More stories

  • in

    JetBlue is cutting its summer schedule to avoid further flight disruptions

    Airlines are scrambling to staff up this summer to meet a surge in travel demand.
    JetBlue told employees that it plans to cut summer capacity by as much as 10%.

    JetBlue planes at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport
    Leslie Josephs | CNBC

    JetBlue Airways is planning to trim its summer schedule to avoid flight disruptions as it scrambles to hire ahead of what executives expect to be a monster peak travel season.
    “We’ve already reduced May capacity 8-10% and you can expect to see a similar size capacity pull for the remainder of the summer,” Joanna Geraghty, JetBlue’s COO and president, said in an email to staff on Saturday, which was seen by CNBC.

    The airline canceled more than 300 flights over the weekend, a week after bad weather in Florida kicked off hundreds of flight cancellations and delays on JetBlue and other carriers.
    Airlines are scrambling to staff up to handle a surge in travelers this spring and summer. Staffing shortages contributed to hundreds of flight cancellations and delays last summer and airlines executives have been looking for ways to avoid a repeat.
    “Despite these challenges and, based on your feedback that the schedule is wound too tight, we know the best plan is to reduce capacity now,” Geraghty wrote. “I think everyone recognizes that the industry still remains very much in recovery mode, so we believe this proactive step is the right decision.”
    JetBlue didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.
    Alaska Airlines last week said it would trim its schedule 2% through the end of June to handle a pilot shortage after canceling dozens of flights earlier in the month because of staffing shortages.

    “We’ve recently let down some of our valued guests by canceling an unusual number of flights,” Alaska said Friday. “The primary cause of cancellations is the shortage of pilots available to fly versus what was planned when we built our April schedule in January.”
    In her email, JetBlue’s Geraghty said the airline has hired 2,500 people so far this year and is still short-staffed. She added that the airline will share other measures to avoid disruptions with staff in the coming weeks.
    “In the meantime, any and all ideas are welcome,” she wrote. 
    JetBlue last week disclosed a $3.6 billion bid for budget carrier Spirit Airlines, throwing into question that discount airline’s deal to merge with fellow ultra-low-cost carrier Frontier Airlines.
    U.S. airline executives will start detailing their staffing and capacity plans starting this week when Delta Air Lines reports first-quarter results. Other carriers report later in the month.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Russia-Ukraine war is having a limited impact on Europe vacation bookings, experts say

    Luxury travel advisor Runway Travel is having a “very busy” Europe leisure travel season despite the war in Ukraine.
    Americans are avoiding travel to some countries near the war zone.
    Travel app Hopper says Europe air searches are down 9% from expected levels.

    Travelers booking luxury trips to Europe have not canceled amid the Ukraine war, says travel advisor Jessica Griscavage of Runway Travel. Pictured, Grignan, France.
    Westend61 | Westend61 | Getty Images

    As the Russian invasion of Ukraine continues with no end in sight, how are Americans’ European vacation plans being affected? It depends on whom you ask, but overall the answer seems to lie somewhere between “not at all” and “slightly.”
    Travel app Hopper noted a drop in flight searches for the Continent as early as February, along with a notable rise in airfares. Yet one travel advisor says she’s seen no decrease in enthusiasm for European bookings or departures from her clients.

    Jennifer Griscavage, founder of Runway Travel, an independent affiliate of McLean, Virginia-based McCabe World Travel, has been “very busy booking European travel” despite the war in Ukraine.
    “The biggest impact we have seen is concern about traveling to any of the countries that share a border with Russia or the Ukraine,” she said, in particular by clients booking a “bucket list” trip to the Russian port city of St. Petersburg as part of a Baltic Sea cruise.
    “Unfortunately, cruise lines have had to cancel stops in St. Petersburg [so] most of our clients have moved these sailings to 2023,” she added.
    More from Personal Finance:Going abroad? Your destination may require travel insuranceAmericans are ready to travel as their omicron fears fadeHere’s where Americans want to travel abroad
    That news isn’t great for destinations near the conflict zone or bordering either Russia or Ukraine, as they had already suffered larger drops in overall visitors due to the pandemic, according to the European Travel Commission in Brussels. The Czech Republic saw an 81% fall in arrivals last year compared to 2019, followed by Finland, at -80%, Latvia at -78%, Estonia at -77%, Slovakia at -76% and Lithuania at -74%, said the ETC.

