← The Daily Beans
The Daily Beans
Refried Beans | Fox Sanctions (feat. Michelle Eisen) | Apr 12, 2023
00:55:46
Wednesday, April 12th, 2023 In the Hot Notes; a judge has imposed sanctions on Fox News for withholding evidence; an appellate court rules Pete Navarro STILL has to turn over the documents he’s been withholding; Rep. Justin Pearson has been reinstated in Tennessee; Donald Trump has sued Michael Cohen for half a billion dollars; Donald is trying to delay the E. Jean Carroll trial set to begin April 25th; plus AG delivers your Good News.Dana is out and about.
Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:00]
Alison Gill
MSW Media. Hey, everybody, it's Ag. And welcome to Refried Beans, where we play an episode of the Daily Beans podcast from the same week either one, two or three years ago so we can see how far we've come. So please enjoy this episode from days gone by and note the date in the intro. Refried beans. I like refried beans. That's why I want to try fried beans because maybe they're just as good and we're wasting time. Daily Beans.
- [00:37]
Michelle Eisen
Daily Beans. Daily Beans. Daily Beans.
- [00:46]
Alison Gill
Hello and welcome to the Daily beans for Thursday, April 13, 2023. A new round of subpoenas goes out from Jack Smith's office. A judge has imposed sanctions on Fox News for withholding evidence. An appellate court rules Pete Navarro still has to turn over the documents he's been withholding. Representative Justin Pearson has been reinstated in the Tennessee House. Donald Trump has sued Michael Cohen for half a billion dollars. And Donald is trying to delay the E. Jean Carroll trial set to begin April 25th. I'm your host, Alison Gill. Hey everyone. First of all, I just want to say happy birthday to Dana Goldberg. She's not here, but she can hear me. Happy birthday. I miss you, my friend. I know she's celebrating wherever she is. Later in the show today, I'll be talking with Michelle Eisen about Starbucks union busting. And local officials have unanimously voted on Wednesday to send Justin Pearson back to the Tennessee State House. Now, I say unanimously, kind of in air quotes because it was a seven to nothing vote because the four Republicans were too cowardly to even show up to cast their vote. Either way, another bad look for what's been going on over in Tennessee. And now they are back. They're going to be advocating for common sense gun laws. Governor Bill Lee now looks like he is interested in signing some additional gun laws. I mean, I guess that's a good thing. It shouldn't have to take what it took or what it's taking, but we should see some changes there very soon. And you know, hey, just like Donald Trump put himself under a microscope when he ran for president, the Tennessee GOP did the same thing. The nation and the world are watching them now. They are not going to be able to get away with this for much longer. And also in Arizona, the Arizona House expelled one of its Republican members for having a conspiracy theorist come in and say that, you know, people were accepting bribes. So she's gone. So that's good. That's a correct move. And I hope this really draws a lot of attention not just to the Tennessee State house, but to all state and local legislatures, state houses, assemblies and senates and city councils for that matter. This is all where the, I guess where the, you know, the real gritty grassroots government takes place. We need to shed a light on it when it's not doing what it's designed to do. All right, we have a lot of news to get to, including. And we'll go over this on Sunday on the episode of Jack, Several more subpoenas went out about looking at more details about Trump PAC spending. Right. Remember how Andy and I talked about, hey, they're looking at fraud now, wire fraud, money laundering. Back in December when CNN reported that several subpoenas had gone out looking at the election defense fund that doesn't even exist and the Trump pac. And then later on in January, we got reporting that all four pacs were being had, questions raised about them, and subpoenas went out. Well, another round of subpoenas went out early March to look at some of that information. And we'll cover that along with some other news about how it seems the Documents case might be finally coming to a conclusion, at least with the obstruction piece. So lots of stuff to go over on the Jack podcast this weekend. All right, everybody, again, we have a lot of news to get to. Let's hit the hot notes. Hot notes. First up from Robertson and Peters at the New York Times. The judge overseeing the Dominion voting system's law against Fox News said on Wednesday that he was imposing sanctions, a sanction on the network Fox, and would very likely start an investigation into whether Fox's legal team had deliberately withheld key evidence, scolding the lawyers for not being straightforward with him. This is a huge last minute bombshell twist in this case. It was already going downhill for Fox. We knew that, you know, that Dominion got summary judgment on falsity so that the prosecution doesn't even have to prove that they were lies. We learned that some key evidence from motions in limine was excluded. Like Fox can't use certain defenses. Not key evidence, but key defenses for Fox aren't going to be able to be used, including their defense that, well, even though they were lies, they were newsworthy lies, they aren't going to be able to argue that either. It's going to be a very difficult case for Fox News and the parent company, Fox Corporation. But you know, jury selection starts here tomorrow and all of a sudden, right before the trial, we get this information about key evidence being withheld. It first came out last night in the Daily Beast. And then this is the Times Reporting today. This rebuke from the judge came after lawyers for Dominion, which is suing for defamation, revealed a number of instances in which Fox's lawyers had not turned over evidence in a timely manner. That evidence included recordings of the Fox News host Bartiromo talking with former President Trump lawyers Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani, which Dominion said had been turned over only a week ago. In imposing a sanction on Fox, Judge Davis of the Delaware Superior Court, this is where this is happening, is in Delaware, ruled that if Dominion had to do additional depositions or redo any already done, that Fox will do everything they can to make that person available and it's going to have to be on Fox's dime. All of this Fox will have to pay for. He also said he would likely appoint a special master to investigate Fox's handling of discovery of documents and the question of whether Fox had inappropriately withheld details about Rupert Murdoch's role as a corporate officer of Fox News. That would be damning. Again, the trial is scheduled to begin Monday, jury selection starting today, Thursday. It's not immediately clear that Dominion would avail itself of the judge's ruling that its lawyers could conduct additional depositions. The trial's about to start. The judge told Fox's lawyers to retain all internal communications between themselves relating to the