After five years in the role, Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson will be stepping down next month. Former CEO Howard Schultz will return in an interim role. While the decision to step down is sudden, Starbucks board chairwoman Mellody Hobson says the decision to step down was Johnson’s own.
Other factors, however, suggest otherwise.
With a -24% stock price, rising wages, supply issues, and a growing unionization movement, the move to drop Johnson for Schultz seems hasty. Timothy Hubbard, assistant professor of management at University of Notre Dame Mendoza College of Business made a similar observation:
“It’s curious that they were not able to find a successor within a year.
“For a company the size and stature of Starbucks not to have a solid successor plan is surprising.”
Starbucks dropped the ball and now Daddy Schultz has to come in and clean up the mess.
Why Didn’t Starbucks Prepare A Successor?
With a company as successful and organized as Starbucks, one can’t help but wonder why a successor wasn’t lined up. It’s not like there isn’t a wealth of executive talent for the company to pull from.
So, what happened?
The truth is that unless you were in the room when the decisions were made, we don’t know. We could argue that Roz Brewer’s poaching by Walgreens disrupted the process. But that was in early 2021.
We could mention that Johnson, in a statement, mentioned his plan to retire after COVID.
“A year ago, I signaled to the board that as the global pandemic neared an end, I would be considering retirement from Starbucks. I feel this is a natural bookend to my 13 years with the company.”
But we’re still technically in COVID and nobody’s buying it.
Whatever the reason, the sudden departure of one CEO for the old CEO is not a cute look. And surely doesn’t inspire faith in the company going forward. Even with a company as big as Starbucks.
Schultz’s Track Record
The reason Starbucks is where it is today is because of Howard Schultz. He spent the 80s and 90’s shaping Starbucks into a global phenomenon before stepping down in 2000, only to return in 2008.
This will be Schultz’s third stint as Starbucks CEO.
“When you love something, you have a deep sense of responsibility to help when called,”
“Although I did not plan to return to Starbucks, I know the company must transform once again to meet a new and exciting future where all of our stakeholders mutually flourish.”
Boomerang CEOs typically don’t have a great track record. They suggest instability and a hesitance to innovate.
Schultz may find himself (or may think of himself) as the “Steve Jobs-type” of boomerang CEO. But we all know that Starbucks is no Apple. It’s difficult to imagine how you can make coffee innovative, but Schultz has found a way before.
What Schultz’s return does seem to suggest is that the company is nervous about the unionization movement gaining momentum. And that they want Daddy Schultz to crush it.
And crush it he may…
Is Starbucks Getting Ready To Start Union Busting?
The unionization movement spreading to 100 stores happened under Johnson’s watch. Schultz is notably anti-union and is not shy about it. Those involved in unionization have good reason to be nervous about Schultz’s return as Starbucks CEO.
The unionization in Buffalo has inspired other Starbucks locations across the country. According to Hannah McCown, a Starbucks barista in Overland, Kansas.
“We were inspired by the partners in Buffalo that managed to do something many of us have dreamed of for a long time.
“It’s something we didn’t think was possible, but they really pushed through and showed the rest of us across the nation that we could use our voices and actually unionize.”
“We are just looking to have our voices heard at a company that we really put everything into.
“We are the backbone of this company and while we do believe this is a great company to work for, we do believe things could be done better.”
The climate is good for unions, at the moment. There seems to be a hunger for them. And with it, a Reagan-era hunger for crushing them in favor of… corporate profits? It’s hard to find a reasonable argument against unions.
Starbucks has already been busted for cracking down on unionization by the National Labor Relations Board. Why wouldn’t they continue?
Regardless of the reasons, the sudden change in Starbucks’ CEO spells one thing: Starbucks is unsure of its future and is turning to its safety blanket.
Billionaires Be Warned: Organized Labor on the Rise
Last week, Apple retail workers in Towson, Maryland, voted 65-33 to seek entry into the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers trade union. It’s a story that’s consistent with a promising trend.
In the last several months, a number of victories have been tallied for worker’s rights around the country.
In December, a Starbucks in Buffalo became the first of its company-owned U.S. locations to form a union. Since then, at least 150 of the 9,000 company-run U.S. stores have voted to unionize, with 10 stores rejecting the union.
In January, engineers and other Google workers announced that they had formed a union—the Alphabet Workers Union— named after Google’s parent company, Alphabet. It represents about 800 Google employees.