    However, the picture may be brighter for destinations farther west. Despite “some mild concerns,” Europe is “still a go” for Runway Travel’s largely well-heeled clients. “Italy, Greece and France in particular have been very popular,” Griscavage said.
    Audrey Hendley, president of Global Travel and Lifestyle Services at American Express, said while the impacted areas aren’t major destinations for customers, the company is matching card member donations, and donated $1 million to relief efforts and provided 1 million hotel room nights to support refugees.
    “These are not large destinations for us,” she said. “However, every destination is important; every customer is important.”

    Researchers at Hopper report an impact on search demand, bookings and airfares across Europe in the weeks leading up to, and following, Russia’s Feb. 27 assault on Ukraine.
    According to their report “How is the Russia-Ukraine War Impacting Travel?,” flight searches for trips to Europe (apart from Russia and Ukraine) are 9% below expected levels given pent-up demand for travel after the omicron variant surge. Booking volume had begun to pick up in January through mid-February as omicron subsided but have now returned to levels seen at the beginning of the year.
    “That’s not necessarily a strong decline,” said Adit Damodaran, pricing analyst at Hopper.
    “It’s just that [searches] had been increasing at a certain rate, but now it’s kind of tapered and leveled off below where we would have expected,” Damodaran said.
    The invasion seems to have had less of an impact on Hopper’s existing transatlantic bookings than Covid did. Whereas about 20% of the app’s customers who’d purchased “cancel for any reason” protection with their Europe trips exercised their right for a refund amid the pandemic, just 15% have done so during the current crisis in Ukraine.

    Those just considering booking are more hesitant. They’re not going make a new booking to Europe.

    Adit Damodaran
    pricing analyst at Hopper

    “It could be that a lot of our travelers are going to Western Europe,” Damodaran said. “If they’ve already booked that trip they might just figure, ‘I might as well just continue with it.’
    “But those just considering booking are more hesitant,” he added. “They’re not going make a new booking to Europe.”
    Travelers not taking planned European trips are postponing rather than booking alternate destinations, said Damodaran. “In a more normal year, Europe would be about 30%, or almost one-third, of our bookings [and] it’s now about 15%.” he said.
    Flight searches and actual bookings may be down but airfares are up, Hopper found. Fares to Europe are 16% higher month over month. That might seem like a lot, but, according to Damodaran, the price of jet fuel rose 70% in 2021 in the wake of the pandemic — and then 30% again in the first three months of this year alone, going to $2.86 a gallon from $2.20, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    “The magnitude of what we’ve seen just since the beginning of 2022 has been huge,” he said. “We expect that increase in jet fuel prices to show up in airfare.”
    To wit, domestic U.S. airfares are up 36% since Jan. 1.
    “We usually expect that to be closer to 7% to 8% in a more normal year like 2019,” Damodaran said. Carriers usually eat some of the cost of more expensive jet fuel “because it eventually affects travelers’ willingness to pay.”
    Moscow’s attack on Ukraine and the impact on global energy markets could make an already bad state of affairs worse.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    Thinking about buying a car? Here's what auto experts say you need to know

    A customer is shown a 2022 Toyota Prius at Longo Toyota in El Monte, CA on Wednesday, March 23, 2022.
    Medianews Group | Orange County Register via Getty Images

    People spend a lot of money on their cars and trucks. In fact, about 16% of the average American’s total budget goes to transportation, including vehicle costs and fuel. That makes it the second-biggest expenditure after housing but before incidentals like food, education, and saving for retirement.
    The scale of the expense can make shopping for a vehicle stressful – especially for younger, first-time buyers who tend to have less-established credit histories and lower savings.

    And today’s market makes it even worse.
    According to Kelley Blue Book, the average cost of a new vehicle (including cars, crossovers, vans, pickup trucks and SUVs) exceeded $47,000 at the end of 2021 – up more than 25% in just two years. Average used vehicle prices saw an even steeper rise, going up 42% from under $20,000 at the end of 2019 to over $28,000 two years later. These price increases exceed overall inflation over the same period. They’re due to a production slowdown caused by the pandemic, coupled with pent-up consumer demand and a global microchip shortage.
    So, what’s the best way to buy a first vehicle in today’s marketplace?