officer issue from the time of March 20. Now, he said he would weigh whether any additional sanctions should be put on Fox based on anything that this potential investigation uncovers. He said he was very concerned that there had been misrepresentations to the court. That is very serious and that's what Judge Davis said. This is very serious. That's a quote we keep on learning, he said, about more relevant information from individuals other than Fox. And to be honest, we don't really know what to do about that, but that is the situation we find ourselves in. She pointed to one email that had recently been handed over between Bartiromo and Powell on November 7, 2020. In the email, Ms. Powell was forwarding evidence to Bartiroma that Dominion said was proof that Fox had acted recklessly. An email From a woman Mrs. Powell relied on as a source who exhibits signs of delusion, claiming, for instance, she was aware of voter fraud because she had special powers, including the ability to time travel and talk to the wind. Quote, I just spoke to Eric and told him you gave me very important information, said Bartiromo to Ms. Powell, most likely referring to Eric Trump. Now, Ms. Brooke also played two recordings for the Court of Pre Interviews. Ms. Brooke is one of the lawyers for Abby Grossman. I believe this is a preliminary conversation before an on air interview done by Ms. Bartiromo that she said were received only after they were revealed in legal complaints filed by Abby Grossberg, a former Fox News producer who is suing the network. Okay, so I'm mistaken. I think it's a lawyer for Dominion. So in one of the recordings, one of the Abby Grossman recordings, and this was on November 8, 2020, the day after the election was declared for Biden, Bartiromo asks Giuliani about the Dominion software. He says it's being analyzed right now. And when she asks about a false connection to Nancy Pelosi, Giuliani says, yeah, I've read that. I can't prove that yet. Now, Justin Nelson, another lawyer for Dominion, asked Judge Davis to deconsolidate the case and focus solely on Fox News at the trial, excluding the Fox Corporation, the parent company, because Fox's lawyers had only recently disclosed that Murdoch, the executive chairman of Fox Corp. Was also the executive chair of Fox News, a role that pointed to more responsibility for its broadcasts. They just learned that. So Dominion wanted to pull apart the cases against the. Because the cases were consolidated against Fox News and Fox Corp. Mr. Nelson said had that information been given earlier, the scope of the discovery of documents would have been much larger and relevant documents could still be missing. Quote, we have been litigating based upon this false premise that Rupert Murdoch was not an officer at Fox News. Now, Judge Davis declined to deconsolidate the case, but expressed concern that Fox's legal team had not been forthcoming with the information, despite being asked multiple times whether or not Mr. Murdoch was a corporate officer for Fox News. Quote, I need people to tell me the truth. And by the way, omission is a lie. That's what the judge said. He also admonished Fox's lawyer, saying he'd previously asked for clarity on who had corporate responsibilities at Fox News but had not heard back. Quote, what do I do with attorneys that aren't straightforward with me? So this is big. This is a big twist and we'll see where all this heads. But appointing a special master, withholding key evidence, particularly recordings of the lies. My God. All right, next up from Kyle Cheney at Politico. A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected a bid from Peter Navarro to put a stay on the fact that he has to hand over hundreds of government records despite a judge's order to return them promptly to the National Archives. It's been going on for a while. Quote, there's no public interest in Navarro's retention of the records and Congress has recognized that the public has an interest in the nation's possession and retention of the presidential records. That's what the three judge panel of the D.C. circuit Court of Appeals concluded in a unanimous two page order. The Justice Department sued Navarro last year, seeking to reclaim hundreds of records contained in Navarro's personal Proton mail account that the government said should have been returned to the National Archives after the Trump administration came to an end in January 2021. Now ProtonMail is a Swiss company so they can't just swoop in and get them without burning a bridge that you wouldn't that Navarro's not worth burning that bridge. Know what I mean? So they just been trying to claw him back from Navarro and they won several times and he keeps not handing them over. Navarro acknowledged that at least 200 to 250 records in his possession belonged to the government, but he contended no mechanism exists to enforce that requirement and in doing so might violate his fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. He feels that handing over these presidential records would incriminate him for violating the presidential records law. Last month, District Court Judge Colleen Cullercauddily rejected that claim, ordering Navarro to promptly return the records he had identified that Navarro had identified, that is as belonging to the government. But Navarro appealed that decision, rejecting the notion that the Justice Department had any legitimate mechanism to force him to return the records, and he urged the court to stay Caller Cottelly's ruling while his appeal was pending. But the appeals court, which included Judges Patricia Millet and Robert Wilkins, both Obama appointees, and Judge Naomi Rao Rao, a notorious a hole Donald Trump appointee, unanimously rejected Navarro's stay request. Within minutes, Caller caudaly put the squeeze on Navarro, ordering him to turn over the 250 records on or before Friday tomorrow. She also ordered him to perform additional searches for presidential records that might be in his possession by May 8, with further proceedings scheduled for later that month. He has to keep looking and also from Cheney Donald Trump argued late Tuesday that his historic indictment by a Manhattan grand jury requires a delay in another legal matter he faces, which is the defamation suit brought by E. Jean Carroll, who says Trump defamed her when he denied and derided her claim that he raped her decades ago. The former president is slated to defend against those allegations starting in a civil trial April 25. But Joey Tacos that's Trump lawyer Joe Tacopina is urging Judge Kaplan to postpone it for a month, contending the surge in media coverage of Trump's indictment has tainted potential jurors in the civil case. Can you imagine just a regular old defendant who commits a crime and then commits another crime being able to say, hey, we need a cooling off period because I crimed over here and that could taint the jury over here? Fuck no. And Trump has tried multiple times to delay this trial. He even offered, after discovery closed, to give a DNA sample, knowing that it would be rejected because discovery had been closed. He was also trying to play the courts against each