Mamdani joins over 2,000 baristas demanding fair contracts while Starbucks faces record labor law violations
Mayor-Elect Backs Workers in High-Stakes Labor Dispute
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani has thrown his political weight behind striking Starbucks workers, calling for a public boycott of the coffee giant as baristas wage what has become one of the largest labor actions in the company’s history. In a message posted to his 1.1 million followers on X (formerly Twitter) on November 13, 2025, Mamdani urged consumers to withhold their business from Starbucks until the company negotiates a fair contract with unionized workers.
“Starbucks workers across the country are on an Unfair Labor Practices strike, fighting for a fair contract,” Mamdani wrote. “While workers are on strike, I won’t be buying any Starbucks, and I’m asking you to join us. Together, we can send a powerful message: No contract, no coffee.”
The mayor-elect’s intervention marks an early signal of how he intends to use the platform of his office—loudly and publicly aligning with organized labor at a moment when worker activism is surging across the retail and service industries. His stance adds significant political pressure to a labor dispute that has already disrupted operations at dozens of Starbucks locations during the company’s busiest season.
The “Red Cup Rebellion” Strike Expands Across America
The labor action, dubbed the “Red Cup Rebellion” by union organizers, began on November 13, 2025—strategically timed to coincide with Starbucks’ annual Red Cup Day promotion. According to Starbucks Workers United, the union representing approximately 11,000 baristas across 550 stores, over 1,000 workers initially walked off the job at 65 stores in more than 40 cities.
By November 20, 2025, the strike had expanded to include 2,000 workers at 95 stores across 65 cities, with union leaders pledging to escalate further if Starbucks refuses to negotiate in good faith. The union has characterized this as an “open-ended” unfair labor practice strike with no predetermined end date.
Red Cup Day typically represents one of Starbucks’ highest-traffic promotional events of the year, making it a particularly impactful moment for labor disruption. Workers United spokesperson Michelle Eisen, a 15-year Starbucks veteran, stated during a press call that dozens of stores were forced to shut down entirely on the strike’s first day.
What Workers Are Demanding
The striking baristas are organizing around three core demands that have remained unresolved despite nine months of negotiations. First, workers are calling for increased staffing levels and more predictable scheduling. According to the union, chronic understaffing leads to longer customer wait times while many baristas struggle to receive enough hours to qualify for benefits or pay their bills.
Second, the union is demanding higher take-home pay. The union reports that starting wages for baristas in most states are $15.25 per hour, though Starbucks maintains it offers an average compensation package worth $30 per hour when benefits are included. Workers counter that many cannot access these benefits due to insufficient hours.
Third, and perhaps most contentiously, the union is demanding resolution of hundreds of unfair labor practice charges filed against Starbucks. Administrative Law Judges at the National Labor Relations Board have found that Starbucks committed more than 400 labor law violations, making it what the union calls “the biggest violator of labor law in modern history.”
The Breakdown in Negotiations
Contract negotiations between Starbucks and Workers United began in April 2024 after the two sides announced a “Path Forward” agreement that was initially hailed as a breakthrough. Over the subsequent nine months, the parties met for hundreds of hours and reached 33 tentative agreements, though the union maintains that the vast majority of these were non-economic proposals that did not address core worker concerns.
The talks broke down in December 2024 when Starbucks presented what union delegates called an “insufficient contract offer” that failed to improve wages or benefits in the first year and did not address chronic understaffing. Workers United President Lynne Fox accused Starbucks of backtracking on its previously agreed-upon path forward, prompting the union to file a national unfair labor practice charge alleging the company had failed to bargain in good faith.
In November 2024, with negotiations at an impasse, 92% of union members voted to authorize the strike. U.S. Senator Patty Murray of Washington sent a letter to Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol urging the company to return to the bargaining table, noting that more than 1,000 unfair labor practice charges had been filed during the organizing drive that began in 2021.
Starbucks’ Response and the Company’s Perspective
Starbucks has consistently maintained that the strike represents a minimal disruption to its operations. Company spokesperson Jaci Anderson stated that less than 1% of Starbucks’ more than 17,000 U.S. locations were affected by the initial walkout, and that the company exceeded sales expectations on Red Cup Day, calling it “the best Red Cup Day ever.”
