Starbucks schultz howard

---

merri ok

---

AN 7 25

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey may have a bad track record in court, but he’s winning anyway. This is especially true of his crusade to make the workforce and higher education less diverse.

He’s had success using losing lawsuits, investigations that do nothing but burn Missouri taxpayer dollars and threatening letters that misstate the law.

On the day that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled traditional affirmative action programs in higher education unconstitutional, Bailey sent threatening letters to Missouri universities and municipalities in which he overstated what the ruling did and implied that all efforts at fostering diversity and inclusion in Missouri must be halted.

In April, Bailey excoriated the Business Roundtable for having “racist DEI initiatives.” He wrote he would fight “woke political trends and blatant racial discrimination.” In an impressive act of government “jawboning” that Bailey has claimed to oppose in other contexts, he threatened that such policies “risk exposing your organizations to substantial liability.”

Bailey is suing IBM, alleging the company did too much to recruit non-white and female hires.

IFrame Content

Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts (the “DEI” much maligned by the far-right) help companies hire and retain qualified people who they wouldn’t easily find through traditional white male networks. Many studies and companies have explained that diversity is good for profits and innovation, and that you don’t get a diverse workforce without making an effort to recruit one.

Bailey’s court filings come shockingly close to outright stating his contrary premise: women and non-white people are inherently inferior so any increase in their representation is bad.

IBM argued that Bailey hasn’t pleaded that any Missouri employee or job applicant was discriminated against. Indeed, this looks like Bailey preening for the national anti-diversity warriors rather than addressing a Missouri problem.

Though you wouldn’t know it from listening to Bailey, diversity is still a permissible goal under Supreme Court precedent. And it is typical for companies to reward executives for advancing corporate goals.

But the IBM lawsuit looks like another one where Bailey could win with a loser of a case. IBM has long been known for being a model for inclusive policies and a great place to work. IBM’s diversity council began in the ‘90s. It has touted hiring a disabled employee in 1914. But this year it ended most of its diversity efforts. We’ll see whether IBM continues to fight back against Bailey.

Whatever happens, say goodbye to IBM and similarly situated companies employing more people here. Bailey has made it clear that employers should expect legal harassment for exercising their rights to association and free speech in Missouri.

Bailey has also sued Starbucks. His brief argues that the Starbucks workforce has become “more female and less white” — and that this is unacceptable.

Starbucks appears to be defending the values that the company professes. The company is also likely aware that if it were to abandon its reasonable efforts to have a workforce more representative of its customer base, it could lead to a boycott and a massive stock hit like Target experienced.

Shareholders have realized that reversing inclusive policies is bad for business. Shareholders voted down anti-diversity proposals overwhelmingly this proxy season.

The market has spoken. So Bailey’s latest ploy is to punish free speech in the market.

Bailey filed lawsuits against two firms that give shareholders advice on how to vote. He claims that they have engaged in “deceptive practices” by recommending inclusive policies. This is one of his many attempts to weaponize the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, which was meant to protect Missourians from actual fraud.

But frivolous lawsuits against out-of-state corporations are not the only way to light taxpayer dollars on fire.

Bailey can burn up twice the Missouri tax dollars by having Missouri wage legal warfare against itself. See for example, Bailey’s investigation of the Hazelwood School District over an off-campus fight between students of different races, the three year lawsuit against the Springfield School District over demands to search thousands of documents for a list of possibly DEI-related terms that the District estimated would cost $170,000, or his new investigation of the City of Columbia over whether it might be trying to advance diversity and equity.

How does a successful, powerful white man come to have such resentment towards women and people of color for the modest gains we have made that he treats it as Missouri’s biggest problem? How does someone once known as a “reasonable and smart attorney” become a “warrior in the culture wars”? What could compel him to regularly use dehumanizing language about diversity proponents who merely want more people to have opportunities?

Did he get radicalized online? Bailey has filed a surprising number of lawsuits based on tweeted statements or videos.

His IBM lawsuit cites a video circulated online. He sued Media Matters in response to an Elon Musk tweet (that lawsuit was thrown out as I predicted, but Media Matters had to cut staff due to the costs of Bailey and Musk lawsuits, so that’s another extra-legal win for Bailey). Bailey sued Planned Parenthood over a Project Veritas video, without bothering to get the unedited tape.

Another possibility is that this is how Republicans feel they need to make a name and impress Trump and MAGA. Still, I just can’t muster the cynicism to make it make sense.

Sometimes I wonder what Bailey’s mom thinks.

I learned that Dr. Jessica Bailey was the first female dean of the University of Mississippi Medical Center’s School of Health Related Professions and a revered and beloved leader there — and a champion of diversity efforts.

A 2022 article about her retirement describes Dr. Bailey’s mentorship and recruitment of the school’s then chief diversity and inclusion officer. In an earlier article, Dr. Bailey extolls that colleague for being “committed to providing opportunities for students who might otherwise not imagine themselves in a health care profession,” and having “the vision to recognize opportunities to make our health care work force be more representative of our Mississippi population.”

These are goals that her son claims are unconstitutional and racist.

During Dr. Bailey’s tenure as dean, she oversaw the development of a Diversity and Inclusion Champion Professional Development and Certificate Program. She supervised PhD theses concerning the need to diversify the health work force and bone marrow donors. She was lauded for her personal involvement in a program that recruited young Black men into medical professions.

I asked Bailey’s office whether the attorney general thinks his mother was engaged in illegal “woke political trends and blatant racial discrimination” in general, or specifically with the mentorship program for Black men.

His office responded:

“Attorney General Bailey has no knowledge of these programs administered in another state, years ago, when he was not in office. What he does know is this: DEI programs that condition opportunity on skin color violate the Missouri Constitution and the foundational American promise of equality under the law. Whether it’s in corporate boardrooms, public universities, or government contracting, he will continue to fight race-based discrimination in any form. He has led on this issue since taking office.”

That’s a clearer “yes, my mother did illegal, racist things” than I was expecting.

Bailey is not just disavowing the work of his highly accomplished mother, who has referenced the barriers she overcame as a woman in a male dominated field and who worked to help others up the ladder. He is twisting the law to claim all such efforts are illegal.

Missouri Independent is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com.

---

ymail 1 24

Starbucks shouldn’t be allowed to get away with union busting.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Starbucks’ appeal of a federal district court decision which ordered seven wrongfully terminated workers in Memphis to be reinstated after being fired for union organizing.¹

Starbucks wants a bailout for its record-breaking, illegal union busting campaign from a conservative Supreme Court. Despite a district court ruling that Starbucks broke federal law by firing workers for union organizing, Starbucks is trying to weaken federal labor law that officials use to grant injunctive relief, including ordering the rehiring of workers affected by their employer’s labor law violations.²

Corporations like Starbucks will use every trick in the book, including going to SCOTUS, to legitimize their illegal worker intimidation tactics. Sign the petition to hold corporations accountable to the law!

Even the Department of Justice has urged the Supreme Court to not take the case, affirming that Starbucks’ argument is flimsy and does not warrant SCOTUS review.³

SCOTUS agreeing to take this case endangers the rights of all U.S. workers. Their decision could weaken the National Labor Relations Board’s power to hold guilty corporations accountable for breaking federal labor law.⁴

It’s clear that corporations like Starbucks care only about their bottom line—they’ll even go to the highest court in the country to protect their profits while attacking the working class.

Thanks for all you do.

–Mia, Soraya, Nakia, Thad, and the rest of the team

Sources:

“Supreme Court steps into Starbucks union fight,” The Hill, January 12, 2024

https://act.moveon.org/go/186068?t=6&akid=374171%2E20164584%2EESn7-Q

Ibid.

Ibid.

“SCOTUS Will Hear Starbucks Case Arguing Against Key Labor Law Enforcement Tool,” Truthout, January 16, 2024

https://act.moveon.org/go/186069?t=8&akid=374171%2E20164584%2EESn7-Q

---

https://www.alternet.org/bernie-sanders-subpoena-howard-schultz/

no choice

---

no lnx

Starbucks CEO Schultz refuses to testify on union-busting before Sanders’ committee

Julia Conley and Common Dreams February 15, 2023

U.S. coffee chain Starbucks on Tuesday told the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that interim CEO Howard Schultz has no intention of testifying before the panel as Chairman Bernie Sanders requested last week, sparking speculation that the progressive senator could use his subpoena power to compel the billionaire executive to appear at an upcoming hearing.

Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by Democrats on the committee in writing a letter to the company on February 7, asking Schultz to testify on the company's "decisions with respect to complying with our nation's labor laws and negotiating a first contract with union workers at Starbucks."

Schultz has played a central role in attempting to quash unionization efforts at the company's stores across the country. After workers in Buffalo launched efforts to form a bargaining unit in 2021, the Starbucks co-founder flew in to the city to hold an anti-union meeting with employees just before they were set to vote on the issue.

The CEO, who is scheduled to leave the company in April, has been personally named in some of the 75 complaints against Starbucks filed by the National Labor Relations Board general counsel, accusing the company of illegal union-busting tactics such as intimidation and retaliation.

On Monday, ahead of Starbucks' response to Sanders, Schultz brushed off the workers at 366 of the company's stores in 39 states who have organized to form bargaining units despite Starbucks' aggressive anti-union efforts, telling The Washington Post that they are "angry at the world."

:{:{}:

"They're angry at YOU and your despicable union-busting tactics," countered economic justice group Patriotic Millionaires.

In response to Sanders' request for Schultz's testimony, the company offered to send A.J. Jones II, an executive vice president and chief communications officer, instead of the CEO.

"This could get interesting," said labor reporter Steven Greenhouse after Sanders sent the request, noting that the senator has repeatedly called on Schultz to testify.

\u201cThis could get interesting\u2014Bernie Sanders, chair of the Senate Labor Committee, & other Democrats on the committee invite Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz to testify\n\nSanders has sent 3 letters to Schultz urging him to end "the egregious union-busting campaign" against Sbux workers\u201d

— Steven Greenhouse (@Steven Greenhouse) 1675885920

As of this writing, Sanders' office had not responded to request for comment.

After writing to Starbucks last week, the senator told the Associated Press that the HELP Committee intends "to be asking Mr. Schultz some very hard questions" and that Starbucks and other union-busting corporations "should be nervous."

He told the AP that he is willing to use the panel's subpoena power to force Schultz to testify.

"This is corporate greed," Sanders told the outlet. "Workers have aconstitutional right to organize. And even if you are a large, multinational corporation owned by a billionaire you don't have the right to violate the law."

---

wow

https://www.alternet.org/2022/11/starbucks-union/

jake j cmn dr

Starbucks announced late Monday that it will soon shutter yet another unionized location—this time the Seattle shop that was the first to unionize in the coffee giant's home city.

While Starbucks said in a statement that the planned closure is due to "safety and security" concerns, workers and union representatives characterized the decision as clearly retaliatorygiven the Broadway East and Denny Way's status as the first organized shop in the city where Starbucks was founded and is currently headquartered.

"Starbucks and [billionaire CEO] Howard Schultz believe they are above the law. They believe they can do whatever they want and get away with it," Starbucks Workers United wrote on Twitter. "This is unacceptable and will not stand."

December 9 is the final day before the store will be closed to the public. As Starbucks Workers United Seattle pointed out, that is the one-year anniversary of the first-ever Starbucks union victory in Buffalo, New York last year.

The Broadway and Denny location is one of several unionized stores in Seattle that Starbucks has moved to shut down in recent months as the company continues its relentless anti-union campaign across the country, drawing accusations of mass labor law violations and legal action from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

"On the average month between April and September, the union filed 43 [unfair labor practice] charges, more than one per day," Matt Bruenig of the People's Policy Project noted earlier this month. "The charges generally allege that Starbucks has engaged in retaliation against workers attempting to unionize."

More than 260 Starbucks locations have voted to unionize since last year, but not a single store has secured a contract as management and its anti-union Littler Mendelson attorneys engage in common stalling tactics and abruptly walk out of sessions before any real bargaining can begin.

Last week, thousands of unionized Starbucks workers from hundreds of stores across the country walked off the job to protest management's refusal to bargain in good faith and ongoing punishment of union organizers, which has led the NLRB to ask a federal court for a nationwide cease-and-desist order against the company.