other, trying to get his trial scheduled for the same time so that one of them would have to be delayed. And that didn't have to do with the E. Jean Carroll case, but it was E. Jean Carroll's lawyer who notified the judge, saying, hey, they're trying to play you. Holding the trial in this case a mere three weeks after these historic events will guarantee that many, if not most, prospective jurors will have the criminal allegations top of mind when judging President Trump against Ms. Carol's allegations. TACOPINA argued in a late night filing that they should delay this, contending that the intensity of media coverage was remarkable for its volume and incitement of animus toward President Trump among potential jurors. Now, this actually isn't too bad of an argument, right? Like, come on, he was on tv, they followed his plane. CNN was in a boat on the Hudson watching him land in New York. It was everywhere. It was a media circus. Come on, can we give everybody a month to cool out? Now, Taina acknowledged that Trump draws blanket media coverage at nearly all times. But he said Google searches indicated a particularly intense surge of coverage of the charges brought by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg earlier in the month. Those charges include claims that Trump falsified business records to conceal hush money payments to a porn star to cover up an affair. Because those charges relate to Carol's claims of sexual misconduct, Taina said there's a particularly acute risk that jurors in the civil trial will conflate the issues. Now, Carol responded to Trump's effort Wednesday afternoon, contending that Trump himself is responsible for driving the media interest and coverage of his legal troubles. Quote, if anything, it is somewhat perverse for Trump to seek continuance in these proceedings based on the recent indictment when so much of the publicity he complains about has been driven by his own incendiary statements. That's from Robby Kaplan, Eugene's attorney. They also noted that Trump has turned his indictment into a bid for fundraising and selling campaign merchandise. And he appeared on Fox News just hours before seeking a delay in the civil trial and discussed his pending indictment, quote. Not surprisingly, Trump's mounting legal difficulties have given rise to substantial press coverage and will continue to do so. He is not only a former president, but also a declared candidate in the next presidential election. As a result, each passing week will offer Trump yet another straw to grasp at in his campaign to avoid standing trial for sexually assaulting aging Carroll. Now, here's the thing. If you put this off a month to May 25 from April 25, what else might happen by May 25 to cause another media uproar? An indictment in the documents case, an indictment for racketeering in Georgia, an indictment on defrauding donors? Wire fraud by Trump PACs. I mean, find me a month this year that Donald isn't in danger of being indicted during. It's only going to get bigger. All right, from Shabbat and Barnes at NBC. Donald Trump filed a lawsuit in federal court Wednesday cuz he's trying to keep a low profile against his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, who has emerged as a key witness in the criminal case against the former president seeking more than half a billion dollars in damages for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment. Okay. Conversion and breaches of contract. Okay, time to take a swim in Lake U, Mr. Trump. The complaint accuses Cohen of violating his attorney client relationship with Trump by publicly disclosing information about the former president and the spreading falsehoods about Trump likely to be embarrassing or detrimental and partook in other misconduct in violation of New York rules of professional conduct. Okay, dude went to prison. The former president has, quote, suffered vast reputational harm as a direct result of. Of Michael Cohen, not of Trump's own fucking behavior. Michael. My reputational harm comes from what Michael Cohen did. That's Trump's lawyer, Alejandro Brito. This is a new one I haven't heard of. He wrote that in a complaint filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Huh. Judge Shopping Munch, Trump's attorney, said Cohen did those things with malicious intent and to wholly self serving ends, Cohen committed the breaches, quote, by disparaging Trump through myriad public statements, including the publication of two books, a podcast series and innumerable mainstream media appearances. According to the complaint, quote, defendant has engaged in such wrongful conduct over a period of time and despite being demanded in writing to cease and desist such unacceptable actions, has instead in recent months increased the frequency and hostility of the illicit acts toward the plaintiff. Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, responded to the lawsuit by just laughing for 20 minutes. No, he said Trump appears once again to be using and abusing the judicial system as a form of harassment and intimidation. This is. Cohen is a witness in an upcoming trial against him, and you're suing him. That's. Wow. Trump wants, quote, compensatory, incidental, and punitive damages in the amount that would be determined at trial and would substantially exceed half a billion dol. He also wants any profits or compensation Cohen receives from all of his books, podcasts, and other products. Yeah, this lawsuit, in case you're wondering where my beans are, is going nowhere. It'll probably be withdrawn before sanctions, before they're hit with sanctions. Burrito. Where this Alejandro Brito guy. Hey, you know, maybe talk to Alina Haba and see where you're at with having to pay huge sanctions, fines. Can't believe Haba is still his attorney. Can't believe Corcoran is still his attorney. Christina Bobb got out when she could last year when I said, look, Bob, when we found out Christina, Bob and Corcoran signed that letter, that all the documents, classified documents have been handed over, I'm like, both y'all need to get the fuck off his legal team and, and lawyer up. And Bob did. Corcoran didn't. Now he's been forced to testify under the crime fraud exception in the documents case and hand over all of his handwritten notes and audio transcripts and invoices. Ooh. All right, everybody. We'll talk about that documents case in detail and the wire fraud investigation on this weekend's episode of the Jack podcast. And I'm going to take a quick break right now. I'll be back with Michelle Eisen. She's incredible barista and advocate for unions rights at Starbucks. And we're going to talk about the CEO's testimony to Congress and how they're union busting and retaliatory. They violated the National Labor Relations act every which way. The act, also known as the law. So you, you definitely want to hear that interview. And then, then we'll hit the good news, so stick around. We'll be right back after these messages. We'll be right back. Hey, everybody. Welcome back. I'm happy to be joined today by barista and an organizer at the first unionized Starbucks store. Please welcome Michelle Eisen. Hi, Michelle, how are you?
