The Seattle City Council is considering a proposal that would, essentially, restrict how many people businesses can hire, when they can schedule employees to work without paying a penalty, and the length of notice businesses give them about their work. As Shift reported, Howard Behar, the former president of Starbucks International, isn’t happy about the direction his city is heading.
Earlier this month, Behar purchased a full-page ad in The Seattle Times — in the form of a letter that publicly rebukes city officials —to express his displeasure. He blasted city councilmembers for placing the interests of labor unions that provide them campaign cash over those of businesses that create jobs in the city.
Well, according to recent reports, Behar did not stop at publically blasting councilmembers via ads in the Seattle Times. He’s also been blasting city leaders via letters and emails.
In attempt to garner support from Seattle leaders (rightly or wrongly) perceived to be business-friendly, Behar wrote to deputy Seattle mayor Kate Joncas, council member Tim Burgess, and King County Deputy Executive Fred Jarrett:
“What the council is considering is just plain looney. …
“Let me give just one example of why this is so ridiculous. One of the proposals is to require that companies offer more hours to existing people before being able to hire more people. When you do that you do a couple of things. You decrease the number of positions in a store so that decreases jobs. The second thing that happens you now have fewer people to handle requested leaves, sicknesses and no shows. It takes all of the flexibility out of the system, the nature of the business requires flexibility. And yet because of this proposal they want to build in penalties not to mention all of the potential lawsuits for not offering the hours to existing people. I know that the next thing they are going to ask for is extra hours being offered by seniority… Hmmmm just like the teachers unions… how is that working for us.
“Is it not enough that Starbucks is now paying a ‘living’ wage, providing healthcare for all, stock options for all, assistance with college tuition, sick leave, a pound of coffee a week for free ($600 a year), vacation pay, 401k’s AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL A FUN JOB in an organization that treats their people with respect and dignity and lots of opportunity for growth. Why is it that we are now thinking that we need to penalize companies for providing good jobs. We are beginning to take these companies for granted. I can almost promise what is coming next. Jobs for underserved kids and summer jobs will be non existent and you will putting together programs to deal with the problem you caused.”
Behar reserved his most blistering criticism for Councilmember M. Lorena González. In an email, Behar accused Gonzales of taking her “marching orders” from Service Employees International Union leader David Rolf. Behar stated, “If you are after truth then do your work. Represent all the people not just David Rolf who is basically trying to get rid of part time work.” He went on:
“It’s obvious that your mind was made up before you started this process. I now am questioning if you are trying to help people or just penalize businesses for being in business… I am disgusted with this city government. You are not progressive you are permissive…. permissive in allowing lies to go unchallenged, permissive in allowing our downtown to become an unwelcoming place to live by allowing drug deals to continue going on in our neighborhoods, permissive in allowing developers free reign. I expect more and so do a lot of other people. Can you please let common sense prevail. Warm regards, Howard Behar”
Despite his best efforts, it isn’t likely Behar will succeed in convincing councilmembers like Gonzales to reverse course. As Shift reported, in their effort to support the regulations, the city has already gone so far as to manufacture a survey designed to yield the results Seattle Mayor Ed Murray, council members, and special interests’ want.
Democrats have always placed the interests of big labor before those of businesses — the “loony” scheduling regulations are just another example.
Despite his best efforts, it isn’t likely Behar will succeed in convincing councilmembers like Gonzales to reverse course.
Given how his “best efforts” consist of “blasting” a female elected official with snide, belittling and impertinent lectures from a male executive who no longer holds any kind of office, I’d say it’s no surprise that failure was his only option.
(But then again, why should we expect this web site to understand that a constant stream of belittling personal attacks is not likely to shift debate in the direction desired?)
So you’re saying a citizen, who paid for the effort, can’t publicly disagree with the ruling elite? Da, comrade. The pesky proletariat always gets in the way. The people should really be licensed and have a universal background check before being allowed to exercise their 1st Amendment rights.
… can’t publicly disagree …
Of course he can disagree however he wants, and I clearly wasn’t saying otherwise, reading comprehension genius. I’m saying that between the form and content of his disagreement, he ensured that his effort would completely fail to have the effect he claimed to have wanted.
… who paid for the effort,
And who utterly wasted every last penny that he so foolishly spent. (Little wonder Shift therefore regards him as an authority on how to spend money in an effective manner, eh?)