    Where to start the car-buying process

    A new buyer’s first step is to determine the sort of vehicle they need, and their budget.
    Selection takes some thought. A small sports car might work for a single person or couple, but not if they’re planning on starting a family. A large SUV might be great for camping and road-tripping with friends, but isn’t likely to be much fun when it comes time to fuel up, pay for insurance, or find street parking.

    “Think about your actual needs, how long your commute is, how much you have to carry, and if you actually enjoy driving and might want something sporty,” said Ronald Montoya, the senior consumer advice editor and content strategist at Edmunds. “Avoid overbuying – you can probably get by with a smaller vehicle for most of your needs, and just rent something bigger once or twice a year, when you really need it.”

    With prices so high, shoppers also need to keep a close eye on their budget. “There is no point in test driving a car if it turns out you can’t afford it,” said Tom McParland, who runs the vehicle-buying service Automatch Consulting and writes about consumer issues and the automotive industry for Jalopnik.
    Most experts advise spending no more than 20% of take-home pay on a vehicle, including payments, insurance and fuel or electricity. There are many online calculators to help consumers determine how much a car buyer can afford.

    Choosing the type of vehicle to buy

    These days, nearly half of auto shoppers choose crossovers – tall vehicles based on passenger cars that have an open back area (like a station wagon or SUV) rather than an enclosed trunk. Crossovers blend most of the efficiency and driving characteristics of a traditional car with a bit of the off-road and foul-weather capabilities of a four-wheel drive SUV.
    If you don’t need a tall driving position and rarely travel in deep snow, a traditional car might be a better choice, however. Whether in the form of a sedan, coupe, convertible or station wagon, cars tend to be lighter and have a lower center of gravity than crossovers, which aids efficiency and handling.
    Conversely, someone who regularly tows or travels on poorly-kept dirt roads might lean towards a traditional SUV or pickup, which are generally built on heavy-duty truck frames to take such abuse. Though most SUVs and pickups are gas hogs, there are a handful of efficient options, such as the hybrid version of the new Ford Maverick and diesel versions of the Ram 1500 and Chevrolet Tahoe. On top of this, a range of electric options including the Ford F-150 Lightning pickup are entering the market over the next year.
    Anyone who doesn’t go off-road or tow much but does carry a lot or people or stuff should remember that minivans still exist. This oft-overlooked segment of the market is ideal for larger families and there’s a range of front- and all-wheel-drive minivan options that can seat up to eight people in car-like comfort.
    Finally, those thinking of getting an electric vehicle might need to plan for a long search. Battery powered transportation may represent the future, but the vast majority of vehicles sold still use gasoline – electric vehicles accounted for only 3.4% of total vehicle sales in the fourth quarter of 2021, which is actually lower than diesel sales (4.6%, mostly pickups). Hybrid vehicles, which combine gas and electric power, made up another 7.5%. Manufacturers are trying to ramp up battery production, though, and some new electric vehicle purchases can still qualify for federal tax credits of $7,500 on top of state and local subsidies.
    Once a shopper has a particular type of vehicle in mind, they should read professional reviews (e.g. Car and Driver, Jalopnik and Edmunds) and search owners’ reviews to determine which particular models interest them, then arrange for test drives.

    New or used?

    For many years, the fiscally smart move was to buy a low-mileage used vehicle – something two or three years old and in good condition. These might lack the latest infotainment equipment and a full factory warranty, but generally provided reliable transportation at a steep discount since vehicles would typically depreciate about 20% in the first year, and 10% annually for a few years after that.
    The Covid pandemic has muted depreciation, however, and prices for used cars are growing faster than for new. As the price gap narrows, buying new becomes more appealing because the vehicles are in better condition, plus, they have a full warranty and can be financed at a lower rate.
    Used Teslas have done particularly well of late, as gas prices have risen, spurring more interest in EVs and the economics of recharging versus filling up. The popular all-electric vehicles are now averaging $65,000 on the used marketplace, coming close to their cost when new.
    The best move for consumers is to look around, because paying almost as much for used as new doesn’t make sense.
    Used shoppers should also consider looking for a certified pre-owned vehicle, which most manufacturers offer through authorized dealers. CPO vehicles – generally low-mileage and of recent vintage – are thoroughly cleaned and inspected, then repaired if necessary. They offer a manufacturer-backed warranty on top of what’s left from the original coverage, and some include additional perks such as roadside assistance or trip insurance. CPO vehicles cost more than other used cars, but they can provide peace-of-mind.