- [22:27]
Michelle Eisen
I'm great. Thanks for having me.
- [22:28]
Alison Gill
Yeah, no, thank you for being here. I think this is a really important discussion, particularly given the recent testimony to Congress by the Starbucks CEO, which did not go well for him. So I wanted to talk to you a Little bit about some of the impact and retaliation and things that went on and your insights and your thoughts about how that testimony went. But first, could you just give an overview to listeners about the law and you know, capital T, the law and how we are supposed to. And I love that we call it the law. Like, you know, in Cleveland, Ernest Byner's fumble is called the fumble and John Elway's drive is called the drive. Like it's very hard to be the something. And this is the law, the labor law in the country. It's very, very important. Talk a little bit about some of the protections that are supposed to be in place for workers to unionize.
- [23:20]
Michelle Eisen
So organized labor or the idea of organizing labor is protected in this country by the National Labor Relations act, which sounds really big and bad and sort of all encompassing reality is that decades of gutting of this bill have sort of left this law, as you call it, weak, incredibly weak. So I'll tell you what it should protect against. It should protect against a company's ability to interfere with their workers right to organize their workplace, to form a union. And it should offer these protections in the way that the company can't illegally fire workers. If they find out that they're trying to organize a union, it can't technically come in and intimidate or surveil its workers. If they find out that these workers in this particular place are trying to form a union, it prevents them essentially once a union drive has been announced. What's supposed to happen in that, you know, you often hear the word shop or unit, but in that location is that it's supposed to remain unchanged in any way. So it's supposed to be laboratory conditions, as they call it, so that a fair election can go forward. So an employer can't come in and they can't make promises. They can't promise things like promotions or different rewards. If a worker votes no, they also can't come in and threaten a worker. They can't say, oh well, if you vote for the union, you're no longer going to have health benefits. That's what this law is put in place to protect. And then the nlrb, the National Labor Relations Board, is the entity that has to oversee that this law is as being carried out by workers and employers alike. What we've seen in the last 18 months with the Starbucks campaign is a complete and blatant disregard for these laws by the company. And, you know, by, I guess, former technically now former CEO Howard Schultz, though he very recently stepped back down after stepping back up to attempt to stop this movement. So that, that's your sort of brief overview of what that should do.
- [25:27]
Alison Gill
Great, thank you so much. And talk a little bit about the intimidation part because there seemed to be a lot of that going on. And you know, I grew up, I saw Norma Rae and I figured that that kind of union intimidation was a thing of the past, but it is alive and well today. And that is very apparent through these intimidation tactics. Talk a little bit about how, because it's not like Schultz just shows up at a Starbucks store and starts telling people that he's going to fire them, right? This stuff goes down through the ranks, right? In the government, we say shit rolls downhill basically. And it goes all the way down to the managers. We saw this happen at Wells Fargo right when they were setting up false accounts to get their numbers up. The CEO told the frontline managers, hey, if you don't have a certain amount of new business by the end of the quarter, new accounts, you're going to not get a bonus or you'll be reprimanded or admonished or some, you know, something will go on your permanent record. And so that kind of wink and a nod, not directly telling them to, you know, violate the law, but that changed the culture in that these managers then started to try and find unique and new ways to skirt, you know, the rules because they were being threatened. Talk a little bit about this sort of hierarchy of union oppression that was that you saw going on at Starbucks.
