Latest news with #laborunions
CNN
6 days ago
- Business
- CNN
AFL-CIO Executive Paywatch: Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol made 6,666 more than its typical worker
Labor unions Taxes Pay & incomeFacebookTweetLink Follow Starbucks' coffee isn't the only thing at the company that's amped up. Its CEO, Brian Niccol, made a whopping 6,666 times more than the its typical employee last year, according to the AFL-CIO's annual Executive Paywatch report, released Wednesday. It was the widest pay gap by far between the top executive and median worker among the nation's 500 largest public companies listed in the report. Niccol, who took over the company's helm last September, received nearly $98 million in compensation, compared to the typical Starbucks worker's pay of less than $15,000, according to the report, which drew from corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Starbucks is but one example of the hefty pay gap between America's corporate leaders and their workers, which grew even larger in 2024. CEOs at the largest public companies took home $18.9 million last year, or 285 times as much as the typical US worker's paycheck of $49,500. That's up from a ratio of 268 to 1 a year earlier, according to the AFL-CIO, a powerful federation of labor unions representing 15 million workers. The typical employee would have had to start working in 1740 to earn what the average CEO received in 2024, the report noted. CEO pay at S&P 500 companies increased 7% in 2024 from the prior year. It topped the prior peak of $18.3 million in 2021, though the ratio was 324 to 1 that year. The typical private sector worker's raise last year was 3%, the AFL-CIO said, citing Bureau of Labor Statistics data. At Starbucks, the typical worker is a part-time barista in the US, the company said in its SEC filing. It noted that many of its employees work in part-time, flexible positions, which has the effect of lowering the compensation level of its median employee. Also, the calculation includes its global workforce of about 361,000 staffers, not just the roughly 210,000 US-based workers. Some staffers at the coffee retailer have formed a union, Starbucks Workers United, and have staged strikes at various locations in recent years. Among their demands is a wage increase. It's 'no wonder why the workers there at Starbucks are fighting to form a union with the Starbucks Workers Union to improve their pay and working conditions,' Fred Redmond, AFL-CIO's secretary-treasurer, told reporters. 'And these numbers only begin to scratch the surface of how runaway executive pay is fueling economic inequality.' Starbucks did not immediately return a request for comment. In its report this year, the AFL-CIO highlighted that the sweeping tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4 will provide CEOs with far bigger tax breaks than workers. The average CEO will receive a tax cut of nearly $490,000 from the permanent extension of the lower individual income tax rates, which were initially reduced in Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the report found. That compares to a $765 tax break for the typical US worker. Unlike workers, salaries are not the largest component of CEOs' compensation. Nearly half of the top executives' total pay was restricted stock awards, and another $4 million were bonuses. The highest-paid CEO of an S&P 500 company was Patrick Smith of Axon Enterprise, which manufactures Tasers and other weapons for law enforcement and the military. He received a package of nearly $165 million.