    How to pay for an automobile

    Buying a vehicle outright – often called paying cash for the car, even though it’s more likely to involve a cashier’s check or credit card rather than a literal wad of cash – lets consumers avoid monthly payments and thousands in interest. But it’s not for everyone. Many people just don’t have the savings, plus dealers make money off of financing and are less likely to negotiate on price for buyers paying cash.
    “Paying cash is usually your best option because it limits how much you have to pour into a depreciating asset,” said Greg McBride, the chief financial analyst at consumer finance site Bankrate.com. “But don’t deplete your emergency fund just to buy the car.”
    Besides paying cash, shoppers can also turn to leasing or loans.
    With leasing, consumers generally make lower monthly payments, but don’t own the vehicle at the end of the term – typically three years – unless they pony up a big lump-sum payment. “Leasing is often a treadmill of payments,” McBride said. “You’re essentially renting the vehicle and at the end of the lease you return the car and start over on a new one.”
    Since leasees don’t own the car during the term of their lease, they can run into trouble if they make modifications such as sound system or engine upgrades. They also have to pay a penalty for excessive wear and tear, terminating the lease early, or driving more than a set amount (usually about 12,000 miles annually, though some newer leases are down to 10,000).
    Besides cutting mileage allowances, lease providers have also been limiting the incentives they used to offer (such as cash rebates or subsidized interest rates). For these reasons, most people currently in the market for a vehicle should look to loans if they can’t pay cash. Loans usually end up costing less than leases – especially for consumers who hold onto vehicles for years. Also, those with loans don’t have to worry about mileage or wear, or pay a penalty for early termination. Most importantly, at the end of a loan term, the consumer owns the vehicle. Loan terms can run to 84 months, or even longer. But most experts recommend sticking to shorter loans with lower interest to keep overall costs down.
    Loans usually end up costing less than leases, especially for consumers who hold onto vehicles for years. Since they own the vehicle once the loan is paid off, consumers don’t need to worry about mileage or wear, and there’s no penalty for early termination. “We recommend loans to most shoppers, and putting down at least 20% to keep monthly payments reasonable and avoid GAP insurance,” said Montoya.
    GAP (short for Guaranteed Asset Protection) protects people who have a loan or lease on a car and owe more than its worth. If their car is totaled or stolen, it supplements regular insurance by paying the difference between what their vehicle is worth and what’s owed. 
    McParland said that anyone financing should understand their credit score to know where they stand and then cross-shop lenders and lease providers. “It’s always wise to be pre-approved for a loan before you talk to the dealer,” he said. “That way, you do have some leverage for them to find you a rate that either matches or beats what you already have.”

    Where to buy: Dealers or direct?

    Most new and used car sales are still done through dealerships. Using a dealer lets you view and test drive multiple vehicles in a day, and provides access to financing and sometimes even useful services such as free oil changes or tire rotations. In many cases, a dealer will also accept a buyer’s old car on trade in – with used vehicle prices so high, that can be a big help.
    Problems with using dealers include their often aggressive sales tactics and tendency to fold extra services into vehicle sales at inflated prices. For instance, etching a vehicle identification number (VIN) onto the windshield is a useful practice that can deter theft and lower insurance rates, but a dealer might charge more than $300 for the work, which consumers can do themselves with a $25 kit. To avoid paying excessive fees, it’s wise to ask about any dealer-installed options or markups, Montoya said. It’s a sellers market, and dealers might not waive any of the costs they tack on, but the buyer can always take their business elsewhere.
    Another option is to use a no-haggle dealership, typified by CarMax, Vroom and Carvana. These companies can charge more than traditional dealerships, but generally score positive reviews from consumers. Each promises stress-free shopping with a non-negotiable price and money back guarantees, plus large and easy-to-search inventories. Each will also deliver a new car right to your door, in most instances. Unlike the others, CarMax also offers physical locations where shoppers can peruse cars.
    Of course, you don’t have to deal with dealers. Buying from a private seller is usually cheaper – there’s less overhead to deal with and little chance for any inflated add-on costs. Buying privately can also be less of a hassle for consumers who don’t mind handling their own paperwork, arranging their own financing, and paying any applicable state sales tax when they register the vehicle.