April saw Amazon workers in Staten Island, New York vote to unionize, marking a first for the retail giant.
In May, video game workers at a division of game publisher Activision Blizzard voted to unionize, making them the first to create a labor union at a large U.S. videogame company.
Per a 2021 Gallup Poll: at least 68% of Americans approve of labor unions, the highest since Gallup found a 71% approval in 1965.
A resurgence of unions after years of decline.
President Biden has been vocal about his support for the decision.
“I am proud of them,”
Biden said in a statement to reporters.
“Workers have a right to determine under what condition they are going to work or not work.”
This is a far cry from the days of President Reagan publicly firing striking air traffic controllers, a move that signaled to the weakening labor movement that times were changing. Of course, labor rights weren’t always such a contentious topic.
In the mid-1950s, approximately one out of every three non-farm workers were unionized. This was, of course, the peak of labor’s power in the US.
In subsequent decades, the ranks of unionized workers would shrink. By the 80s and 90s, due to a combination of economic and political developments, the decline in unions accelerated.
The opening of overseas markets and the emergence of outsourcing put organized labor at a severe disadvantage.
Around this same period, U.S. employers developed a set of legal— and illegal—practices that could effectively rid establishments of existing unions and prevent new unions from organizing.
These practices included: threatening union sympathizers with firings and holding a mandatory meeting wherein workers would be subject to anti-union propaganda. Additionally, many employers hired permanent replacements for striking workers.
But Biden has been relatively labor-friendly. In February, a Biden administration task force issued a set of recommendations aimed at making it easier for federal workers and contractors to unionize.
The report argues that the trend of declining union membership has coincided with a rising share of income going to the top 10% of earners.
Youth movement gives labor unions a new hope.
After decades of decline, U.S. unions are finding hope in a growing movement among the youth. Union approval is high— and growing—with the youngest workers. This is reflected by membership levels, which are trending upwards for workers between the ages of 25 and 34. Even as they decline among other age groups.
According to the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of union members among workers aged 25-34 rose from 8.8% to 9.4%
The aforementioned Alphabet Workers Union, for example, is run by five people under the age of 35.
This is consistent with a greater political trend among young people: the youth is less susceptible to the anti-socialist boogeyman rhetoric that successfully fleeced previous generations of working people’s rights.
It’s important to remember that many of the things we take for granted today are the products of union involvement. The eight-hour work day? Labor unions. Job safety laws? Labor unions. Overtime pay? Labor Unions. Weekends? Labor unions. Worker’s Comp? Labor unions. Employer-based health coverage? Labor unions.
And the list goes on.
Who Does Tori Dunlap Think She Is?
If you haven’t heard of Tori Dunlap, you’re probably not seeking financial advice. If you are seeking financial advice, you can do a lot better than Tori Dunlap.
Tori Dunlap is an entrepreneur who claims to have saved $100,000 by the age of 25. After achieving such astonishing success so early in life, she simply had to quit her corporate job so she could devote her energy to helping women learn their financial independence and unassumed dominance in our white cis male-run society.
Her mission? To create the brand HerFirst100K and…
Idk man… seems kinda gimmicky.
Disclaimer: I am a cis white male with no financial expertise to speak of criticizing a cis white female financial pundit. I have zero doubts that Dunlap could balance a checkbook better than I ever could. I am not here to offer any financial advice. Rather, I am criticizing Dunlap’s approach to fiscal responsibility and her overall authenticity.
In short: We’re not buying it and neither should you.
How Did She *Really* Get $100K by 25?
At 25, I was working as a barback in a local gay bar and on the cusp of starting my first professional writing job. I had maybe $600 to my name and very poor financial instincts – you could call me a ‘spendthrift.’
My peers around the same age were all fairly financially inept or carefree. Sure, we would meet our responsibilities but we sure as hell weren’t saving – and not for lack of trying. We all worked incredibly hard, dirty, thankless jobs for very little money and could be fired on a whim. None of us would have been able to save up to $100K by 25.
By 25, I had been working steady jobs for 10 years. Even if I didn’t spend a single cent over those 10 years I don’t think the number would have ever reached $100K. Pardon my doubts, but how is a 25-year-old, any 25-year-old, able to save up to $100,000 all by themselves? After some digging, it turns out she did it with a lot of discipline and a lot of luck.
She graduated college with zero debt, landed a job in digital marketing with a salary of $55K/year, and put a disciplined percentage of her take-home into saving and an investment fund. These are all great, very privileged ways to save $100,000 in three years.