- [26:50]
Michelle Eisen
So this campaign started in Buffalo, New York in August of 2021. Within a few days of the announcing of this campaign, the sort of public presentation of this campaign, what Starbucks did was ship in hundreds of out of town managers and upper level corporate to Buffalo. And they did this for a couple of reasons. One was they needed a narrative. They needed to explain to the workers in Buffalo and they needed to explain to the rest of the country and the rest of the world why all of a sudden this supposedly really great progressive company, the sort of rug, was being pulled back and workers were saying, no, it's not that great. Not only is it not that great, but we are going to try to organize to make better. So the narrative in Buffalo was that the reason that the workers here found it necessary to do this was because our management was so poor already, that it was the manager's fault that the workers were sort of standing up and using their voices to demand better conditions. So what they did is they took these high performing managers from other parts of the country and they stationed Them all in all of the stores in Buffalo. There was about 20 stores in the market at the time. And they said, hey, these managers are only here because we want to make your manager better. And we hope that if we make your manager better that you won't need this union anymore. Part of it was also because they wanted to be able to surveil us every second that the store was open. So generally a manager works 40 hours a week, right? They're one person. They work an average of 40 hours a week. There are lots of operating hours in a particular store where there is no managerial presence. It's a supervisor or key holder who's running the shift. And that's incredibly common and very normal. Well now with each store having, you know, a minimum of two additional managers, there was never a moment that there wasn't managerial presence in that store. You couldn't turn around without there being a manager. You know, sometimes all three of them were there, sometimes it was all three of them and a group of corporate, you know, and it was just constant overseeing of your job. And these are people who could never do my job. You know, they couldn't come in onto one of these floors during peak and make, you know, 50 drinks in 15 minutes. They couldn't. They couldn't accomplish that because they don't have that skill set. But all of a sudden they're there watching me, you know, and telling me how I should be doing my job. They were really there because they wanted to break up any conversations that may be being had about the unit. You know, you couldn't go into the back room to get a sleeve of cups without there being a manager, you know, six inches behind you in the off chance that you happen to have a 30 second exchange with one of the workers that was on their lunch break or something like that. So they put a lot, you know, they put a lot on these managers. As of Today, there were 20, approximately 20 stores in the Buffalo market when this campaign launched. They illegally closed one of them. There's, I think there is one manager left from pre campaign. So they either forced them out or they promoted them up. If they did a really good job, you know, busting the union, but no one's left standing. You know, there's one manager, I think that's left standing. And these were tenured people. These were people who had been with the company for a long time. You know, I'd like to believe that some of them left because their conscience couldn't take it. And they were being asked to do things that they probably knew were illegal, but they were being asked to do this to their workers who they cared for. You know, we had relationships with these people and they were put in, you know, not a great situation. I think some of them probably did it because they were promised different bonuses and things. And like you said, it's that weird middle management position where, you know, people, everyone's kind of trying to survive and, you know, now they're put in this kind of impossible spot where they have to make the decision to, you know, go with corporate and abuse their workers and hopefully come out unscathed or, you know, leave and find another job. And most of them did that. Most of them left.
- [30:43]
Alison Gill
Wow. Now these seem like I just could just pick out three blatant violations of the law. First of all, they violated the laboratory conditions thing by sending in all these people. Second of all, surveillance surveilling. Next, they're trying to make sure and break up conversations. Then there was retaliation with, you know, firing people and closing stores. So there's four. Just, just four off the top of my head, which seem like very blatant violations of the act. And I have to ask because normally when big wig corporate types break the law, they get together and talk about how they can make it so they're technically not breaking the law. What were their excuses for these blatant violations? We're not like, we're not surveilling like you said. I guess one of them is. We're here because we were worried that your manager sucked so bad that, that you want a eyes. I mean, how are they trying to get around the law here? And I'm wondering if the National Labor Relations Board has done or will do anything about those blatant, I mean, obvious to me, violations.
- [31:53]
Michelle Eisen
I have to say they didn't actually do that great of a job. I think they really hoped and prayed that most of us wouldn't know that our rights were being violated and wouldn't know that the laws were being broken. Because, you know, you have to then file an unfair labor practice on behalf of that, you know, that particular worker, that store. And then it, you know, it moves through the system. It moves to the NRLRB and they gather their evidence and they see if something is, they can find merit to whatever that charge is. And then if they find merit, they issue a complaint and then it goes up the chain. What I think you saw in the case of Starbucks is that this is a multibillion dollar multinational corporation, resources bottomless. You know, they really have as much money as you could possibly dream of. And they're making more every single second. And the penalties for most of these violations, they're slim. So a lot of what you saw with Starbucks was, you know, knowingly breaking the law. And in some cases, you know, you'd, you'd hear a manager say something out loud and you knew that they knew that they were breaking the law, but they were resting on the fact that it's going to take time for this charge to move its, make its way through the system and to inevitably be found guilty. And that's what they want.
- [33:09]
Alison Gill
And then maybe just pay a small fine.
- [33:10]
Michelle Eisen
Right.
- [33:11]
Alison Gill
Like delays on their side.
- [33:13]
Michelle Eisen
You know, even if they had to pay, you know, back pay for every fired worker on this campaign, which right now is, you know, well over 200, that's nothing to a company like Starbucks. And if in that process they're able to stamp out this union campaign by dragging this, you know, through the courts for as long as possible, that's inevitably what their goal would be. Right? Their goal is delay, delay, delay in the hopes that you exhaust people. I mean, it's exhausting. There are lots and lots of workers who are not still standing here because who wants to live through that every single day? For, at this point, we're at, you know, 17 months, 18 months, 19 months. And so I, I think the answer is that the company knew what they were doing and they didn't do a great job in a lot of cases of trying to, you know, cover it up, bail that in any way. No, they just didn't. They were just like, well, yep.
- [34:05]
Alison Gill
Why, if you don't have to.
- [34:07]
Michelle Eisen
That's exactly it. If the penalties are not sufficient to where it really matters all that much. I think it's curious in the, in the instance of Starbucks, because it is this company that has, it's supposed to have a better reputation. You know, we're not talking about Walmart. We're not talking, you know, we're not talking about even Amazon. We're not talking about companies who notoriously have, you know, bad reputations and treat their work, are known for treating their workers badly. We're talking about a company that's supposed to do better. So for me, it was even more curious that they were so blatant about it because, you know, that's a public image and brand that I think is being severely damaged and they're doing it to themselves.