    When to buy a car More

  • in

    There’s a growing interest in wealth taxes on the super-rich. Here’s why it hasn’t happened

    Smart Tax Planning

    Americans increasingly favor a wealth tax on the ultra-rich, but despite the uptick in proposals, these policies have struggled to gain traction.
    President Joe Biden in March unveiled the latest federal plan, following proposals from Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.
    While there’s a negative short-term outlook for these plans, experts believe we’ll continue seeing wealth tax proposals resurface. 

    Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., speaks during a Senate Finance Committee nomination hearing on Feb. 23, 2021.
    Greg Nash | Pool | Reuters

    Americans increasingly favor a wealth tax on the ultra-rich. But despite an uptick in proposals, these policies have struggled to gain traction.
    President Joe Biden in March unveiled the latest federal wealth tax proposal as part of his 2023 budget, aiming to reduce the deficit by roughly $360 billion. 

    Biden’s billionaire minimum income tax calls for a 20% levy on households worth more than $100 million, applying to “total income,” including so-called unrealized capital gains, or asset growth.

    More from Smart Tax Planning:

    Here’s a look at more tax-planning news.

    However, like previous wealth tax proposals, the plan may struggle to gain broad support, with possible legal issues if enacted, policy experts say.
    Wealth tax proposals have emerged in response to growing inequality, according to Steve Rosenthal, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
    While the federal government previously relied on estate levies to tax wealth, many of the richest households bypass these taxes through sophisticated estate planning strategies, he said.

    Mega-billionaires who have accumulated massive amounts of appreciated wealth don’t pay tax in their lifetime, and can sidestep paying tax at death.

    Steve Rosenthal
    Senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center

    “We have some fabulously wealthy American households,” Rosenthal said. “But we’re not collecting on that wealth because the estate tax is so porous.”

    Moreover, many of the wealthiest families pay relatively low levies on income since the tax code favors earnings from investments, such as interest, dividends, capital gains or rent.
    Currently, the top marginal income tax rate is 37%, whereas the highest earners pay 20% for long-term capital gains, plus a 3.8% Obamacare surcharge.

    Wealth tax proposals

    Federal wealth taxes drew national attention during the 2020 presidential primaries when Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., released dueling proposals. 
    Warren called for a 2% yearly “ultra-millionaire tax” on Americans with a net worth over $50 million and 6% on wealth of more than $1 billion to help fund social spending programs.
    Sanders countered with a more aggressive plan, with a tiered approach starting at 1% for fortunes above $32 million up to 8% on net wealth over $10 billion.

    Later, Warren and Sanders, along with other Democrats, floated the Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act in March 2021, a 3% annual tax on wealth exceeding $1 billion. 
    “A wealth tax is popular among voters on both sides for good reason: because they understand the system is rigged to benefit the wealthy and large corporations,” Warren said in a statement.
    Some 64% of Americans support a wealth tax on the super-rich, including 77% of Democrats and 53% of Republicans, according to a 2020 Reuters/Ipsos poll. However, the plan failed to pick up steam in Congress.

    Legal challenges

    Recently, there’s been a slight shift from plans taxing wealth directly, with concerns about whether proposals will “withstand muster in a judicial system,” said Garrett Watson, senior policy analyst at the Tax Foundation. 
    If enacted, the courts may argue about what counts as income, as outlined by the 16th Amendment, which codified a national tax on income.
    However, the bigger issue is the definition of “billionaire” and the net worth calculation, legal experts say. The problem is direct taxes must be split among states based on population, which isn’t possible since some places don’t have billionaires.
    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, D-Ore., unveiled a plan for a tax on billionaires in October, affecting Americans with over $1 billion of wealth or an adjusted gross income exceeding $100 million for three consecutive years.

    The plan called for annual levies on asset growth, which Wyden insisted was constitutional because taxing capital gains annually is already part of the tax code. But the proposal lost steam among Democrats.
    Biden’s budget also calls for a tax on asset gains at death, which was previously dropped during negotiations over proposed Build Back Better legislation.
    Currently, heirs may delay taxes on inherited growth until selling property. They also receive a so-called step-up in basis, adjusting the asset’s purchase price to the value on the date of death.
    “Right now, these mega-billionaires who have accumulated massive amounts of appreciated wealth don’t pay tax in their lifetime, and can sidestep paying tax at death,” Rosenthal said.