The company disputes the union’s characterization of its bargaining posture. In an April 2025 statement, Starbucks argued that “despite nearly 200 hours of negotiations and more than 130 proposals exchanged, Workers United made the decision to present an incomplete framework for single-store contracts to their delegates to vote on, effectively undermining our collective progress.”
Starbucks CEO Brian Niccol told CBS News in October 2024 that the company offers “the best job in retail” with industry-leading benefits and wages, and characterized the union’s demands as “unreasonable.” The company points to employee turnover rates that are roughly half the industry average and claims to receive more than 1 million job applications annually as evidence that workers value employment at Starbucks.
The Legal Battle Over Labor Violations
The dispute over unfair labor practices represents a significant point of contention. In March 2023, NLRB Administrative Law Judge Michael A. Rosas issued a sweeping decision finding that Starbucks had violated the National Labor Relations Act “hundreds of times” through “egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights.”
The judge’s decision required Starbucks to reinstate unlawfully fired workers, reimburse workers for consequential harm, provide union access to stores, post notices explaining workers’ rights at all U.S. locations, and even mandated that company executives read notices to employees or be present during readings. The Economic Policy Institute reports that there are currently 741 open or settled unfair labor practice cases against Starbucks, and the company has been ordered to reinstate 59 baristas who were illegally fired for organizing activities.
Starbucks has contested many of these findings and has filed multiple appeals in federal court. According to Bloomberg Law, Starbucks and the NLRB have squared off in federal appeals courts at least eight times in the last two and a half years, with several additional cases pending. The company has challenged NLRB rulings on issues ranging from its dress code policies to remedies ordered by administrative law judges.
Broader Political Support for Striking Workers
Mamdani is not the only elected official to publicly back the striking baristas. Seattle Mayor-elect Katie Wilson—representing the city where Starbucks was founded—joined picket lines and urged local customers to boycott the company in solidarity with workers. U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren posted her support on X, writing: “While the Starbucks CEO rolls around in his millions, the workers who actually make your coffee are struggling to get by.”
Senator Bernie Sanders also weighed in, stating: “I stand in solidarity with the Starbucks workers on strike. When a corporation can pay $96 million to its CEO for just four months of work, it can afford to pay its workers a living wage and decent benefits.” Sanders’ reference points to CEO Brian Niccol’s compensation package, which the union has repeatedly highlighted as emblematic of the company’s priorities. According to Workers United, Niccol’s four-month compensation represents 6,666 times the average barista’s salary and exceeds the cost of finalizing a fair union contract.
New York City Comptroller Brad Lander also joined picket lines, as did Pittsburgh Mayor Ed Gainey, demonstrating that political support for the workers spans multiple cities and levels of government. In October 2024, more than 100 U.S. Senators and Representatives wrote to Niccol imploring him to address baristas’ demands and restart meaningful negotiations.
The Context: A Surge in Service Sector Organizing
The Starbucks strike represents part of a larger wave of worker organizing in the retail and service sectors. This marks the fourth strike organized by Starbucks Workers United since 2023, and the third since Niccol became CEO in September 2024. Previous strikes targeted issues including LGBTQ+ Pride decoration policies and changes to the company’s dress code.
The unionization effort at Starbucks began in 2021 when workers at a Buffalo, New York location successfully voted to form the first union at a company-owned Starbucks in the United States. Since then, workers at approximately 550 stores have voted to unionize, though this still represents only about 4% of the company’s U.S. workforce. Despite four years of organizing, no unionized Starbucks location has yet secured a first contract—a reality that has fueled worker frustration and prompted the current strike.
Sharon Block, a professor at Harvard Law School and former federal labor official, told CBS News that the protracted negotiations highlight fundamental weaknesses in federal labor law. “The law just seems to be incapable of ensuring a fair playing field for these workers who take big risks,” Block said, noting that current labor law provides insufficient mechanisms to compel employers to reach agreements with newly organized workers.