- [34:48]
Alison Gill
Right? Yeah. I mean, where's your public goodwill? And it's just, it seems, it seems very odd and the whole culture between management and Union just has always baffled me. I mean, I remember when I worked for the government and I was part of the union, and then I became management, and my first idea was to get the union stewards in and be like, all right, let's do some great things together and let's work together. And I want to change these. Make these performance evaluation requirements easier to achieve and more quantifiable so that everything's. And then my bosses were like, why are you talking to the union? Don't ever talk to the union. Don't talk to them. It's just bad news. And I'm like, what the fuck are you talking about? These are awesome people. I was in the union. I know. Like, it just. It's such a weird thing. And I wouldn't get on their weird management bandwagon. So I was kind of always like a black sheep in that regard. But, you know, I worked for the government, so it's not like they can. It's not a right to work job. They can just come in and, you know, remove you. I mean, unless you're Donald Trump. That's a story for a different day. But I want to ask a little bit, just before I let you go and before we talk about the future and where we are and where we're going and how people can help, I want to just ask you your top line thoughts on Schulz's testimony before Congress, what you thought of that.
- [36:11]
Michelle Eisen
So I was in the room for that. It was a really surreal experience. And so the room. It was a decent size hearing room. I'd been in one of the House hearing rooms before in this room. This is a Senate one, and it was considerably larger, I think. I don't know how much of this made the public, but they also shipped in a whole bunch of managers and corporate in matching T shirts to sit on, like, Howard's side of the room. And so that was kind of bizarre to. To see these managers, some of which had actually been the managers who had been responsible for issuing the terminations of some of the fired workers on our campaign. So to be in the room with all of, you know, these. I think we had 60 or so worker representatives there who were there because we'd been put. We've literally been put through 18 months of hell. But with this man at the helm, and then to see all these managers on the other side in these matching T shirts there to support him in his actions, that was. That was hard. That was a tough pill to swallow. I think it was a little more emotionally charged. Than I was even expecting, but to sit there and you know, he repeatedly lied. You know, after he told the first lie, you know, Bernie sort of stopped and said, I just want to remind you, sir, that you are under oath. Like just in case you forgot, you know, judging by the direction this is already going in, this is just a reminder. And he kept on repeatedly saying things like, well, these are just allegations and the company, you know, these still have to be go through the proper channels and the company has not broken the law. And we're all sitting there going, I testified for three days against this company back in July. The judge issued that decision on March 1st and did in fact find the company guilty of all of these violations, at least here in Buffalo. So to continue to sit up there and repeatedly say the company has not been found guilty, when the company had literally just been found guilty, it was gaslighting to, to like the nth degree. And you, you kind of start to feel a little crazy. And that's been, that was the company's game from the beginning. You know, modern day union busting doesn't look like, you know, driving someone's car off a bridge. It looks like gaslighting and making you think you're crazy for wanting this and, you know, thinking that you deserve better. So that, and the fact that when he was asked questions about bargaining and the fact that, you know, one of the union busting tactics that we didn't cover was granting things to non union stores and withholding benefits from union stores, which is also illegal. And you know, right when he stepped back into power last April, he made this big announcement about all of these new benefits that the company was granting to its workers, unless you were an organized worker and then you weren't getting any of these benefits. And when he was repeatedly asked why did you do that? And he kept saying, well, legally we weren't allowed to give these benefits to the organized workers. They have to be bargained over. And people were like, actually that's not true. And you know, that's not true because I'm holding a letter where the union sent to the company that said we were waiving our right to bargain over these new benefits. We would like them, sir, please give them to us. And he withheld them from us. And they said, well, why did you. The only reason you would do that is if you didn't want to give these workers these benefits. There's no legality around this. And so to hear him repeatedly say, well, I didn't think we were allowed to do that, sir. You're paying a million dollar union busting attorneys God knows how much money daily. I'm certain that if you were, you were, didn't know, you could have just asked someone and they would have been like, yeah, legally you can give these benefits to the workers. Especially since most of those benefits were based on the union's proposals. You know, they took things that we had put forward as asks and they were like, you're right, that is a great idea. We're going to give them to all the non organized workers and we're going to tell the organized workers that, you know, they, they don't get those.
- [40:05]
Alison Gill
And that's why I don't get the whole thing. I just don't. It doesn't make any sense to me. It's not going to cost them that. It's going to cost them more money to fight this in court than it would to just give all these benefits to everybody and work with the union. It makes absolutely no sense. Why do you think it is that they're willing to spend all this money, five times as much money as it costs to just give the benefits to everybody, to not have a union? What, what is the impetus behind that?
- [40:30]
Michelle Eisen
It's a power struggle. I mean, we've said from day one that you were fighting Howard Schultz's ego. You know, this is his life's work. And nobody likes being told that your life's work isn't as good as you think it is. And so, and that's the reality. The reality is that this company is not the company it was five years ago. It's not the company it was 10 years ago. I mean, I, we lived, we saw what this company did to its workers during the pandemic. We saw, you know, one of the hardest reckonings I had to come to was that Starbucks realized how profitable this pandemic could be for them. And it was because we stayed open the entire time and we sort of, we offered this little tiny bit of normalcy in a world that was upside down. You could still go down the street to your local Starbucks and get your caramel macchiato and feel like some, you know, sometime soon things were going to get back to normal and the company realized this and they were like, man, we, we're going to make some money. And so they stayed open the entire time, which meant we were there, customer facing, you know, in the middle of this pandemic, putting our safety at risk, putting our family safety at risk. And we've got the CEO at this point, it was Kevin Johnson. And he's on all these financial shows and he's bragging about these record breaking profits that the company is bringing in during this pandemic. And I'm watching my coworkers crying in the back room of my store because they don't know if working 40 hours a week for this multibillion dollar corporation if they're going to be able to pay their rent and put groceries in their fridge. And that, that's who this company, that is what this company became. That is why we are fighting for things. Because you're right there. If there was ever a company on the planet that could do better by its workers, this is it. This is the company that can afford to do it. And so the fact that we're still here fighting so hard, it's just baffling to me that you have a company that could easily be the hero and is choosing to be the villain. And I think that goes back to power.