“I’m saying that between the form and content of his disagreement”
So you’re saying a private citizen can’t use his own money to pay to publicize his disagreement with elected officials because of “form and content” but it’s cool if an elected official uses a free press conference to express his disagreement and lash out at… Wisconsin Republicans… for an article leaking his secret union negotiations in The Stranger. It was really Special Ed who utterly wasted every last penny (not HIS last penny, of course) taxpayers spent on his press conference on “form and content” that had no option but failure. Yeah, it’s OK for a ultra-left elected official to do it on his “lifetime on the public dime” but it’s not OK for a private citizen to pay to call out elected officials. It’s the National (Democratic) Socialist way.
So you’re saying a private citizen can’t …
No, literary genius, I’m saying this particular private citizen completely wasted all of the money, time, and effort he spent on haranguing our local elected officials. He’s free to keep on doing that for as long as he likes; if he wants to amuse us here in Seattle by spending his money, time, and effort on making a noisy public nuisance of himself, no one can or should stop him. If he’s accomplishing anything at all, he’s demonstrating why we should not give any credit to his claims about knowing how to allocate resources wisely.
Just because you always want to stifle any statement which runs contrary to your ideology doesn’t mean the rest of us do. Please learn that.
Thank you for praising the fact that Special Ed is a liberal fool who should be attacking his fellow travelers at The Stranger instead of the soft target of Republicans 2000 miles away.
“we should not give any credit to his claims about knowing how to allocate resources wisely”
Where exactly are those claims we should not give any credit to? Do one of your copy-and-paste specials with the text of the article you’re commenting on where the private citizen claims to know “how to allocate resources wisely”
“Just because you always want to stifle any statement which runs contrary to your ideology doesn’t mean the rest of us do”
While talking to yourself isn’t sure sign of mental illness, you should be very concerned if you start answering yourself. Please learn that.
Where exactly are those claims we should not give any credit to?
They are implicit in his presumed ability to educate his targets on how to regulate business. After all, if he does not know how to allocate resources properly, he can’t have standing to lecture them on it.
Since all he has done is to repeatedly waste his time, effort, and money while accomplishing absolutely nothing toward his goal, it’s safe to say his presumed claim to knowledge isn’t actually helping him here.
While talking to yourself isn’t sure sign of mental illness…
Have the voices in your head finally informed you I’m not out to censor Behar — or anyone else?
“They are implicit in his presumed ability to educate his targets on how to regulate business”
So, the claims you cite aren’t really there at all? There was actually no mention of allocation of resources in the article, implied or otherwise? You just made it up? Typical of you National (Democratic) Socialists.
What makes you think Special Ed and the Silly Clowncil know how to allocate resources properly? Is it their total lack of any kind of business experience? That “lifetime on the public dime” thing? Where did they get all this knowledge on resource allocation and business regulation that their heads are bursting with? Listening to a former president of a Seattle-based multi-national company with over 10,000 locations world-wide is so beneath them. What could he possibly know about business?
“I’m not out to censor Behar — or anyone else”
Yet it was your attack on his free speech that started this thread. You wanted to anonymously give a snide, belittling and impertinent lecture to the former president of Starbucks International for daring to disagree with your comrades. And the best part, somebody else paid for your anonymous free speech. Go, comrade!
So, the claims you cite aren’t really there at all?
If he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, why should anyone listen?
it was your attack on his free speech that started this thread.
I didn’t “attack” his free speech. I noted how his use of his free speech rights was either accomplishing nothing, or making it easier for his targets to dismiss any valid criticisms he might have actually made. If you really read my comments as my “attack” on his free speech, your misreading merely suggests you yourself view all dissent as treason, fit only for censorship.
You wanted to anonymously give a snide, belittling and impertinent lecture to the former president of Starbucks International for daring to disagree with your comrades.
You can read it that way if you like, but noting his efforts were all total failures is a long, long way from attacking his right to make those efforts.
“If he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, why should anyone listen?”
You anonymously don’t know what you’re talking about, do you think anyone listens to you?
“..noting his efforts were all total failures..”
I guess your long personal history of total failures qualifies you to make this judgement.
My comments here are pseudonymous; front-page posts here at Shift are mostly anonymous. Please do learn the difference between those two big long scary words.
… do you think anyone listens to you?
Of course not. Only complete and utter nobodies listen and respond to me here. 🙂
I guess your long personal history of total failures qualifies you to make this judgement.
Actually, as you could have read, I was referring to Shift’s take, which I explictly quoted:
Stephen Serafin says
Only Morons who have never run a business or met a payroll can dream up this crap.