Kim catches criticism caused by coffee kingpin’s campaign contribution

Congressman Andy Kim’s campaign is feeling a backlash following revelations that he accepted a substantial contribution from union-busting former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, a contributor who .

The contribution, documented in Federal Election Commission records, reveals a $2000 donation from the billionaire to Andy Kim’s campaign for Congress in 2020. Schultz gained notoriety for his anti-union stance and aggressive tactics against workers’ rights to organize during his tenure as CEO of Starbucks.

“It is deeply troubling to see Andy Kim accepting financial support from Howard Schultz, the poster boy for corporate anti-labor practices in America,” said Lisa McCormick, the progressive Democrat who took four of ten votes cast in the 2018 primary election away form corrupt US Senator Bob Menendez. “By aligning himself with union-busting Schultz, Andy Kim sends a clear message that he is willing to prioritize the interests of corporate elites over the rights and well-being of workers.”

Schultz’s history of opposing unions and labor rights is a stark contrast to the values that Kim purports to champion as he wrestles with the genuine grassroots candidacy of Lawrence ‘Larry’ Hamm.

Accepting contributions from someone lie Schultz, with a track record of aggressively and illegally undermining workers’ rights, raises serious questions about the Congressman’s commitment to supporting working families.

Administrative Law Judge Brian Gee ruled in a National Labor Relations Board case that Schultz violated federal labor law by telling Madison Hall, a 25-year-old barista and union organizer in California who questioned the coffee chain’s response to union organizing to “go work for another company.”

On May 3, 2022, Starbucks announced that it would raise pay to $15 per hour and grant an enhanced seniority-based wage increase of five percent for two-to-five years’ experience and seven percent for more than five years, only for employees at nonunion stores.

On September 28, 2023, another administrative law judge at the National Labor Relations Board found that Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by improving wages and benefits for nonunion employees while withholding the increases from employees who had unionized or were in the process of organizing.

Starbucks capped two months of unrelenting harassment and retaliation against a barista named Laila Dalton, a 19-year-old shift supervisor in Arizona, by firing her just one day before the NLRB sent union election ballots to workers at the location where she had worked for several years.

NLRB judges have found that Starbucks broke the law 130 times across six states since workers began organizing in fall 2021, including firing or forcing out 12 pro-union workers and firing another two because they cooperated with NLRB investigations. The NLRB is also currently taking Starbucks to trial in 70 additional cases.

On March 1, 2023, Starbucks was found guilty of “egregious and widespread misconduct” and showed “a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights” in a union organizing campaign that started in Buffalo, New York. In a 220-page ruling, a 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 company and its former CEO have been charged with more than 700 unfair labor practices, including for allegedly closing unionized stores and firing labor leaders.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case this year on whether the NLRB can force the company to rehire workers who were fired for union organizing.

Amazon, Starbucks, SpaceX and Trader Joe’s are all facing complaints from the NLRB over their alleged harassment, intimidation and illegal firings of unionizing employees to these companies have responded by challenging the constitutionality of the NLRB in federal court, which could hobble the New Deal-era agency in charge of protecting unions and their members.

Evidence suggests more than 60 million non-union workers would like a union at their workplace. The NLRB—the agency established by Congress in 1935 to protect workers’ organizing rights—is handling more union representation elections and unfair labor practice charges than they have in years.

“Since the first Starbucks store formed a labor union, Howard Schultz aggressively fought against his own workers, using illegal anti-union tactics to intimidate and punish employees for organizing. In response, Workers United has filed around 180 Unfair Labor Practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board, where Andy Kim’s campaign contributor lost,” said McCormick.

“The acceptance of this contribution from Howard Schultz raises serious concerns about Andy Kim’s allegiances,” said McCormick. “Democrats for Change is calling on Andy Kim to acknowledge the donation and explain why he is supported by someone synonmous with corporate exploitation and abuse against working people.”

“Real Democrats believe in improving the lives of working families, expanding the middle class, and raising fair wages, protecting retirement benefits, and providing healthcare for all,” said McCormick.

In an era marked by growing income inequality and attacks on workers’ rights, elected officials need to demonstrate unwavering support for collective bargaining.

Andy Kim’s acceptance of a contribution from Howard Schultz undermines this imperative and calls into question his dedication to representing the interests of working-class Americans.