Skip to main content

Featured

5 Things to Know Today: U.S. Alcohol Ban, GDP Day, 5.25% Yields (Sept 29)

  Tuesday September 29, 2026 A U.S. import ban on Canadian booze kicks in, Statistics Canada reports July GDP, and U.S. bond yields sit at levels not seen since 2007. Here are the five things that matter for your wallet today. 1 The U.S. ban on Canadian alcohol takes effect today As of 12:01 a.m. ET, the U.S. is refusing entry to many Canadian beer, wine, cider and spirits shipments, along with whey products, molasses and larger motorcycles. The measures were signed Sept. 8 and largely replace the 50% tariffs that applied to these goods. Bottles already in the U.S. can still be sold, and product shipped in bulk to be bottled south of the border appears to fall outside the ban. Canadian producers say pivoting to domestic sales won't be easy, because a patchwork of provincial rules complicates selling across borders. What it means for you: The ban hits exports, not what you pay at the store. The exposure is for people who work in or own shares of brewers, distillers and wineries, a...
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