Casey Moore, a Buffalo barista and a member of the National Starbucks Workers United Communications Committee, tweeted late Monday that "what Howard Schultz fundamentally misunderstands about this movement is that we are a fucking hydra."

"Cut down one of us, and there's five new workers to take their place," Moore wrote. "They can fire us, shut down our stores, send whatever messages they want to us, but WE'RE NOT GOING ANYWHERE. Nowhere. Not until we win a goddamn contract and hold this company accountable for every last worker they fired and every last store they closed."

Starbucks denies that its recent store closures had anything to do with unionization, but workers say a significant percentage of the stores shuttered were in the process of organizing. In August, Starbucks Workers United said that 42% of the stores the company closed in the preceding months were engaged in union activity.

Last month, Starbucks shut down the first unionized store in Colorado Springs a day before the date that the union had requested for the first bargaining session.

Earlier this month, Starbucks announced the closure of a Portland, Maine location that was the second store to unionize in the state.

---

1/20 really annoying ads in my podcast of non-conform diff drummer (tho they have own podcast on community pioneers?

https://www.vox.com/2015/11/10/9707034/starbucks-red-cup-controversy

war on xmas?

https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/billionaire-howard-schultz-is-no-patriot-robert-reich/

---

FoxNews.com op-ed attacking former Attorney General Eric Holder uncritically relied on, and linked to, a piece by white supremacist Jared Taylor that accused Democrats of subjecting “whites to outright racial plunder.” Fox News changed the link after Media Matters contacted the network.

Jeremy Carl, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote a May 23 FoxNews.com op-ed complaining about a Starbuckspolicy allowing “anyone to spend time in its stores and use restrooms regardless of whether they make a purchase.” He also criticized the company for having engaged "Eric Holder as an adviser on diversity issues,” claiming he “has a long history of making accusations of racial discrimination, often unjustified.”

As one piece of evidence against Holder, Carl linked to a January 2015 opinion piece by Jared Taylor on the white supremacist website American Renaissance. Media Matters found the May op-ed while examining media outlets that have uncritically promoted or cited research by white supremacist media.

The Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that American Renaissance “has been one of the vilest white nationalist publications, often promoting eugenics and blatant anti-black and anti-Latino racists. In 2005 for example, after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, Taylor wrote, ‘When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears.’” The Anti-Defamation League wrote that Taylor “upholds racial homogeneity as the key to fostering peaceful coexistence.”

Taylor’s piece was a review of conservative commentators John Fund and Hans von Spakovsky’s book Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department. The review began by attacking Holder as “a devious, power-hungry, racial zealot” who is “probably the most racially committed black ever to hold a cabinet job” and concluded that while the Republican and Democratic parties are similar, Republicans “are less likely to subject whites to outright racial plunder.”

[scrensht]

Media Matters contacted Fox News about the op-ed and asked if the network thought the research citation was appropriate. The company did not reply but changed the link so it now directs to the Amazon page for Obama’s Enforcer. The site has not noted the change or posted an editor’s note (the op-ed’s timestamp reflects the update).

Media Matterslater contacted Carl, who stated: “Obviously I would not have intentionally cited American Renaissance in any article I wrote — I wrote this article on a very fast same-day deadline at Fox News’ request and simply missed the sourcing. I suspect I missed it because the article was discussing work by Hans Von Spakovsky from Heritage, whom I do know and whose work I trust. I likely simply erred in assuming it was by Von Spakovsky.”

Carl, who agreed with Fox's decision to change the citation, also claimed “Holder has a history of numerous racist statements and actions is beyond doubt. I don’t apologize for saying that — then or now. One doesn’t need to link to American Renaissance to make that point, and obviously I would not have intentionally done so.” He additionally suggested that because Media Matters chose to contact Fox directly first rather than the author, it was evidence we are engaging in the “harassment of a critic of leftism" instead of a "pursuit of truth.”

Investigators Find Slave Labor on Starbucks-Certified Brazil Coffee Plantation

By Daniela Penha and Roberto Cataldo, Translator

This story was produced via a co-publishing partnership between Mongabay and Repórter Brasil and can be read in Portuguese here.

At first sight, the Córrego das Almas farm in Piumhi, in rural Minas Gerais state, seems to be a model property. "No slave or forced labor is allowed," reads one of several signs that display international certifications—including one linked to the U.S. based company Starbucks corporation.

Keep reading...

may run prez, much derided, pre trump bloomberg steyer (mitt?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Schultz

Each time such a deal is announced, fans of the target company ask whether its cherished products will be safe under the new owner, or if the integrity will disappear in the belly of the beast.

There is reason for concern. Starbucks acquired La Boulange, a San Francisco bakery chain that made healthful organic breads, in 2012. This year Starbucks announced it was shutting down the bakeries but keeping the brand name alive.

wapo

Two African American men arrested at a Philadelphia Starbucks last month have reached a settlement with the city and secured its commitment to a pilot program for young entrepreneurs.

Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson chose not to pursue a lawsuit against the city, Mike Dunn, a spokesman for the city of Philadelphia, told The Washington Post. Instead, they agreed to a symbolic payment of $1 each and asked the city to fund $200,000 for a grant program for high school students aspiring to become entrepreneurs.

“This was an incident that evoked a lot of pain in our city, pain that would’ve resurfaced over and over again in protracted litigation, which presents significant legal risks and high financial and emotional costs for everyone involved,” Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney said in a statement.

Nelson and Robinson appeared on Good Morning America Thursday morning to talk about the settlement and their goals for the grant and Starbucks moving forward. Robinson said he and Nelson would take part in the company’s racial bias training and work with former Attorney General Eric Holder, who is involved in shaping the May 29 curriculum and other long-term initiatives.

Robinson said they aimed to focus the program on “our communities, our ‘under-served’ communities,” and that the entrepreneurship grant would also go toward financial literacy training.

Stewart Cohen, Nelson and Robinson’s attorney, noted that the $200,000 grant was set to last one year. Nelson he hoped the program would continue “generation after generation.”

“The most important thing is the foundation, the fact that we have a seat at the table to work on reforms, being included in the racial bias training, leading forward. And hopefully other companies take what Starbucks is putting into perspective and follow,” Nelson told Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts.

Cohen said that Starbucks’s chief executive, Kevin Johnson, has also offered to “personally mentor” Nelson and Robinson and continue to build a relationship with them.

Robinson also said Starbucks would help him and Nelson take courses to complete their bachelor’s degrees. At the end of the interview, Robinson asked Roberts if she would take part in their work, to which she said she would “be honored.”

“There are people out there that have other solutions, so we can keep moving forward like we really want to,” Robinson said.

Funds for the $200,000 program will come from the city’s Finance Department budget, Dunn said. The city, Nelson and Robinson will work together on developing a committee to award the grants.

[Tell us: Have you experienced discrimination in a public place?]

The city has also invited Robinson, Nelson and their attorneys to submit thoughts and recommendations to the city solicitor on other ways of promoting equality in public places, including restaurants and retail establishments.

Cohen, Placitella and Roth, the Philadelphia law firm representing Nelson and Robinson, did not immediately return a request for comment.

Also on Wednesday, Starbucks announced that it had reached an agreement with Nelson and Robinson that will include an undisclosed financial settlement “as well as continued listening and dialogue between the parties and specific action and opportunity.”

Starbucks chief executive Kevin Johnson said he welcomed the chance to begin a relationship with Nelson and Robinson. “Starbucks will continue to take actions that stem from this incident to repair and reaffirm our values and vision for the kind of company we want to be,” Johnson said in a statement.

A company news release said more details “will be provided in a mutually agreed public statement.”

[Starbucks arrests: Who gets to decide whether you’re a patron or a trespasser?]

In an April 18 interview with “CBS This Morning,” Starbucks executive chairman, Howard Schultz, said he hoped to work with Nelson and Robinson and use Starbucks’s resources to advise and support their business ventures.

“We will provide them with a foundation of learning and provide them with an opportunity to be part of our company either directly or indirectly as a result of this situation,” Schultz told co-host Gayle King.

On April 12, Nelson and Robinson arrived 10 minutes early for a business meeting at a Starbucks in the Center City neighborhood of Philadelphia and wound up leaving the location in handcuffs. Upon arriving, Nelson asked whether he could use the restroom, and was told by a white manager that the restrooms were only for paying customers.

