Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
Starbucks and thousands of its baristas are locked in a labor standoff.
More than two years after negotiations began, the union representing workers at more than 550 stores has yet to reach a contract with Starbucks.
Starbucks Workers United announced last week that worker delegates had voted to reject the coffee chain’s latest proposal that guaranteed annual raises of at least 2%.
Out of some 490 baristas who voted on behalf of the company’s more than 550 unionized U.S. stores, 81% voted against the proposal, the union said.
The proposal did not offer immediate pay raises or increases to healthcare benefits, and did not establish a minimum number of scheduled work hours, according to the union.
“The reality is the company is just not offering anything that would really provide economic justice to its workers, that will keep up with the cost of living in Los Angeles,” said Cassie Pritchard, 35, a barista who represents workers at a Starbucks near Little Ethiopia in Los Angeles. She voted against the proposal.
“We are eager and willing to negotiate a proposal that actually meets the needs of baristas,” Pritchard said.
Starbucks contends that it already offers competitive pay and benefits, with the average hourly pay for its retail workers higher than $19.
In a statement posted to the Starbucks website, the company criticized the union for putting to a vote what it said was as an “incomplete framework” rather than a full proposal.
“The union’s actions, unfortunately, only cause further delay in reaching a mutual agreement on the path forward,” the company said. “Starbucks is the industry leader in terms of total pay and benefits which far exceed retail industry norms.”
Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since early last year, when Starbucks — which had previously been accused by federal regulators of unlawfully firing workers — pledged publicly to work with the union.
The parties made headway on noneconomic proposals, including attendance policies, dress code, “just cause” protections and health and safety measures, the union said.
But talks broke down in a dispute over wages. The union filed some 90 unfair labor practice complaints against Starbucks with the National Labor Relations Board and launched a five-day strike leading up to Christmas Day in major cities, including several stores in Los Angeles. Starbucks accused the union of prematurely ending bargaining and making unreasonable wage increase demands.
In February, federal mediators were brought in to resolve the dispute.
About a month later, one of two federal mediators assigned to the Starbucks talks was terminated by the Trump administration as part of sweeping cost-cutting actions that have raised concerns among unions and employers that rely on mediation to fend off strikes and settle labor disputes.
The Starbucks mediation sessions have continued with one mediator, the union said.
Brian Niccol, who was named Starbucks’ new chief executive last August, recommitted to working “constructively and in good faith” with the union.
But union members remain critical of how bargaining has been conducted under Niccol’s tenure and have questioned his $96-million compensation package.
