Starbucks Caves to 'Black Lives Matter' Backlash in Spectacular Fashion
Facing calls on social media for a boycott after a published report said Starbucks was banning employees from wearing Black Lives Matter attire, the company made a 180-degree switch Friday and said it would not only allow such gear, it would also buy it for workers. On Wednesday, Buzzfeed reported that Black Lives Matter items were specifically banned as part of the company’s prohibition on political, religious or personal accessories or clothing. The site reported that Starbucks had told employees in a memo that “there are agitators who misconstrue the fundamental principles of the ‘Black Lives Matter’ movement — and in certain circumstances, intentionally repurpose them to amplify divisiveness.” But in the climate that has developed in the aftermath of protests linked to the death of George Floyd, and amid social media demands that Starbucks face a boycott, the company backpedaled. “Black lives matter and Starbucks is committed to doing our part in ending systemic racism,” the company said in a Friday statement on its website. “Starbucks stands in solidarity with our Black partners, community and customers, and understand the desire to express themselves,” the statement went on. In an open letter to employees, who are called “partners” in Starbucks-speak, on its website, a trio of company executives wrote: “These are alarming, uncertain times and people everywhere are hurting. You’ve told us you need a way to express yourself at work.”
The letter was signed by Roz Brewer, chief operating officer; Rossann Williams, executive vice president; and Zing Shaw, chief inclusion and diversity officer. “We see you. We hear you. Black Lives Matter. That is a fact and will never change. This movement is a catalyst for change, and right now, it’s telling us a lot of things need to be addressed so we can make space to heal,” the letter read. The letter went on to explain that T-shirts that include phrases such as “No justice, no peace,” Black Lives Matter” and “EVERYONE vs. Racism” are on the way, but until they arrive, Black Lives Matter supporters can do what they please. The statement said 250,000 of the shirts are on order. “Designed for partners, by partners, our Starbucks Black Partner Network and allies created the t-shirt to recognize the historic significance of this time. Together, we’re saying: Black Lives Matter and it’s going to take ALL of us, working together, to affect change,” the letter said.
The letter, issued barely five months before a presidential election, noted that political activity is part of how Starbucks wants change to be manufactured. “That means using our voice to vote in our elections, volunteering in our black communities, joining local peaceful protests, ensuring our diverse slates of job candidates translate into diverse hires, mentoring and sponsoring partners of color so they can reach their maximum potential and taking steps to build greater understanding with empathy,” the letter read. Barista Hailey Glick of Raleigh, North Carolina, was pleased with the change, but said some types of public support should not be allowed, according to The Washington Post. “I was very pleased with the reversal of the decision, and I think it’s the right move,” she said. “The only thing that I think makes me hesitate and probably makes the company hesitate too is how and where we draw the line.”
https://www.westernjournal.com/starbucks-caves-black-lives-matter-backlash-spectacular-fashion/
Judge Limits California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Emergency Rule-Making During Pandemic
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A California judge on Friday sided with Republican legislators who said Gov. Gavin Newsom overstepped his powers with dozens of emergency orders during the coronavirus crisis that changed everything from how public meetings are conducted to when tenants can be evicted. Sutter County Superior Court Judge Perry Parker only halted one of the orders, involving the November election, but ordered Newsom to refrain from new orders that might be interpreted as usurping the Legislature’s responsibilities. The judge appeared to adopt without changes a proposed order submitted to him by GOP Assemblymen James Gallagher and Kevin Kiley, who challenged the election order. Parker barred Newsom “from further exercising any legislative powers in violation of the California Constitution and applicable statute, specifically from unilaterally amending, altering, or changing existing statutory law or making new statutory law.” He scheduled a hearing for June 26 to consider issuing a preliminary injunction. “This is a victory for separation of powers,” the lawmakers said in a joint statement. “The governor has continued to brazenly legislate by fiat without public input and without the deliberative process provided by the Legislature. Today the judicial branch finally gave him the check that was needed and that the Constitution requires.”
The state attorney general’s office referred questions to the governor’s office because he is their client in the case. Newsom spokesman Jesse Melgar said in a statement that, “We are disappointed in this initial ruling and look forward to the opportunity to brief the Court on the issues.” Newsom broadly and repeatedly used his executive and emergency authority during the first weeks of the pandemic to virtually shut down the state and its economy. He’s had the backing of federal and state courts that have blocked previous challenges to his efforts to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Richard Hasen, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Irvine, said Parker’s order appears to block executive orders “that would suspend or alter statutory law or further exercise ‘legislative powers.’” “There can of course be disagreements about what that means in the context of particular executive orders,” he said. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley, said the judge’s order “says only that the governor cannot issue orders that violate the law.” “The paragraph in the order is vague, but I think it clearly does not forbid all executive orders, just those that are unconstitutional or violate statutes,” he said. Lawmakers of both political parties have criticized Newsom, a Democrat, for not sufficiently including them in his sweeping declarations and budget decisions since the pandemic began. The governor has issued more than 40 executive orders, according to a court filing by Gallagher. They include halting evictions, delaying late fees for paying taxes or renewing drivers licenses, allowing grocery stores to once again hand out single-use bags for free — even allowing couples to be married by video or teleconference, with marriage licenses and certificates digitally signed and sent by email.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/06/12/judge-limits-california-gov-gavin-newsoms-emergency-rule-making-during-pandemic/