:{:{}:

“And I just left it at that,” Nelson told “Good Morning America” last month.

After Nelson returned to the table where Robinson was sitting, the manager approached them to ask whether she could help get them drinks or water.

:{:{}:

Two minutes later, she called the police to report “two gentlemen in my cafe that are refusing to make a purchase or leave.” Officers arrived a few minutes later. Robinson recalled thinking that “they can’t be here for us.”

Nelson told “Good Morning America” that the police told him and Robinson that they had to leave without any discussion. They were then arrested, and Robinson said they were not read any rights or told why they were being arrested.

:{:{}:

Charges of trespassing and creating a disturbance were dropped that night.

:{:{}:

Shortly after Nelson and Robinson told their story, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Richard Ross personally apologized and said that if he had done anything to worsen race relations in the city, “shame on me.” Ross had previously said the officers involved “did absolutely nothing wrong.”

Last month, Starbucks announced it would close 8,000 stores for anti-racial-bias training on May 29. Johnson and Schultz met with Nelson and Robinson personally to apologize.

As protests broke out at that Philadelphia Starbucks, Johnson and Schultz appeared in television interviews to pledge that the company would work to combat unconscious bias and racial profiling among its employees.

In a video message, Johnson said, “I will fix this.”

White golf course owners said five African American women were playing too slowly. Then they called the police.

A woman was tackled by officers at an Alabama Waffle House. Police are defending the arrest.

LA Fitness employees called 911 on two black men they said didn’t pay. They had.

no lnx video

https://www.ecowatch.com/starbucks-environmental-commitments-2511345117.html

announce scholarship pgm for online degree

http://www.alternet.org/environment/starbucks-deforestation-free-pledge-total-joke

...Today that coalition sent a letter to Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz (above) urging him to strengthen his company's procurement policy to ensure it doesn't contribute to deforestation, a significant cause of global warming. The commodities in question include wood, paper products and palm oil, an ingredient in a number of Starbucks menu items, including its Java Chip Frappuccino and Cranberry Bliss Bar.

The signatories on the letter include the Center for International Policy, Forest Heroes, the International Labor Rights Forum, Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Foundation Norway, the Sierra Club, SumOfUs and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). In addition to the letter, more than 300,000 consumers have petitioned Starbucks to go "deforestation-free."

"Starbucks likes to promote itself as a responsible corporate citizen, but it lags far behind consumer and industry standards for protecting forests," said Lael Goodman, a UCS analyst. "To maintain its do-gooder reputation, Starbucks should permanently sever any connection to forest destruction by adopting a strong procurement policy that clearly spells out a timetable for implementation."

The company currently has a weak procurement commitment for palm oil, which comes mainly from Southeast Asia. Irresponsible growers there routinely destroy tropical forests and peatlands for plantations, producing fires that emit tons of carbon pollution, threaten the health of area residents, and endanger elephants, orangutans and tigers. This year, the haze from annual agricultural fires is the worst in 20 years, affecting more than 43 million people across the region. There have been 19 haze-related deaths in Indonesia so far, and hundreds of thousands of people have developed acute lung infections. But that's not all. Besides the damage the fires do to public health and the environment, plantation owners all too often appropriate land from local communities and exploit child and immigrant labor.

In July, after receiving a 10 out of a potential score of 100 in UCS's 2015 Palm Oil Scorecard and pressure from consumers, Starbucks responded. It promised "a stronger focus" on preserving forests and peatlands....altern

I’m in London for a few days, and all the talk here is about how Goldman Sachs just negotiated a sweetheart deal to settle a tax dispute with the British government; Google is manipulating its British sales to pay almost no taxes here by using its low-tax Ireland subsidiary (the chair of the Parliamentary committee investigating this has just called the do-no-evil firm “devious, calculating, and unethical”); Amazon has been found to route its British sales through a subsidiary in low-tax Luxembourg, and now receives more in subsidies from the British government than it pays here in taxes; Starbucks’ tax-avoidance strategy was so blatant British consumers began boycotting the firm until it reversed course.

---