of the Irish Times also discussed the film's failure as a piece of propaganda, and he compared it unfavorably to the work of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
"Melania... appears keener on inducing narcolepsy in its viewers than energizing them into massed marching," he wrote. "Triumph of the Dull, perhaps."
Variety's Owen Gleiberman argued that the Melania documentary is utterly devoid of anything approaching dramatic stakes, which results in the film suffering from "staggering inertia."
"Mostly it’s inert," Gleiberman wrote of the film. "It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called 'Day of the Living Tradwife.'"
Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter found that the movie mostly exposes Melania Trump is an empty vessel without a single original thought or insight, instead deploying "an endless number of inspirational phrases seemingly cribbed from self-help books."
Kevin Fallon of the Daily Beast described Melania as "an unbelievable abomination of filmmaking" that reaches "a level of insipid propaganda that almost resists review."
"It's so expected," Fallon added, "and utterly pointless."
"This memo bends over backwards to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval," said one former ICE official.
An internal legal memo obtained by the New York Times reveals that federal immigration enforcement agents are claiming broad new powers to carry out warrantless arrests.
The Times reported on Friday that the memo, which was signed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, "expands the ability of lower-level ICE agents to carry out sweeps rounding up people they encounter and suspect are undocumented immigrants, rather than targeted enforcement operations in which they set out, warrant in hand, to arrest a specific person."
In the past, agents have been granted the power to carry out warrantless arrests only in situations where they believe a suspected undocumented immigrant is a "flight risk" who is unlikely to comply with obligations such as appearing at court hearings.
However, the memo declares this standard to be “unreasoned” and “incorrect,” saying that agents should feel free to carry out arrests so long as the suspect is "unlikely to be located at the scene of the encounter or another clearly identifiable location once an administrative warrant is obtained."
Scott Shuchart, former head of policy at ICE under President Joe Biden, told the Times that the memo appears to open the door to give the agency incredibly broad arrest powers.
"This memo bends over backwards," Shuchart said, "to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval."
Claire Trickler-McNulty, former senior adviser at ICE during the Biden administration, said the memo's language was so broad that "it would cover essentially anyone they want to arrest without a warrant, making the general premise of ever getting a warrant pointless."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in a social media post that the memo appears to be a way for ICE to "get around an increasing number of court orders requiring [US Department of Homeland Security] to follow the plain words of the law which says administrative warrantless arrests are only for people 'likely to escape.'"
The memo broadens the terms, Reichlin-Melnick added, so that "anyone who refuses to wait for a warrant to be issued" is deemed "likely to escape."
Stanford University political scientist Tom Clark questioned the validity of the memo, which appears to directly conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires search warrants as a protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
"So, here’s how the law works," he wrote. "People on whom it imposes constraints don’t get to just write themselves a memo saying they don’t have to follow the law. Maybe I’ll write myself a memo saying that I don’t have to pay my taxes this year."