WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn) spoke on Wednesday at a U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing with former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz. Murphy grilled Schultz on Starbucks’ egregious record of violating federal labor laws.

Murphy asked: “[W]hen I do a search online to take a look at cases that have been brought against Starbucks for illegal firings, as you know, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kansas, Missouri, Washington, a decision out of Buffalo requiring you to reinstate workers, calling your practices 'egregious and widespread in misconduct.' You say you follow the law, but then, of course, this Committee sees repeated evidence of NLRB orders, forcing you to reverse actions that were on their face a violation of the law. So when you say you don't break the law, you abide by the law, you mean you disagree with all of these decisions from the NLRB? You think they got it wrong, in all those cases?”

On Schultz’s insistence that the hundreds of National Labor Relations Board violations against Starbucks are incorrect, Murphy said: “It is akin to someone who has been ticketed for speeding 100 times saying I've never violated the law because every single time, every single time the cop got it wrong. That would not be a believable contention if someone was to make that before the Committee, and so I find it hard to believe your insistence that notwithstanding this extraordinary set of decisions reinstating workers, forcing stores to be reopened, that you are, in fact, consistently abiding by the law, as your testimony is before this Committee.”

You can read Murphy’s full exchange with Schultz:

MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know collective bargaining is a fundamentally conservative idea. We've sort of lost track of that. It's rooted in free market principles, the idea that workers should be able to freely join together to negotiate in a free, open negotiation with their employer. It's kind of disappointing and sad and wild to me at how partisan this debate has become. Democrats standing up for unions. Republicans saying they support collective bargaining, but not seeing that there's real genius in the idea in a free market society that workers get to come together. It’s funny that previous Republican candidates, they really fought hard to work to win the union vote, to speak at union conventions. This sort of new dichotomy we have is in fact new.

“Mr. Schultz, what do you mean when you say that you abide by the law? So, I guess when I do a search online to take a look at cases that have been brought against Starbucks for illegal firings, as you know, New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Kansas, Missouri, Washington, a decision out of Buffalo requiring you to reinstate workers, calling your practices 'egregious and widespread in misconduct.'

“You say you follow the law, but then, of course, this Committee sees repeated evidence of NLRB orders, forcing you to reverse actions that were on their face a violation of the law. So when you say you don't break the law, you abide by the law, you mean you disagree with all of these decisions from the NLRB? You think they got it wrong, in all those cases?”

SCHULTZ: “I think what you're talking about is allegations that we look forward to in the process to defend ourselves, but if I can give you one specific case...”

MURPHY: “But some of these are orders from NLRB judges to reinstate employees based upon violations of conduct. Do you think in all of those cases in which judges have required stores to be reopened or for workers to be reinstated that they just all got it wrong?"

SCHULTZ: “Well in Memphis..."

MURPHY: “In every case.”

SCHULTZ: “So, in Memphis as an example...”

MURPHY: “I'm not looking to litigate each specific case. Just to clarify when you say that you are abiding by the law, you mean that in every case, in which an NLRB judge has ordered you to take steps to remediate actions, in every single case, they've gotten it wrong?

SCHULTZ: “We will follow the law and follow the judge's order, but we look forward...”

MURPHY: “But the judge is making a finding that you have engaged in conduct that is not allowed by the underlying law, i.e. illegal behavior. In every case, you believe that the judge has got it wrong?”

SCHULTZ: “I believe the allegations will prove that Starbucks was correct, and I can give you a perfect example if you're willing to listen.”

MURPHY: “Sure, I'm willing to listen."

SCHULTZ: “So let's take Memphis which has been a clear, isolated case, but I think indicative of the process. Safety at Starbucks is critically important. We want to protect and preserve the safety of every one of our people. In 1997, we had a tragedy in Georgetown where three Starbucks partners were murdered, and so as a result of that we have always taken safety very seriously, but after that, everything we do is about partner safety.

“Now in Memphis, a Starbucks person who agreed to join a union, after hours opened up that store for activities that were not consistent with safety and procedures at Starbucks. No one should open up a store that is closed. The manager took a disciplinary approach and terminated that person. That person was reinstated. That is the fact. Safety is key at Starbucks, but we can't be held accountable for things that we believe under the procedures of Starbucks that are based on safety for our people, that is a clear violation of our procedures.

MURPHY: “I'm trying to square your testimony in which you insist you rigorously follow the law with overwhelming evidence from the organizations that are charged with enforcing American labor law that that is not the case. It is akin to someone who has been ticketed for speeding 100 times saying I've never violated the law because every single time, every single time the cop got it wrong. That would not be a believable contention if someone was to make that before the Committee, and so I find it hard to believe your insistence that notwithstanding this extraordinary set of decisions reinstating workers, forcing stores to be reopened, that you are, in fact, consistently abiding by the law, as your testimony is before this Committee.”

SCHULTZ: “I don't believe Starbucks has broken the law".