What Mamdani’s Stance Signals for His Incoming Administration
Mamdani’s decision to publicly support the Starbucks boycott offers an early indication of how he may govern as New York City’s mayor. The 34-year-old democratic socialist won a stunning upset victory in the June 2024 Democratic primary and went on to handily defeat former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the November general election. Throughout his campaign, Mamdani positioned himself as a champion of working-class New Yorkers and pledged to use the mayor’s office to advance progressive labor policies.
His intervention in the Starbucks dispute demonstrates a willingness to use what political scientists call the “bully pulpit”—the mayor’s platform and public visibility—to influence corporate behavior and shape public opinion on labor issues. As Business Insider noted, this represents an early indication of how Mamdani could deploy his office’s symbolic power even before taking the oath of office.
The move also carries political risks. While it energizes Mamdani’s progressive base and labor allies, it has drawn criticism from some observers who question whether a mayor-elect should be targeting specific companies or whether such interventions might discourage business investment in New York City. Social media responses to Mamdani’s post reflected this division, with some praising his solidarity with workers while others accused him of political grandstanding or noted that the strike affects only a small percentage of Starbucks locations.
The Economic Stakes and What Comes Next
The financial implications of the labor dispute extend beyond immediate operational disruptions. Institutional investors have expressed growing concern about Starbucks’ labor relations. New York City Comptroller Brad Lander, along with pension fund managers PIRC, SHARE, and Trillium Asset Management, sent a letter to Starbucks’ Board of Directors in October 2024 expressing concern over stalled negotiations and urging the company to reach a first contract.
The SOC Investment Group also wrote to the board warning about the company’s underperformance, while major European institutional investors have filed formal OECD complaints regarding Starbucks’ adherence to international standards on human rights and labor rights. A recent report from the Strategic Organizing Center, based on Nielsen surveys, found that Starbucks customers continue to experience long lines and wait times, suggesting the company has not meaningfully addressed service quality concerns that predate the labor dispute.
For the striking workers, the path forward remains uncertain. The union has indicated its willingness to escalate the strike indefinitely and has called on supporters to honor picket lines and avoid purchasing from Starbucks until a fair contract is reached. Union leaders have stated they are prepared to make this “the largest and longest strike in company history” if necessary.
Starbucks, meanwhile, has maintained that it remains ready to negotiate when the union returns to the bargaining table. The company argues that it has already made significant progress in negotiations and that the union’s economic demands—which Starbucks claims would increase minimum wages by 64% immediately and 77% over three years—are financially unsustainable.
Implications for Labor Movement and Public Policy
The Starbucks strike and Mamdani’s support for it arrive at a pivotal moment for American labor relations. Union membership has declined for decades, but recent years have seen renewed interest in organizing, particularly among younger workers in service sector jobs that were historically difficult to unionize. High-profile organizing campaigns at companies like Amazon, Trader Joe’s, and Starbucks have generated significant media attention and public debate about workers’ rights and corporate power.
The involvement of elected officials like Mamdani in supporting these campaigns represents a shift from previous decades when Democratic politicians often maintained greater distance from active labor disputes. The willingness of progressive politicians to directly call for consumer boycotts and publicly pressure corporations marks a more confrontational approach to labor issues.
For Starbucks, the ongoing labor conflict threatens to undermine the company’s carefully cultivated image as a socially responsible employer. The company has long marketed itself as offering superior benefits and workplace culture compared to competitors, positioning Starbucks jobs as desirable positions in the retail sector. The union’s campaign and the accumulation of unfair labor practice findings challenge this narrative and could affect both the company’s ability to recruit workers and its standing with socially conscious consumers.
As the strike continues into the holiday season—traditionally Starbucks’ busiest and most profitable period—the pressure on both sides to reach a resolution will intensify. Whether the company’s business operations are genuinely disrupted or whether the strike remains largely symbolic will likely determine how long the labor action can be sustained. What remains clear is that the dispute has evolved beyond a simple contract negotiation into a broader referendum on workers’ power, corporate accountability, and the role of government officials in shaping labor relations in America’s evolving economy.
For more information on labor rights and organizing, visit the National Labor Relations Board website. To learn about the ongoing strike, consult Starbucks Workers United’s official site.