    International wealth taxes

    France is one of only five Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development members to collect tax revenue from net wealth. Pictured, the Eiffel Tower in Paris.
    Travelpix Ltd | Stone | Getty Images

    The U.S. in not alone in grappling with wealth taxes; politicians worldwide have struggled to implement such taxes and keep them on the books.
    In 2020, only five Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development members — Colombia, France, Norway, Spain and Switzerland — collected revenue from net wealth, down from a peak of 12 countries in 1996, according to a Tax Foundation analysis.
    In Europe, one of the issues has been the ability to sidestep levies by moving from one country to another, along with various exclusions, eroding the tax base over time, according to Watson.
    “From a revenue collection perspective, there wasn’t a lot of success there,” he said. 
    Over time, several countries have repealed net wealth taxes for various reasons, including economic impact, the Tax Foundation found.  

    Future proposals 

    Despite the dim outlook for Biden’s billionaire minimum income tax, experts believe we’ll continue seeing wealth tax proposals resurface. 
    These proposals are generally popular and probably not going away, said John Gimigliano, head of federal legislative regulatory services at accounting firm KPMG.
    Broadly, many Americans approve of higher taxes on the ultra-wealthy. Nearly two-thirds support a minimum 20% tax on income over $100 million, a March 2022 YouGov PLC survey found.

    And some 60% of individuals worth $1 million or more support a wealth tax on people with $10 million and above, according to CNBC’s 2021 survey of millionaires.
    “The reality is [levies on wealth] represent such a departure from the norms of taxation,” he said, explaining it may take time for policymakers to “come to grips” with making it work politically, including enactment and enforcement.
    Still, these ideas may return during the midterms and beyond, including if Biden runs for re-election in 2024, Gimigliano said.
    “This proposal would be something he will be talking about on the campaign trail,” he added. “I’m highly confident of that.” More

  • in

    Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz says he's not anti-union, but his past tells a different story

    Howard Schultz returned to the helm of Starbucks this week amid a union push from the company’s baristas.
    Schultz has a long history of opposing unions, dating back to his earliest days at the company.
    But in his time away from the coffee giant, attitudes around unions have changed.

    A pro-union poster is seen on a lamp pole outside Starbucks’ Broadway and Denny location in Seattle’s Seattle’s Capitol Hill neighborhood on March 22, 2022.
    Toby Scott | Sopa Images | Lightrocket | Getty Images

    Howard Schultz’s first week back at the helm of Starbucks ended with seven more company-owned cafes unionizing, bringing the total tally to 16.
    But would-be union members at Starbucks will likely need to gird for a tougher response from the company. Schultz, who oversaw the coffee giant’s growth from a small Seattle chain into a global behemoth, has a long history of opposing unions.

    It’s still too soon to tell whether Schultz will adopt a new playbook for a time when workers feel emboldened by rising wages and a tight labor market, but his recent actions and words could offer some clues.
    On Monday he announced that the company would suspend stock buybacks to invest in its stores and employees, yet in a town hall with workers that same day, he repeated his belief in the company team approach to labor management.
    “I’m not an anti-union person. I am pro-Starbucks, pro-partner, pro-Starbucks culture,” Schultz said. “We didn’t get here by having a union.”
    Both organizers and labor experts expect the company under Schultz’s leadership will ramp up efforts to quash the labor push.
    “I think they’re likely to double down on their anti-union efforts and do everything they possibly can,” said John Logan, a labor professor at San Francisco State University.

    Starbucks, under previous CEO Kevin Johnson, has already faced accusations of union busting from Workers United, which has filed dozens of complaints with the National Labor Relations Board. The NLRB also has accused the company of retaliating against pro-union staff in Phoenix. Starbucks has denied the claims.
    Johnson took a relatively hands off approach publicly, leaving most of the effort to North American President Rossann Williams. But when Buffalo, New York-area locations kicked off the union push last year, it was Schultz, not Johnson, who visited to speak with baristas.
    To date, more than 180 company-owned locations have filed petitions for a union election, although that is still a small fraction of Starbucks’ overall U.S. footprint of nearly 9,000 stores. Out of the locations whose votes have been counted, only one cafe has opposed unionizing.