Yahoo
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Rally in Shenandoah supports labor and unions
Pointing to the Pennsylvania Anthracite Miners Memorial in Shenandoah, former U.S. Congressman Conor Lamb on Saturday spoke about those workers, many of whom were immigrants who came to America willing to take an important and difficult job. The miners portrayed in the monument and their families would relate to today's immigrants who also came here working to make better lives for themselves and their families, Lamb said. He also said the miners would also support today's labor unions, which they helped create. 'Whose side would they be on?,' Lamb asked. The Pittsburgh Democrat was speaking at the Schuylkill Rally to Support Worker's Rights, an event designed to advocate for livable wages, the right to organize, safety enforcement and other labor causes. Former Congressman Conor Lamb speaks during a labor rally at the Anthracite Miners Memorial in Girard Park in Shenandoah, Saturday, July 12, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR) Staged by the Schuylkill County Democratic Committee, the event drew about 60 people and featured Lamb and officials from about a half-dozen local unions. Lamb, a Marine and former assistant U.S. attorney, represented the 17th District in Congress but did not seek re-election to his House seat in 2022 in order to run for the Senate election in Pennsylvania. He finished second in the Democratic primary to eventual winner John Fetterman, and is now in private law practice. On Saturday Lamb asked how many blue-collar workers, whom President Donald Trump had promised during his campaign to focus on, have benefitted from Trump's last seven months in office. More likely, he said, they have suffered from Trump's actions such as removing people from their health insurance, pushing legislation that threatens the future of hospitals and nursing homes, and therefore jeopardizing the jobs of many union workers, Lamb said. Health care is an industry that employs many blue-collar voters, Lamb said. 'But he (Trump) is taking a sledgehammer to it,' he said. Trump has broken his vows to side with the working class and instead is working for the elites, Lamb said. 'He picked Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos and himself, not the people of Schuylkill County,' he said. Liz Bettinger with United Steelworkers speaks during a labor rally at the Anthracite Miners Memorial in Girard Park in Shenandoah, Saturday, July 12, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR) Among the union leaders who spoke was Liz Bettinger of the United Steelworkers, who said that by diminishing safety net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps, the Trump administration was weakening communities. Pennsylvania State Education Association representative Enzo Capozzelli said that Democrats have historically been the pro-union party and continue to be, something that union workers should consider when voting if they want to hold on to their collective bargaining rights, have job security, earn living wages, and a have a dignified retirement. Ron Stabinksy with the United Mine Workers speak sduring a labor rally at the Anthracite Miners Memorial in Girard Park in Shenandoah, Saturday, July 12, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR) United Mineworkers official Ron Stabinsky said by cutting federal job safety positions from offices such as the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Trump is putting American workers at risk, including coal miners. Schuylkill County Commissioner Gary Hess spoke about the importance of organized labor, not just for union members, but for American workers in general, and how it was important to vote for candidates that are pro-union. Among those attending the rally was Jenn Brothers, a former corrections officer from Susquehanna County, who as a Democrat is challenging Republican Dan Meuser for his 9th Congressional District seat. Jenn Brothers, a candidate for Congress, attends a labor rally at the Anthracite Miners Memorial in Girard Park in Shenandoah, Saturday, July 12, 2025. (MATTHEW PERSCHALL/MULTIMEDIA EDITOR) 'Labor unions built our country,' she said in support of the rally's message.
Malay Mail
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
US Supreme Court clears way for Trump to begin mass federal layoffs
WASHINGTON, July 9 — The US Supreme Court cleared the way yesterday for President Donald Trump to begin carrying out mass firings of federal workers. The court, in an unsigned order, lifted a block imposed by a lower court on Trump's plans to potentially lay off tens of thousands of government employees. US District Court Judge Susan Illston had paused the planned sweeping layoffs in May on the grounds that the moves required a green light from Congress. A coalition of labor unions, non-profit groups and others had sued the Trump administration arguing that it had exceeded its authority by ordering mass firings and agency reforms without congressional approval. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the then-Elon Musk-headed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to downsize the government. In a February 11 executive order, the Republican president called for a 'critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy' and directed agencies to cull workers not designated essential. The Supreme Court said 'the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful.' But the justices said they were not taking a position at this point on the legality of specific agency reorganization plans, which will continue to be the subject of legal battles. 'The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law,' said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three liberals on the top court. 'I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions,' Sotomayor said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former Democratic president Joe Biden, lodged the sole dissent among the nine justices on the court. 'For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation,' Jackson said. 'Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. 'Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. 'While Presidents possess some discretion to reduce federal employment, they may not fundamentally restructure the Federal Government all on their own.' Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programs—targeting diversity initiatives and eliminating the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and various other departments. — AFP
France 24
09-07-2025
- Business
- France 24
Supreme Court ruling opens door for Trump mass firings of government employees
The US Supreme Court cleared the way on Tuesday for President Donald Trump to begin carrying out mass firings of federal workers. The court, in an unsigned order, lifted a block imposed by a lower court on Trump's plans to potentially lay off tens of thousands of government employees. US District Court Judge Susan Illston had paused the planned sweeping layoffs in May on the grounds that the moves required a green light from Congress. A coalition of labor unions, non-profit groups and others had sued the Trump administration arguing that it had exceeded its authority by ordering mass firings and agency reforms without congressional approval. After returning to the White House in January, Trump directed federal agencies to prepare sweeping workforce reduction plans as part of wider efforts by the then- Elon Musk -headed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to downsize the government. In a February 11 executive order, the Republican president called for a "critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy" and directed agencies to cull workers not designated essential. The Supreme Court said "the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful." But the justices said they were not taking a position at this point on the legality of specific agency reorganization plans, which will continue to be the subject of legal battles. "The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of three liberals on the top court. "I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions," Sotomayor said. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, an appointee of former Democratic president Joe Biden, lodged the sole dissent among the nine justices on the court. "For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation," Jackson said. "Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to establish administrative agencies and detail their functions. "Thus, over the past century, Presidents who have attempted to reorganize the Federal Government have first obtained authorization from Congress to do so. "While Presidents possess some discretion to reduce federal employment, they may not fundamentally restructure the Federal Government all on their own." Trump has moved to fire tens of thousands of government employees and slash programs -- targeting diversity initiatives and eliminating the US humanitarian aid agency USAID and various other departments.
