$1

The conversation/question leading up to this answer:

> Interviewer: I've been reading a lot of the headlines, obviously, about Starbucks...

> Howard: Yeah.

> Interviewer: ...and the relationship with labor.

> Howard: Yeah. You believe everything you read, I gotta tell you that.

> Interviewer: [awkward laugh] I want to understand how you feel about it, personally. And the reason I ask is...

> Howard: It *is* personal!

> Interviewer: It's personal, and I read these articles and I think, it must be personal for you, this is the first time you're speaking publicly about this. And in many ways, I wonder whether you feel it's an indictment of all this. I almost ask because, I remember back in the day you used to say that you thought if Starbucks could exceed the expectations of the employee, the employee would exceed the expectations of the customer. And I always loved that. but now it feels that the expectation of the employee has changed, and whether you as a company, and companies across the country, can exceed the expectation of the employee and do it, by the way, profitably.

Howard makes a weird point to emphasize that it's "our people," not "our employees." He then goes off to talk about ASU graduates and grateful they are for the benefit, gives a slight nod towards gentrification? talks about guns for a moment, then finally acknowledges the union. His lead-in to the answer he ends up giving:

> Howard: What's happening in America is much bigger than Starbucks. Starbucks, unfortunately, happens to be the proxy of what is happening, and you're exactly right. We're right in the middle of it. Because if a company is as progressive as Starbucks, that has done so much and is at the 100th percentile in our entire industry, for benefits for our people, can be threatened by a third party, that means any company in America can. Now, I've said publicly, I'm not anti-union, but the history of unions, we have to talk about this. The history of Unions is based on the fact that companies in the 40s, 50s, and 60s abused their people. We're not in the coal-mining business, we're not abusing our people. But the sweeping issue in the country is that businesses are not doing enough, and the business is the enemy. (he continues on for another sentence or two about not wanting third-party involvement, and then begins the clip embedded in the article.)

He's spouting the same anti-union lines that all of corporate America likes to push. "Unions are for coal miners, you're not being abused here," is a huge idea that's being pushed by people who don't think unions have a place in modern day employment. At least he's consistent, I guess. But I did think that the random "you believe everything you read," dig was a little out of place and definitely didn't land well, if it was intended as a joke (which, judging by both of their expressions, it wasn't). And I don't know why he was somewhat insistent about specifying "our people," in place of "our employees," it felt like he was distancing himself from it?

Everything about this just feels disingenuous and untrustworthy. He's dodging questions and playing victim and I just... the way he's treating the interviewer is really weird, too lol anyway there's some info transcribed for folks who may not be able to watch any of it and if y'all need his actual answer, I can do that too! lmao

Blatantly illegal