Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert's face on a white background

Starbucks union lowers proposed wage floor to $17 in bid to restart contract talks

After more than a year at a standstill, Starbucks’ union contract talks are percolating once more.

Starbucks Workers United, the coffee giant’s union, has lowered its proposed starting wage to $17 an hour, down from the $20 minimum it previously demanded. The company has also proposed that in-person bargaining resume on March 30, in what would be the first contract negotiation session since talks stalled in December 2024.

The union’s revised economic proposal, which was provided to Starbucks management 30 days ago, was made public by the union after SBUW baristas on Friday joined a call with a group of shareholders advocating for workers’ rights, urging management to finalize a contract.

The move marks one of the clearest signs yet that the union is willing to shift its position to break the impasse. Starbucks management has declined to comment on its counter-proposals.

“Baristas recently met, deliberated, and found consensus around fair and reasonable measures to support baristas,” Jasmine Leli, a three-year Starbucks barista and bargaining delegate, said in a statement. She added that workers are “in conversation with the company about the road back to the bargaining table,” and that those discussions are ongoing.

Starbucks management has consistently pushed back on the union’s characterization of events, saying it respects workers’ right to organize and wants to reach a contract, and disputing allegations of widespread union busting.

“At Starbucks, we are committed to all our partners, and where they have chosen union representation, we have been engaging in good faith bargaining,” Jaci Anderson, a spokesperson for Starbucks, told Business Insider, adding that Starbucks was “disappointed” when SBUW “walked away from negotiations” in December 2024.

“Progress occurs in collective bargaining when both sides get into the same room,” Anderson said.

Starbucks management will remain available for “continued negotiations throughout April,” Anderson added.

As Business Insider previously reported, the company has said that it already offers industry-leading pay and benefits, and has said it’s prepared to move quickly toward a “reasonable” and “fair” agreement.

Negotiations have dragged on for months, with both sides accusing the other of failing to bargain in good faith. The stalemate has increasingly drawn scrutiny from politicians, including now-New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Sen. Bernie Sanders, as well as investors concerned about reputational and operational risks.

By trimming its wage-floor demand by nearly $3, the union is hoping to signal flexibility and put pressure on executives to match that move as scrutiny from shareholders intensifies.

Under the updated framework, unionized baristas would push for a $17 an hour starting wage, 4% annual raises — down from 5% — and a slate of workplace protections, including “just cause” standards for discipline, antidiscrimination language, enforceable health and safety measures, and guarantees of at least three workers on the floor at all times.

Starting pay in many states ranges from $15.25 to $16 an hour. The union says that raising the floor would lift wages for the lowest-paid workers without creating wage compression at organized stores.

SBWU, which first unionized in Buffalo in 2021, represents about 650 stores, or roughly 4% of Starbucks’ in-store staff in the US.

The union’s broader demands also include offering existing employees additional hours before hiring new staff, formal grievance procedures, protections during store closures, and resolution of outstanding unfair labor practice charges — including alleged backpay tied to firings and withheld raises.

The union’s demand lands at a delicate moment for Starbucks.

As Business Insider previously reported, an investor group has been preparing for a potential board fight, centered in part on the company’s labor relations, as the company continues to navigate its turnaround effort.

Anderson told Business Insider the Starbucks board “has the necessary skills and experience to effectively oversee our strategy, including human capital management, which is vital to our ability to drive growth and deliver for our customers.”

Tensions have also flared on the shop floor: union baristas in November launched their fourth strike since 2023 amid mounting frustration, drawing fresh investor attention to the protracted negotiations.

Most unionized baristas are now back to work, but “work stoppages continue at stores on a rotating basis,” a spokesperson for the union said.

Starbucks executives, including CEO Brian Niccol, have publicly said they want to reach a deal. Union leaders said the path forward is clear.

“It’s time to get a fair contract done so we can all move forward,” Leli said in the statement. “We believe that’s not only possible, but within reach as long as executives are committed to good-faith bargaining.”




Source link

Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert's face on a white background

OpenAI shares its contract language and ‘red lines’ in agreement with the Department of War

OpenAI says its agreement with the Department of War is “better” and has more safety guardrails than the one Anthropic was blacklisted for refusing to comply with.

In a blog post published Saturday, OpenAI shared some contract language from its agreement with the Department of War, including clauses that indicate its tech cannot be used for mass domestic surveillance or to power autonomous weapons or high-stakes decision systems like “social credit” scores.

“We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s,” OpenAI’s post read. “In our agreement, we protect our red lines through a more expansive, multi-layered approach. We retain full discretion over our safety stack, we deploy via cloud, cleared OpenAI personnel are in the loop, and we have strong contractual protections. This is all in addition to the strong existing protections in U.S. law.”

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman took to social media shortly after the company’s blog post was published, answering questions from users concerned about the nature of OpenAI’s agreement with the government.

In Ask-Me-Anything-style responses, he doubled down on OpenAI’s agreement being better than Anthropic’s, not just for the broader AI landscape but also for the American people.

“Anthropic seemed more focused on specific prohibitions in the contract, rather than citing applicable laws, which we felt comfortable with,” Altman wrote in response to a question about why OpenAI agreed to partner with the government when its rival would not. “I think Anthropic may have wanted more operational control than we did.”

