The Levi's Files

Not as exciting as the Twitter files but alarming nonetheless

Levi’s official statement in regards to why I was pushed out of the company is something like: we supported her open schools advocacy but criticizing public health officials was a bridge too far! She put employee lives in danger!

Here’s the actual statement:

What Levi’s is saying is conflicting nonsense - challenging closed public schools WAS in fact, criticizing public health guidelines because those guidelines kept the schools closed. You can’t say you support one and not the other.

And now, because no one wants to admit they supported shuttered public schools for a year and a half or punished someone who pushed back on it (me), Levi’s puts forth this ridiculous illogical statement to try to absolve themselves.

Contradicting Levi’s nonsensical public statement, internal communications tell the real story. Below some evidence of what was actually going on.

I was the only senior executive with children in San Francisco public schools (SFUSD). And when I proposed in the Fall of 2020, that the company weigh in on the prolonged public school closures in the city, because shuttered schools were affecting employees and their children, I was told that we can’t. Why? Because, it was determined that the fact that our executives send their kids to open private schools (yes they were sending them in-person) will make these execs look bad. Bad, in this case, meant like “privileged elites.”

And when I was told by the head of Corporate Communications, Kelly McGinnis, that I really should refrain from expressing any opinions on the recall election of Governor Gavin Newsom in the Fall of 2021, it wasn’t because it would put employees’ health and safety in danger.

McGinnis said it nicely, as something I might consider. But I’m familiar with the ways of California passive aggressive corporate speak. This gently worded suggestion actually meant: stop it or else.

The Haas family (heirs of Levi Strauss himself and current majority shareholders of the company) is close to the Governor. Becca Prowda is the daughter-in-law of the largest single shareholder, Mimi Haas.

Mimi is worth more than $1 billion and owns 16% of the company. Prowda now works for Newsom as his Director of Protocol. (I have no idea what that is either.)

Governor Gavin Newsom, Becca Prowda and Daniel Lurie (Mimi Haas’ son)

But before heading to Sacramento to work for Newsom, Prowda spent over 13 years at Levi’s.

Might there be an open line of communication between the Governor’s office and the company and back again? Seems more than possible.

As proof of further entanglement between Levi Strauss and Company and the Democratic Party, Dan Goldman, another Levi Strauss heir, just won the congressional seat for the 10th District in New York. His campaign was funded by his personal wealth of over $250 million, generated by the Levi’s 2019 initial public offering (IPO). The ties between the Democratic Party and Levi’s run deep.

And when the head of Human Resources, Tracy Layney, kindly suggested in conversation and then in email, that I should delete any social media posts that referenced — medical professionals refusing treatment to unvaccinated people (I stand by that being wrong); obesity being a risk for poor health outcomes from covid (it is); big Pharma being motivated by profit (duh, they are) — that also was not about me putting employees at risk in my challenging of public health dictates.

It was censorship to ensure adherence to the manufactured Democratic Party consensus.

Lastly, when I was asked to delete these posts cited above, I complied. Here’s one of the tweets that I deleted, retrieved from the Wayback Machine. Clearly this statement is not a risk to employees’ health. Arguably it’s a risk not to exercise and eat right, right? How is this fat-phobic, ableist (I was accused of both by employees) misinformation? Honestly, who would find this offensive? Levi’s employees and their head of Human Resources, apparently.

Ultimately, I was ousted for wrongthink, or thought crimes, not for being a health and safety risk to employees.

Levi’s was simply carrying water for the Democratic Party. The fact that these emergency-order implemented dictates were harmful, ineffective and disconnected from facts, didn’t matter.

The fact that government leaders didn’t even have to ask Levi’s to enforce this censoring (as far as I know) is evidence of the unholy alliance between government and corporations.

The fact is: Democratic government leaders protect their allies and go after opponents. Cory Booker advocates for lenient sentencing for Elizabeth Holmes. The Democratic establishment are tripping over themselves to protect Sam Bankman-Fried and they certainly aren’t giving any of that money back that he gave to them.

What’s it called again when government and corporations work in tandem? It’s on the tip of my tongue . . .