Fox News
08-07-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
Supreme Court lets Trump's ‘wrecking ball' federal job cuts proceed while legal fight continues
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to move forward, at least for now, with plans to implement large-scale cuts to the federal workforce, issuing a stay that lifts a lower court's injunction against the administration's executive order. In a 6–3 decision, the justices granted the emergency request filed by the White House last week, clearing the way for Executive Order No. 14210 to take effect while legal challenges play out in the Ninth Circuit and potentially the high court. The order directs federal agencies to carry out sweeping reductions in force (RIFs) and agency reorganizations. It has been described by administration officials as a lawful effort to "streamline government and eliminate waste." Critics, including labor unions, local governments and nonprofit organizations, argue the president is unlawfully bypassing Congress to dismantle major parts of the federal APPEALS COURT THROWS ROADBLOCK AT TRUMP'S EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA A majority on the Court stressed that it was not ruling on the legality of specific agency cuts, only the executive order itself."Because the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order and Memorandum are lawful—and because the other factors bearing on whether to grant a stay are satisfied—we grant the application," the Court wrote. "We express no view on the legality of any Agency RIF and Reorganization Plan produced or approved pursuant to the Executive Order and Memorandum. The District Court enjoined further implementation or approval of the plans based on its view about the illegality of the Executive Order and Memorandum, not on any assessment of the plans themselves. Those plans are not before this Court." The district court in California had blocked the order in May, calling it an overreach. But the Supreme Court's unsigned decision on Tuesday set aside that injunction, pending appeal. The majority said the government is "likely to succeed" in defending the legality of the order. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented forcefully, writing that "this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation." She warned that the executive action represents a "structural overhaul that usurps Congress's policymaking prerogatives" and accused the majority of acting prematurely in an emergency posture without fully understanding the facts. "This unilateral decision to 'transform' the Federal Government was quickly challenged in federal court," she wrote. "The District Judge thoroughly examined the evidence, considered applicable law, and made a reasoned determination that Executive Branch officials should be enjoined from implementing the mandated restructuring… But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture." The executive order, issued in February, instructed agencies to prepare immediate plans for reorganizations and workforce reductions, including eliminating roles deemed "non-critical" or "not statutorily mandated." The administration says it is a necessary response to bloated government and outdated structures, claiming the injunction was forcing agencies to retain "thousands of employees whose continuance in federal service... is not in the government and public interest." Labor unions and state officials opposing the plan say it goes beyond normal workforce management and could gut services across multiple agencies. They point to proposed cuts of over 50% at the Department of Energy, and nearly 90% at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The court's ruling is not a final judgment on the legality of the executive order. It only determines that implementation may proceed temporarily while appeals continue. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the injunction or the Supreme Court declines to take up the case later, the order could again be American Federal Government Employees Union had a forceful response: "Today's decision has dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy. This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution. While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy."CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP The case is Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees."Today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling is another definitive victory for the President and his administration," wrote White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields in an email to Fox News Digital. "It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President's constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government."