I’m curious to know how a 22-year-old snagged an investment fund and knew which investments would pay off and how much they earned but… I digress.
I don’t sneeze at this kind of discipline. Many people would benefit from a financial discipline such as that. I do sneeze a little by using this as a marketing tactic. While she qualifies this by admitting her privilege, she makes her achievement the main marketing point of Her First $100K.
“I did this and so can you!” the sentiment screams. Except most people can’t. And I think Ms. Dunlap knows that.
Tori Dunlap Is Not Qualified To Give Anyone Financial Advice
The only thing I trust Tori Dunlap to do is market and brand herself effectively. She’s cool, she’s hip, she can play along with the broader trends, she TikToks with the best of ‘em, and it all feels so desperately empty and deeply phony.
I think Tori Dunlap has a keen eye for self-promotion that masquerades as “woke financial advice.” This would be fine if it wasn’t potentially f*cking with people’s money. There are people out there with some serious financial issues and concerns. If they trust Tori Dunlap, they could be misled because she doesn’t know what she’s talking about.
I don’t mean she doesn’t know how to assert her value and practice financial discipline. I mean she doesn’t have the financial authority to be profiting off the advice she gives. It’s like getting medical advice from a sickly friend – they’ve got experience but no expertise.
TikTok Advice Isn’t Real Advice
If you take a look at Dunlap’s TikTok, it looks pretty much like every other TikToker out there. On her page, the financial advice is few and far between. It appears that TikTok is the space where she promotes her brand, podcast, and book – with a whole lot of cookie-cutter trends you will find on any account.
When you finally do get to her financial advice, it’s no different than if you were to ask your fiscally savvy friend. For example, “know your worth and advocate for it” is a great bit of advice, it’s one I tell my peers at work – but it’s not expertise. It’s a good ol’ fashioned, “you can do it!” Which is nice, but it’s not practically helpful. What you’re getting from Dunlap are educated tips from someone who is being nice to you.
When you present yourself as an authority figure you have a responsibility that comes with it. Telling people you are the savior from the patriarchy if you pay for her course doesn’t exactly scream “hero.”
There’s nothing wrong with providing a service and charging for it. There is, however, something really gross about masquerading as a feminist hero when you’re actually an unqualified financial nobody with no serious credentials to speak of.
Tori Dunlap is not qualified to be giving financial advice to anyone. She says so on her site:
“LEGAL STUFF: I am not a licensed financial advisor. I offer education, not prescriptive advice. The information that is found here are my opinions and the opinions of other readers/contributors and should be taken as such.”
“Legal stuff.” Cute, so relatable.
All of Dunlap’s success stories are social media posts, texts, and emails. Hardly a case study.
Dunlap claims to be “leading a movement of financial feminists,” but a quick Google search on female financial advisors yields no results for Ms. Dunlap. What exactly is she leading? You cannot be a leader when you don’t show up on the first 12 pages of Google.
Here’s What An Actual Financial Expert Says
We spoke to Danetha Doe, an economist with over 10 years of experience in the financial industry. She has worked as an accountant and a CFO. She also created Money & Mimosas, a financial education resource for ambitious folks.
In short, Ms. Doe knows her sh*t.
We asked Ms. Doe about how the average person could save up to $100K by the age of 25.
“I don’t think it’s reasonable to believe the average person can save $100K by 25.
“In order to do that, they would either need to be born into wealth, have zero student loans, work for a startup that goes public or gets acquired, or start a business that is financially successful.
“All of those scenarios do not apply to the average person.
“The median salary for an individual is under $40,000. Therefore, the average person earns about $40,000. In order to reach $100K in savings on an average salary could take decades in the United States.”
Ms. Doe has a lot of excellent financial advice without being patronizing or weaponizing oppression for profit. She has a professional and personal background that makes her an effective authority when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
“My two grandmothers [are the financial experts I admire most].
“They came to the United States as immigrants and became real estate investors during a time when Black women were systematically shut out of wealth-building opportunities in this country.
“Their lasting legacy guides my financial decisions.”
If you want to learn finance tips from someone who can relate to or understand your experience fully, Danetha Doe is the way to go.
Besides, who doesn’t love a mimosa?
What In The Hell Is ‘Feminist Financial Advice?’
What is it about financial advice that needs to be tailored specifically for women? Let’s take a super casual and lazy glance at successful women, shall we?
Suze Orman is a trusted financial authority and has been around for a minute.
Madonna has built herself an entertainment empire by being unapologetically female.
Rihanna became a billionaire through her music and some super-savvy business moves.
Laverne Cox bulldozed expectations and helped establish a foundation for trans artists.
“I watched female friends get paid less than they were worth. I read stories about women being denied career opportunities because they were seen as ‘less.’
“Male colleagues said sexist, negative comments to me at work. I learned that women hold the majority of debt in America and that they invest less of their money than men, yet live for seven years longer.
“So I knew that I had to fight back.”
Fighting Sexism By Leaning Into Sexism
I don’t think anybody disagrees (save for a few members of the Republican Party) that women have a tougher go of it than men. To be honest, it’s a bit of a stretch to connect general sexism with financial education. I learned how to budget from my mother, a woman who has had to fight her own battles with sexism and misogyny as the only female partner at her law firm.
Frankly, I think the assumption that women need help from an unlicensed non-expert in order to learn fiscal responsibility is teetering on sexism. At the very least, it’s grossly condescending and certainly inauthentic.
If you’re in a position where you need financial advice, you want it from someone who is a serious advisor, not a trending influencer with no qualifications. With inflation at a 40-year high and an underpaid workforce fighting for its value, we cannot afford to take financial advice from someone clearly more interested in self-promotion and branding.
Dunlap appears to be less focused on offering genuine financial advice and far more focused on hitting woke buzzwords in an effort to patronize marginalized communities for profit. If you want to find a female-focused financial authority, try Ellevest instead.
Tori Dunlap’s Communications Lead declined to comment.
Vince McMahon Stepped Down From WWE. Or Did He?
The news rang out around the world on Friday.
Vince McMahon, father and face of the modern WWE, is voluntarily stepping down from his CEO position. The news came amid allegations of misconduct, affairs, and hush money.
And then, the strangest thing happened. Moments later, WWE announced that McMahon would make an appearance during Smackdown. Many speculated that McMahon would take the opportunity to admit remorse, address the new path, or prepare a last goodbye for fans.
Instead, he did this.
“It is a privilege, as always, to stand before you here tonight, the WWE Universe. Especially a privilege to stand here in this ring in Minnesota.
I’m here simply to remind you of the four words we just saw in what we call the WWE signature. Those four words are then, now, forever, and the most important word is together.
Welcome to SmackDown!”
“Bizarre spectacle” is a phrase that could appear under the dictionary definition for World Wrestling Entertainment.. But even fans were left scratching their heads by this appearance, with one caught on camera appearing to ask “That’s it?”
What really happened to Vince McMahon
If you didn’t read past headlines about stepping down amid misconduct allegations, you might be stunned that McMahon would appear on TV at all. The truth, as is often the case, is a bit more complicated.
Per The Wall Street Journal, an inquiry began in April concerning a secret payout of $3 million that a WWE paralegal received in January. McMahon allegedly had an affair with the employee. The investigation opened up other, older NDAs relating to sexual misconduct by McMahon and talent relations chair John Laurinaitis.
The misconception at hand comes from WWE’s announcement. While it’s true that McMahon is stepping down from his chief position while the investigation continues, that’s not the whole picture.
McMahon is maintaining creative control of the WWE. For an entertainment company, the creative aspect is a pretty massive slice of the pie. As evidenced by Friday’s appearance—and another appearance on Monday—he’s not stepping down from the public eye either.
McMahon’s WWE character, “Mr. McMahon,” it seems, is not under the same scrutiny as his actor. There are no signs that his exaggerated persona will cease making appearances on SmackDown and at other WWE events.
In a way, it’s a delicate PR chess move. The headline, “Vince McMahon Steps Down Amidst Investigation,” reads like a victory. The sticky truth, that he’s not really exiting at all, will have little impact on the general public.
Wrestling fans, on the other hand, are seeing both sides play out, and it’s leaving some confused. It’s an interesting twist on “kayfabe,” the suspension of disbelief at the root of the WWE community. In reality, Vince has stepped down, but in kayfabe, Mr. McMahon hasn’t gone anywhere.
This bizarre in-and-out response might reflect the inherent flaws in wrestling’s mesh of fantasy and reality. In pursuit of kayfabe, what happens if McMahon is fully ousted? Will an attachment to his fictional persona keep justice from being served? At this point, it’s hard to say.