Skip to main content

Featured

CUSMA Wasn’t Renewed: The 10-Year Clock Now Running on Your Job, Prices and Savings

  Canadian Money Brief | Feature CUSMA Wasn't Renewed: The 10-Year Clock Now Running on Your Job, Prices and Savings By MoneySavings.ca | Published November 2, 2026 Quick quiz: is Canada's free trade deal with the United States still in place? The honest answer is yes and no. The agreement known here as CUSMA is still in force, but since July 1 it has been on a different footing, and the way it plays out over the next decade matters to your paycheque, your grocery bill and your savings. Most of us missed the moment because nothing visibly changed that day. That is exactly why it deserves a closer look, especially with the federal budget arriving Thursday. The short version: CUSMA did not end. It moved from a long-term deal to a deal that gets reviewed every year until 2036. Roughly 90% of what Canada sells to the U.S. has been crossing the border tariff-free because of it, so each annual review is a chance for that protection to be tested. For households, this is a slow-burn r...
Post a Comment
Read more

article

Labels

Starbucks Challenges Labor Agency in Supreme Court Case


In a significant legal battle, Starbucks is facing off against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case centers around the company’s decision to fire seven workers who were actively involved in unionization efforts at a Tennessee store. Here are the key details:

  1. Background:

    • After Starbucks dismissed the seven workers for their unionization activities, the NLRB obtained a court order requiring the company to rehire them.
    • Now, Starbucks is seeking to limit the government’s power in such cases by challenging the NLRB’s actions.

  2. Supreme Court Hearing:

    • Justices are scheduled to hear Starbucks’ case against the NLRB.
    • If the court rules in favor of Starbucks, it could make it more difficult for the NLRB to intervene when it alleges corporate interference in unionization efforts.

  3. The Controversy:

    • Starbucks argues that the NLRB’s standards for requesting temporary injunctions against companies lack consistency across federal appeals courts.
    • Temporary injunctions can be burdensome for companies, as the NLRB’s administrative process can take years.

  4. Current Status:

    • Five of the seven workers involved in the case are still employed at the Memphis store, while the other two remain committed to the organizing effort.
    • The Memphis store voted to unionize in June 2022, but no labor agreement has been reached with Starbucks for any of the 420 company-owned U.S. stores that have voted to unionize since late 2021.

  5. Looking Ahead:

    • The hearing comes at a time when relations between Starbucks and Workers United (the union representing its workers) have improved. Both sides have resumed talks with the goal of reaching contract agreements this year.
    • The Supreme Court’s decision could have broader implications for labor rights and corporate accountability in unionization efforts.

In summary, Starbucks’ legal battle with the NLRB highlights the tension between corporate interests and workers’ rights. The outcome of this case could shape future labor disputes and the role of federal agencies in protecting employees’ right to organize.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment