Hey, Howard Schultz, how about you stick a venti caffè latte in it

Not a big coffee drinker here. But if and when I do drink coffee, it's probably going to be iced. And it's probably doing to be Dunkin's. 

Still, someone who remembers when Starbucks first began creeping into the East - i.e., a world in which Starbucks wasn't on every corner, a world in which Starbucks wasn't a cultural signifier, a meme - I can't help but sit in awe at how the business grew to become a presence on every corner, a cultural signifier, a meme

And much of the credit for building the business goes to Howard Schultz. 

Schultz may not have been the founder, but he was the builder. And Howard the Builder became a billionaire in the process. 

So good for him. Up to a point. Or up until two points.

The first up to a point came when Schultz began toying with a run for president.

Personally, while some folks think it's a good thing, I'm not a big fan of those who have no experience in the political world making their first foray into politics by running for a high office. The skills someone hones by building/running a business are not all that generalizable to governing. Admittedly, he's a bad example, as Trump was never a successful businessman to begin with, plus he's a supremely disordered and outstandingly ignorant individual, but look no further than the disastrous presidency of DJT to see that business skills, actual or presumed, don't translate into running, say, a country.

Personally, I want people in the Oval Office who know what the three branches of government are and how they work. Who have experience building coalitions, twisting arms, and whatever the modern-day equivalent of kissing babies is. Who know and care where Tajikistan is and why Tajikistan matters. Who know what NATO stands for (in words), and what NATO stands for (in action). 

I understand that all business people who seek the presidency won't be as abysmally ignorant and evil as Trump, still, I think that business people, not to mention celebrities, if they want to get into politics, should run for a less powerful office first. Like state rep, or school committee.

So I didn't appreciate Howard Schultz making "Me for President" noises.

The second up to point: Howard Schultz boo-hooing all over the place because many Starbucks stores are trying (and some succeeding) to unionize. 

Yes, I know that, when compared to many other crappy jobs, Starbucks is better in terms of benefits, like health insurance, educational assistance, stock purchase. But many employees, the ones making the venti caffè lattes in the ubiquitous stores, still feel that they're treated like crap, and they want better working conditions. So they're unionizing. 

Which is an absolute four-letter word to Howard Schultz.

To Schultz, the unionization drive felt like an attack on his life’s work. In previous speeches to his employees, he had cast the union as “a group trying to take our people,” an “outside force that’s trying desperately to disrupt our company” and “an adversary that’s threatening the very essence of what [we] believe to be true.” (Source: Washington Post)

Schultz, who had stepped away from Starbucks, is now back with a charter - a highly personal charter - to kill unionization efforts, efforts that he kicked off with a cross-country listening tour. 

“I need to hear everything,” Schultz began a session in San Jose, “as much as you can share.”

Everything, Howard? Maybe not everything everything. ("Pro-union workers...weren’t invited to any of his listening sessions.") 

Baristas told him that they weren’t making enough money to pay their bills. They complained about equipment that had been broken for weeks, understaffed stores, insufficient training and supply chain snarls.

Not to mention customers who are "angrier, more aggressive and demanding." And homeless folks and addicts hanging out in their stores, making things uncomfortable for employees. (Trust me, I get this. I volunteer in a homeless shelter, and, while most of the guests are fine, I'm very happy to be surrounded by security, social workers, and Narcan.)

Anyway, Schultz, apparently, just doesn't understand how employees of a benevolent company like Starbucks, the very model of enlightened capitalism, would want to unionize. 

“I’ve never met a businessman like him,” said Richard Bensinger, a longtime organizer who was working with the  Starbucks baristas. “He hates unions more than he loves money.”

Among other Starbucks responses to unionization efforts: cut the hours of organizers, refuse pay raises in stores where there were unionization efforts, and in some cases fire employees. (In at least one case, a federal judge ordered some fired employees reinstated.) Schultz denies that anyone was fired for organizing other than, maybe, outside agitators brought in to make trouble. Not bona fide Starbuckians.

...To Schultz, unions existed to protect workers from bad companies, like the ones who had abused his father [a NYC cab driver]. “That’s why unions were created,” he said in an interview. A union had no place at a company that cared about its workers like Starbucks, Schultz believed. It would pit employees against their bosses, turning partners into adversaries.

It was “anathema,” he said, to the culture of shared success that he had sought to build over the course of decades, and he was determined to stop it.

Schultz is going all out to prevent employees from unionizing, promising (and delivering) all sorts of benefits in stores that aren't unionizing - better pay, better hours.

“There’s a word that’s not used very often in business, and the word is ‘love,’ ” Schultz said. “I spent my life at Starbucks, and my love for the company — my responsibility to our partners [i.e., employees] — is at the highest level possible.”

Hey, Howard Schultz, how about showing a bit of that love to the employees who would like to be part of a union. Rather than virulently opposing their efforts, and pitting "good" (accept what we give you) vs. "bad" (pro-union) employees against each other, why not do a sit down with them and see what it is that your employees want that they're not getting from your company, however benevolent and loving it is?

It may turn Starbucks into an even better and more benevolent company. It may even turn out to cost the company less in the long run. 

And if you're not willing to figure out how to co-exist with a union, as far as I'm concerned, Howard, as admirable as your personal journey and success have been, you can just stick a venti caffè latte in it.