    Schultz’s union opposition

    Former chairman and CEO of Starbucks, and United States 2020 presidential candidate Howard Schultz visits Fox & Friends at Fox News Channel Studios on April 2, 2019 in New York City.
    Steven Ferdman | Getty Images

    Schultz’s stance against unions stretches back to his earliest days at the company. In his 1997 book, “Pour Your Heart Into It: How Starbucks Built a Company One Cup at a Time,” co-authored with Dori Jones Yang, Schultz recounted the company’s first union battle when he was a marketing director.
    The growing company, which was led by CEO Jerry Baldwin at the time, bought Peet’s Coffee and Tea in 1984. Integrating the acquisition took effort as the company cultures clashed, according to Schultz. He wrote that some Starbucks workers began to feel neglected and so they circulated a union petition after their requests to management went unanswered. The union won the vote.
    “The incident taught me an important lesson: There is no more precious commodity than the relationship of trust and confidence a company has with its employees,” Schultz wrote. “If people believe management is not fairly sharing the rewards, they will feel alienated. Once they start distrusting management, the company’s future is compromised.”
    Schultz left Starbucks soon after to found his own espresso chain, Il Giornale, and its early success led him to acquire Starbucks and merge the two companies. In “Pour Your Heart Into It,” Schultz said that a barista “on his own” successfully worked to decertify the union for Starbucks retail workers.
    “When so many of our people supported decertification, it was a sign to me that they were beginning to believe I would do what I had promised,” he wrote. “Their distrust was beginning to dissipate and their morale was rising.”
    But employees who worked for Starbucks at the time and then-union representatives have pushed back against that narrative. In a 2019 Politico article tied to Schultz’s political hopes, Dave Schmitz, the organizing director for the local United Food and Commercial Workers Union in the 1980s, said that Starbucks filed the decertification petition.
    At the time, Schultz did not respond to requests for comment about the Politico report.
    On top of that, Schultz often painted the coffee chain’s benefits, like health coverage for part-time workers, as his own idea as part of a broader belief that treating employees well will benefit the company as a whole. According to Politico’s reporting, those benefits were part of the union’s contract with Starbucks.
    “I was convinced that under my leadership, employees would come to realize that I would listen to their concerns. If they had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union,” Schultz wrote.
    Schultz would step down as CEO of the company in 2000 before returning for another stint in 2008 as the financial crisis upended Starbucks’ business. While he served as chief global strategist in the interim, baristas in Manhattan tried to unionize. Starbucks successfully squashed the effort, but an NLRB judge ultimately ruled in 2008 that the company violated federal labor laws.
    During his second stint as chief executive in 2016, Schultz reportedly called a California barista who circulated a union petition, successfully talking him out of organizing his fellow workers.
    Two years later, Schultz stepped away from an active role in Starbucks. The following year, he publicly considered a presidential run as an independent centrist, but his potential candidacy failed to create enthusiasm.

    The pandemic changed things

    While Schultz was away, Starbucks and its baristas endured a pandemic that changed how many workers felt about their jobs and their own power. In August 2021, Starbucks workers in Buffalo filed a petition to unionize with the NLRB under Workers United.
    Now as Schultz steps back into the spotlight, attitudes around unions have changed drastically. Gallup polling from September 2021 shows 68% of Americans approve of labor unions — the highest reading since a 71% approval rating in 1965.
    Every union win at a Starbucks cafe drives more momentum for the union push, and other high-profile wins at Amazon and R.E.I. have further fueled the movement.
    “[Starbucks and Amazon] think the old anti-union campaigns that have always worked in the past will also work this time, but I think they’re finding out in certain cases that it’s no longer true,” said Logan, the labor professor. “I don’t think either of these union campaigns would’ve succeeded two or three years ago, but something has changed.”

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

  • in

    HDFC Bank’s merger marks a milestone for India

    OUTSIDE INDIA, the union of two entities that share a banal acronym in their name might seem an exercise in bureaucracy. But in the case of the acquisition of Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) by HDFC Bank, announced on April 4th, that appearance would be deceptive. The size of the deal, at $60bn, is by far the biggest in India—triple the value of the next largest acquisition (Walmart’s purchase of Flipkart for $17bn in 2018). It is also the fourth-biggest banking transaction in the world ever, according to Refinitiv, a data provider. The resulting entity is estimated to have a market capitalisation of as much as $185bn, which would make it one of the world’s largest banks, after JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and three Chinese lenders—and well above Citigroup, HSBC and Standard Chartered, the three global banks that once stood at the pinnacle of Indian private-sector finance.Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