- [42:28]
Alison Gill
Yeah, and ego and narcissism. Right. You have to be able to acknowledge there's a problem before you can correct it. And we saw that with certain political leaders, we see that with certain Twitter owners now we see it with and these major corporate CEOs, because if I'm the CEO, I'd be like, look, this is a massive frigging company. I can't control everything that goes on. Let's partner with the union so that we are sure that everything is good and going well. It would be cheaper for me to do that than to hire union, than to union bust. It wouldn't be illegal and we would look great to everyone in the. It's like a win, win, win, win, win. I don't, I. It just completely baffles my mind that they won't allow themselves to say, I can't do this all by myself. I need some help. And unions are the way. It helps the bottom line. It helps the workers, it helps the business. They would make more money. Honestly, I don't know. It just mind boggling. So what's next and how can people help?
- [43:30]
Michelle Eisen
So I think thankfully one of the great things that did come out of Howard's testimony was people have really started paying attention. You know, this was kind of a movement and a campaign that got a lot of attention at the very beginning because it was kind of shocking to see a coffee chain try to unionize, especially one as globally known as Starbucks. Especially one is supposedly so great that why would its workers need to unionize? But now we're 19 months in and so people are like, what do you mean this is still happening or what do you mean you still don't have a contract? My store won December of 2021, and it's April of 2023, and we still don't have a contract. So his testimony, because he really didn't come off great, I'll just put it nicely, got people to start really paying attention. So we've got a lot of people on the political side that are paying attention. We've got a lot of the public who isn't kind of dialed in now. And at this point, it's about putting as much pressure on the company and just calling them out on all of this BS publicly to say, listen, we're standing with the workers and we want you to get to the table and start negotiating a fair contract. So that's. I think the most important thing is to keep the spotlight on the company so that they don't, you know, maybe they're less likely to try to get away with some of this awful, you know, stuff they've been engaging in at heart. They still want to be that company or they still profess to be that, that progressive company that is better. So if we can continue to say, okay, well, put your money where your mouth is. You know, we want you to be that company too, so stop doing all of this stuff. So I think what we're saying is, you know, draw attention to it on a very, very, very micro level. If you are near a Starbucks store that you know is either organized or is trying to organize, going in and continuing to show that support and solidarity to those workers, part of the retaliation has been significant hours cuts so that, you know, some of these workers went from working 30 hours a week to being scheduled 12 hours a week, and then are expected to, you know, somehow make that work and be able to. To pay their bills. And when they say, okay, well, I have to go get another job to supplement my income, they're told, well, you can't reduce your availability. If you reduce your availability, you're going to get less than 12 hours a week. I mean, it's just. It's absolutely absurd. So please, if you can support those workers vocally, an extra couple dollars in the tip jar, anything along those lines, just to let them know that you're aware that they're fighting still and that you're standing with them.
- [46:07]
Alison Gill
Awesome. Well, thank you so much for speaking with me today, because I think it's voices like yours that make workers understand that they aren't alone and that they aren't crazy. That is how we combat the gaslighting is by speaking out and telling our stories. So thank you so much for doing that and I do appreciate your time today. Best of luck. In the future, I'd like to touch base again with you to see how see where things are. And I really do wish you the best. Thanks so much. Michelle Eisen thank you everybody. Stick around. We'll be right back with the good news after these messages. We'll be right back everybody. Welcome back. It's time for the good news. Good news, everyone, then good news, good news, good news. And if you have any good news confessions Corrections A shout out to somebody you love Pod pet pics if you don't have a pet, you can send an adoptable pet in your area. A shout out to a local business if you want to play what the mutt if you want to show me tape squares on your floor that cats either sit in or avoid like the plague. Or maybe your husband or your wife or partner or pets or of dogs or somebody. Maybe a guinea pig in the square. Whatever. Let's see. Center square, right? Remember Hollywood Squares? Let's play anything you want to send, send it to dailybeanspod.com and click on contact again. I want to wish Dana a happy birthday. I miss you my friend. I wish you were here to read this good news with me. But she will be back soon. She will be back in a few short days, which I'm very excited about. First up from Bunny pronouns, she, they. I was in bed struggling to get up for a doctor's appointment when my nesting partner presented his phone. Playing your voice, reading my words. I am still crying happy tears. None of my writings have ever been read publicly before. I'm overjoyed you were the first to do it after testifying against a horrific criminal in a high profile federal case a year ago. Whew. I felt like my only voice was used up in that courtroom to carry out my civic duty. But I'm learning to claim my life and my voice. Our fur princes are boys. I thought so. Sending more pet tax and a Justin Pearson poem along with my deepest gratitude for how you use your voices to support democracy and brighten some very dark days for so many Bunny than Thank you. Look at this baby with the giant head. Look at him. H I M B oh, and the little kitten, Ginger baby. I love boy cats. And then I read the just oh Justin Pearson. Ah, different poem. Just how does one represent while repeatedly silenced under a speaker who prefers to lord over and expel dissidents stripped of due process. This representative of his constituents, in the paltry minutes rationed to him, never ceased to use his voice for those whose chance were ignored. Outside justice is not just if prejudiced