traction around the world threatening the very existence of Starbucks as a company for the global people.
So Starbucks felt the need to post their “WE DO NOT…..” statement to ward off a BDS effort against it and its owner. In short, this PR move is a pre-emptive pro-active action to convince us that Starbucks is NOT standing with apartheid, murder, war crimes and the criminal gang that is Zionism.
First, why Huffington Post? Well, it should be disclosed that Schultz’ son Eliahu Jordan Schultz works for HuffPost. That may be the connection. We have no confirmation of such but it is convenient right? It makes one think?
Second, it is true that the STARBUCKS CORP does NOT give direct money to Israel. But that is just structure semantics. The fact is that their owner and Chairman Howard Schultz does and more!
Schultz is staunchly pro-Zionist.
In 1998, the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah gave him “The Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award” for “playing a key role in promoting a close alliance between the United States and Israel.” In 2002, Israel’s Foreign Ministry praised him for being key to the country’s long-term PR success, through his provocative speeches accusing Palestinians of terrorism, calling intifada resistance anti-semitism, asking Americans to back Israel against a common enemy, and sponsoring fund raisers for Israeli causes.
It is noted that Schultz has made NO statement about ISRAELI war crimes and murder of children. In this writes eyes, silence is complicity. And because Schultz uses all profits from Starbucks to support war crimes, we must send a message to STARBUCKS and boycott!
We do NOT accept this pure public relations pro-active gambit to get BDS off the Starbucks trail. It is Schultz’ fear of BDS that clearly has prompted this effort. He needs to deflect the global anger from his criminal work away from his profit and funding center so he can continue his role as a defacto General in the criminal army..
In lieu, I demand Howard D. Schultz make a genuine 360 to save Starbucks and come out publically against murder of people. No winking allowed. He cannot pull a Phony Peace Prizer Obama who, under pressure, said he condemns the murder of civilians, winks and then sends them over $ 1 billion to murder more.
Schultz must STOP FUNDING A CRIMINAL version of ISRAEL and advocate for prosecution of war criminals and their conviction. Then after we clean up Israel from these psychotic predator maniacs, then with a reformed Team People Schultz, we can all stand with Israel.
But if Schultz cannot get there then he should resign, join the IDF, and go murder children openly instead of hiding behind the cloak of our cup of coffee! Maybe he can sell Starbucks and join his fellow bigoted Zionist Donald Sterling as a pariah against Team People.
ABOUT AUTHOR: Johnny Punish is a global
You've replied to your own post three times, Bitty.
What's "gas pipe of hanging" mean?
I agree with your sentiments completely concerning the Perv Poster, who is obviously suffering from multiple personality disorder, judging by his many different names. As amusing as the banter with him is, I have put him on ignore in the hopes that this Board can be used for the more productive exchange of information about SBUX. The stock is finally up today, but I'm wondering if this is a one-off occasion or the beginning of a positive trend. Any intelligent opinion on the subject would be greatly appreciated.
Yep, stole by giving med insurance, stock options, etc.
Media likes factual stuff, sorry.
simply not true.”
Beyond sharing their individual experiences, speakers at the event criticized Schultz for his refusal to meet with the SWU. Several speakers claimed that he was actively avoiding union members in order to avoid any sort of negotiations.
“This is a man worth $1.1 billion, and he’s running away from low-wage workers,” said Starbucks barista and union organizer Liberté Locke. Locke and others called for Schultz to face the workers he is allegedly mistreating instead of presenting his company as labor-friendly.
Organizers of the event—as well as several workers and students in attendance—said they thought the protest was successful in bringing attention to the accusations of poor working conditions at Starbucks.
“Howard definitely heard us,” Witek said of the rally, adding that “students came out from the lecture and said that they had heard us.”
Anna J. Murphy ’12, who was among the protesters, also called the rally a success.
“The event was to put pressure on [Schultz], to embarrass him, to make people going to this event see that whatever claims Schultz is making in his book, really, he is afraid,” Murphy said.
Geoff Carens, an assistant librarian and member of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers, said he came out to the protest in order to show solidarity with his fellow workers.
— Staff writer Mercer R. Cook can be reached at email@example.com
The following facts, essentially not disputed, were found by Administrative Law Judge Mindy E. Landow (“the ALJ”) and adopted by the Board. From 2004 to 2007, the Industrial Workers of the World (“IWW”) engaged in a highly visible campaign to organize wage employees in four Starbucks stores. Among other efforts, union supporters held protests, attempted to recruit “partners,” 1 and made numerous public statements to the media.
In response, Starbucks mounted an anti-union campaign aimed at tracking and restricting the growth of pro-union sentiment. In the course of this campaign, Starbucks employed a number of restrictive and illegal policies. These included prohibiting employees from discussing the union or the terms and conditions of their employment; prohibiting the posting of union material on bulletin boards in employee areas; preventing off-duty employees from entering the back area of one of the stores; and discriminating against pro-union employees regarding work opportunities. In this Court, Starbucks does not challenge the Board's determination that this conduct violated the Act.
During this time period, the Board also found that Starbucks committed three additional violations. First, it found that a Starbucks policy prohibiting employees from wearing more than one pro-union button on work clothes was an unfair labor practice. Second, it found that Starbucks used protected activity to justify the discharge of pro-union employee Joseph Agins. Third, it found that Starbucks's decision to discharge pro-union employee Daniel Gross was primarily motivated by anti-union animus.
A. Starbucks's One Button Policy
I think when he heard how much fun he was missing out on in those Interstate rest stops, the little perv decided it was finally time to learn how to drive!