  • in

    China has a celebrated history of policy experiments

    IN MAY 1919 John Dewey, an American philosopher, embarked on a lecture tour of China. “We are going to see more of the dangerous daring side of life here,” he predicted. His celebration of learning by doing and social experimentation was enthusiastically received by the country’s daring reformers and dangerous revolutionaries. At least one of his lectures was attended by a young schoolteacher called Mao Zedong. “Everything through experimentation,” Dewey declared on his tour. Chairman Mao would later repeat the line as China’s ruler.Listen to this story. Enjoy more audio and podcasts on More

  • in

    Will Smith banned from attending the Oscars for 10 years after slapping Chris Rock on stage

    Will Smith has been banned from attending the Academy Awards for the next decade after slapping Chris Rock during the ceremony last month.
    Smith confronted Rock onstage after the comedian made a joke about the close-cropped hair of Jada Pinkett Smith, Smith’s wife.
    Last week, Smith resigned from the academy calling his own actions “shocking, painful and inexcusable,” and on Friday added, “I accept and respect the academy’s decision.”

    Will Smith has been banned from attending the Academy Awards for the next decade after slapping Chris Rock during the ceremony last month.
    On Friday, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences called Smith’s behavior “unacceptable” in a letter to organization members and said the recently minted Academy Award winner would not be allowed at any events or programs hosted by the group for 10 years.

    “This action we are taking today in response to Will Smith’s behavior is a step toward a larger goal of protecting the safety of our performers and guests, and restoring trust in the Academy,” the group wrote in a letter to members, obtained by NBC News.
    “I accept and respect the academy’s decision,” “Smith said in response to the ban.
    Smith confronted Rock onstage after the comedian made a joke about the close-cropped hair of Jada Pinkett Smith, Smith’s wife. Pinkett Smith has alopecia, a skin condition that can result in hair loss. After striking Rock, Smith returned to his seat and screamed profanities at his fellow star.
    The academy’s board was initially set to convene on April 18 to discuss possible disciplinary actions, including a potential suspension or ban from the organization. However, last week Smith resigned from the group calling his own actions “shocking, painful, and inexcusable.”
    Smith apologized to the academy and his fellow nominees during his acceptance speech for the best actor award, which he won for his portrayal of Richard Williams in “King Richard.” He apologized to Rock via social media the day after the ceremony.

    Rock, meanwhile, has refrained from making public comments about the slap. He told a crowd at a comedy show last week in Boston that he was “still processing what happened.”
    “During our telecast, we did not adequately address the situation in the room,” academy executives said in the letter Friday. “For this, we are sorry. This was an opportunity for us to set an example for our guests, viewers and our Academy family around the world, and we fell short — unprepared for the unprecedented.”
    The academy has said that Smith refused to leave the ceremony after he struck the comedian. However, there are conflicting reports about whether Smith was actually asked to leave or if it was just suggested that he depart before his award category was called.
    The Los Angeles Police Department was ready to arrest Smith at the awards ceremony, according to a producer of the show, but Rock declined to press charges.
    Read the full letter from the academy:

    The 94th Oscars were meant to be a celebration of the many individuals in our community who did incredible work this past year; however, those moments were overshadowed by the unacceptable and harmful behavior we saw Mr. Smith exhibit on stage. 
    During our telecast, we did not adequately address the situation in the room. For this, we are sorry. This was an opportunity for us to set an example for our guests, viewers and our Academy family around the world, and we fell short — unprepared for the unprecedented. 
    Today, the Board of Governors convened a meeting to discuss how best to respond to Will Smith’s actions at the Oscars, in addition to accepting his resignation. The Board has decided, for a period of 10 years from April 8, 2022, Mr. Smith shall not be permitted to attend any Academy events or programs, in person or virtually, including but not limited to the Academy Awards. 
    We want to express our deep gratitude to Mr. Rock for maintaining his composure under extraordinary circumstances. We also want to thank our hosts, nominees, presenters and winners for their poise and grace during our telecast. 
    This action we are taking today in response to Will Smith’s behavior is a step toward a larger goal of protecting the safety of our performers and guests, and restoring trust in the Academy. We also hope this can begin a time of healing and restoration for all involved and impacted.

    WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More