peaceful protests must be heard even when inconveniences tidy structures of power. All voices deserve dignity. Rules must apply to everyone equally so that even the last, the lost, and the least of us are represented. Only fools expel a man imploring for justice. No expulsion will erode such passion. Ah, wonderful. Thank you again Bunny. Appreciate you, love your kitties and thanks for all you do. Next up, John from Jersey pronouns he and him. May I suggest the bean pun as a thing? My stoner cousin refrains from smoking weed on election day so he'll have a clear head and remember to vote for the Democrat. So I informed him successfully reelected Rep that dopelessly he voted for you. Drumroll Sorry, but ums right thank you very much John. And you know they're taking away our blue checks on 420 so there we go. Self care Share from Cindy Pronoun she and her hello and thank you so much for every bean of the beans. I wish I could join you all in D.C. but I'll be on my way to Ireland so hopefully there will be another opportunity for some other meet and greetings. My de stress tools are my camera and the Seek app by Inaturalist. I photograph and identify every living thing around me. Bugs, amphibians, birds, plants, fungi, flowers. I love knowing the names of all the different wildflowers, what kind of spider that is, or whether that orgy is composed by frogs or toads. Every day, about 20 minutes before sunset, I go outside, take pictures of the beauty around me and post them on Facebook. They make me feel better and more connected with the good things around me and I'm told by my Facebook friends and friends of friends that they enjoy them too. Another healing part of my day is the walk with my 14 year old Australian Shepherd, Maeve. FYI I Maeve rhymes with Dave. I'm very lucky to live on a seven acre piece of land on two very steep hills for which my husband and I cut switchback trails. Maeve and Greg and I walk down the winding trail about half a mile to where the trail meets the nearest dirt road and then walk back to the house, passing by two neighbors that have horses and cows. Moo. I bring carrots with me every day and feed the horses and get lots of pets and hugs and kisses. We have eight formerly feral cats, all spayed and neutered and some of them Walk with us frequently. The neighbors, formerly ferals, will join us daily like a daily mini parade. In addition to carrots, I also carry a sandwich back full of cubed baked chicken. Great treats for Maeve and any peckish cats who decide to join us. Okay, for pet tags, here's some pics of last night's walks of some of the critters. I'm lucky to be able to adore Maeve. Trotting past the fiddlenecks. The tuxedo's name is Ishtar and the void in the grass nest is Anubis. Oh, I have. I had a red merle. So beautiful. What a beautiful baby. Oh, tuxedo and void. I love them. Beautiful area. How peaceful. Thank you for that self care, Cher. Ah, I feel. I feel more at peace just having read it. So thank you. Next up, from Adam, pronouns he and him. Hey Ag. You asked for submissions about what we're doing to get by, so here you go. I'm a former physics teacher. Cool. Who needed to leave the classroom to take care of my mental health. Totally understandable. I've taken to photography to try to continue to flex the creative itch and express myself outside the classroom. I did just get a job at a hardware store to keep me and my wife going financially. I don't know what my photography style is exactly, but I've included two pictures that capture it pretty well. The diner photo was taken from the corner booth of a locally famous diner called the Steer Inn. Taken with an iPhone. The dandelion bee photo was taken with cheap digital camera and a zoom lens. I took hundreds of photos of that cute little bee that day. For pet tax, I've included me and my wife's boys, Brad and opie. Brad is 5, the chonker with the black coloration, and Opie, 14, the orange boy. The two of them mostly get along until Brad decides he wants to play and Opie never does. Thank you for what you do. I've recently gotten out of the psychiatric hospital, and your show is a welcome, steady thing to have each day. Adam, welcome back. Look at these beautiful babies. One of them is Mideon. So cute. Oh, very cool pictures. I love the composition of the diner photo. I really do. It's got a. It's got a genre, right? Like a mood. Very cool. Thank you so much for that. Thanks for sharing. Maggie from Pennsylvania pronoun She and her. Hi. I've been listening to Daily Beans from Barcelona for the past week, usually with a cappuccino or aperol spritzer. Beans is just the Right amount of updates each day to keep me tethered to the news. Catalonian Spain has been delightful. Even put my legs up to my shins in the Mediterranean Sea. Flying home to the USA tomorrow, I miss my rescue pup, Micah. Woof woof. Oh, look how beautiful. Mediterranean Sea. There it is. Ah. And next up from Dan. Pronouns, he and him. Bat boy Testimony. Correction. Citizens of Beantopia. Stephen Miller was only questioned for six hours because they started at midnight. They had to stop at dawn. He was afraid he would burst into flames in direct sunlight when leaving the courthouse. Seriously, Fuck that fascist Gollum motherfucker. Thank you Dan. And from Anonymous, I have a name for your cat. Cats in tape boxes Submissions. Masquerbating. Oh, I like it. The act of luring cats into masking tape boxes. Not too shabby. Thank you everyone for your submissions. I appreciate this. Thanks for the pet pics and all the good news and those self care posts are good. Keep them coming. Let us know what you do to keep grounded. I love the photography. We had a couple photography submissions today and walks in nature. So wonderful. You know, if you listen to this podcast and you while you're walking or on the treadmill, you know you'll burn like probably 200 calories. That's like three glasses of wine, you guys. Just so you know, just in case you want to walk while you listen to this out in nature. Might be a cool thing to do. Just a simple habit to pick up. Anyway, thank you so much for all your submissions. If you have any again, send it to us@dailybeanspod.com click on Contact. Once again, happy birthday to Dana. I'll be back tomorrow in your ears for the Friday show and thanks so much. Until tomorrow. Tomorrow, please take care of yourselves, take care of each other, take care of the planet, take care of your mental health. Vote blue over Q and bring someone with you. I've been ag and them's the beans. Refried beans. I like refried beans.