OpenAI’s agreement with the federal government comes on the heels of Anthropic being blacklisted and declared a supply chain risk after refusing to comply with the military’s terms of use for the company’s frontier model, Claude.

Anthropic, in a Friday statement, said that “no amount of intimidation or punishment from the Department of War will change our position on mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous weapons” and vowed to “challenge any supply chain risk designation in court.”

OpenAI, in its Saturday post, argued that Anthropic should not be designated as a supply chain risk and said it had made its position “clear to the government.” Its agreement with the Department of War stemmed, in part, from a desire to “de-escalate things between DoW and the US AI labs.”

“A good future is going to require real and deep collaboration between the government and the AI labs,” OpenAI’s post reads. “As part of our deal here, we asked that the same terms be made available to all AI labs, and specifically that the government would try to resolve things with Anthropic; the current state is a very bad way to kick off this next phase of collaboration between the government and AI labs.”

Representatives for OpenAI and Anthropic did not immediately respond to requests for comment from Business Insider. It was not immediately clear whether Anthropic, or any other leading AI company, had been offered similar contractual terms to those that OpenAI said it had agreed to.

OpenAI said that, as part of its deal with the Department of War, it will maintain “full control” over the safety stack it deploys, and robust “safety guardrails” to prevent misuse. Should the government violate the terms of the agreement, OpenAI said it “could” terminate the contract.

“We don’t expect that to happen,” OpenAI said in its post.

Altman, in his Ask Me Anything posts, wrote that OpenAI would not agree to allow the government to use its technology for mass domestic surveillance “because it violates the constitution.”

He added that he is prepared for a potential dispute over the legality of specific governmental requests in the future, but added that if the Constitution were amended to make such surveillance legal, “Maybe I would quit my job.”

“I very deeply believe in the democratic process, and that our elected leaders have the power, and that we all have to uphold the constitution,” Altman wrote. “I am terrified of a world where AI companies act like they have more power than the government. I would also be terrified of a world where our government decided mass domestic surveillance was ok. I don’t know how I’d come to work every day if that were the state of the country/Constitution.”

The dispute between the government and the AI giants has sparked widespread criticism, with critics concerned about the ethical implications of the Department of War’s use of AI and OpenAI’s agreement to provide the government access to its technology.

OpenAI on Saturday said it believes AI will “introduce new risks in the world” and, by allowing the government use of its models, will give people defending national security “the best tools” to do so.

Business Insider previously reported that Anthropic’s model, Claude, shot to the top of the app store on Saturday, and many people on social media, including celebrities like Katy Perry, have publicly posted about canceling their ChatGPT subscriptions in the wake of OpenAI’s agreement with the government.




Source link

NBCUniversal-is-suing-Group-Black-alleging-breach-of-contract-and.jpeg

NBCUniversal is suing Group Black, alleging breach of contract and seeking nearly $36 million

Comcast’s NBCUniversal has sued Group Black, a firm created to direct ad dollars to Black-owned and Black-led media, alleging it owes the media giant $35.8 million in unpaid invoices and guaranteed payments.

The suit, filed February 11 in New York Supreme Court, stems from a partnership that gave Group Black exclusive rights to sell ads in Black-led shows on NBCU’s streamer, Peacock, with Group Black and NBCU sharing the revenue.

“We dispute the claims made by NBCUniversal and intend to respond through the appropriate legal process,” Group Black said in a statement. “Group Black remains focused on its mission and serving its partners.”

NBCU has said that more than 30 brands signed on to the partnership in its first year, which began in September 2023. Group Black had predicted that NBCU would be its largest source of revenue in 2024, according to a board document dated November of that year, which was submitted in a separate court case.

NBCU’s lawsuit alleged that Group Black failed to fulfill the terms of the contract in the months after it began in September 2023, despite selling more than $30 million worth of advertising.

The suit alleged that in 2024, Group Black agreed ​​to shift its revenue share to zero to pay down the shortfall. NBCU says in the lawsuit that it repeatedly demanded payment, and that Group Black cofounder Bonin Bough had acknowledged the company’s liability multiple times, emailing at one point that he took it “very seriously.”

The partnership ended in September 2025.

Group Black has faced internal and market challenges

Group Black was launched in 2021 after the George Floyd protests that led to a national reckoning and prompted big advertisers like Coca-Cola and Walmart to increase their spending on Black-owned media. In the years that followed, the company faced a mix of internal struggles, executive departures, and broader market challenges. It pivoted last summer to focus on a wider audience with the launch of a new venture, Portrait Media Group.

Group Black has faced other legal action alleging nonpayment. Two companies owned by Essence Ventures, part of a venture led by a second Group Black cofounder, Richelieu Dennis, sued Group Black in 2024, alleging it owed them about $20 million. Group Black said in a court filing that Essence loaned it money but otherwise denied the allegations in the suit. The suit is ongoing.

In another case, Audiomob, an ad agency that provided mobile app advertising inventory for Group Black to sell to its clients, demanded about $181,000 from Group Black for invoices it alleged the company had failed to pay. The suit was terminated in August after Audiomob sought dismissal, saying Group Black had made a “partial payment” of the money owed, per court filings.




Source link