The union that represents more than 11,000 Starbucks workers said it plans on launching a five-day strike beginning Friday morning.

Why it matters: The holiday season is one of the company's busiest times of year, and the stoppages will hit three big markets — Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle.

• Their planned strike follows a work stoppage launched by Amazon warehouse workers Thursday morning.

State of play: The union said Thursday night the walkouts will continue across the country, ultimately reaching "hundreds of stores from coast to coast by Christmas Eve."

• More than 500 Starbucks stores are now unionized — a relatively small fraction of the company's approximately 10,000 U.S. stores.

The big picture: Neither the Starbucks nor Amazon unions have reached a first contract, years after unionizing.

• But contracts are why unions organize. It's where employers and workers hammer out deals on pay and benefits.
• Unlike in Amazon's case where the company hasn't yet come to the negotiating table, Starbucks union members have been bargaining with the coffee giant all year.

The union may feel some urgency to make progress before President-elect Trump takes office next year and appoints a Republican majority to the National Labor Relations Board, which is expected to be less friendly to workers, says John Logan, a labor historian at San Francisco State University.

• "This might be their last best chance."

Where it stands: The union says the company hasn't offered up a workable proposal. In a release, they say the company hasn't offered any wage increases and "a guarantee of only 1.5% in future years."

• "We were ready to bring the foundational framework home this year, but Starbucks wasn't," says Lynne Fox, President of Workers United.

For the record: In a statement, Starbucks said the union "prematurely ended bargaining this week," adding that they've already reached meaningful agreements on hundreds of topics.

• "We are ready to continue negotiations to reach agreements. We need the union to return to the table."

Editor's Note: This story has been updated to comments from a labor expert.

One reason CEOs are so keen on becoming Donald Trump's new besties: The incoming president could make their profits go poof.

Why it matters: The president-elect's proposed tariffs are so high they could entirely wipe out the annual profits of some large companies, per an analysis from consulting firm PWC.

• Of course, companies won't sit idly by and let that happen — those costs will likely be passed along to American consumers.

Catch up fast: Trump said last month on Truth Social he'd put 25% tariffs on all goods coming from Canada and Mexico — the two largest U.S. trading partners — as soon as he takes office.

• That's on top of tariffs of 60% or more on goods from China, and 10-20% tariffs on imports from the rest of the world.

Zoom out: These measures could increase the amount of money businesses pay in tariffs by more than 400%, per a data analysis that PWC conducts for clients using company-specific data from U.S. Customs.

Zoom in: The modeling looks at worst-case scenarios. When Trump says all goods will be tariffed, companies take that seriously, says Chris Desmond, a PWC principal for customs and international trade.

• But some issues could be hammered out before tariffs take effect, like whether they apply to the country of origin or not. (For example: If you import avocados from Mexico that were grown in South America, would the importer have to pay higher Mexico tariff?)
• "That's messy," Desmond says. "There's a need for guidance."

Behind the scenes, the Trump team is telling corporate consultants that there's no budging the president-elect on his tariff stance, the Wall Street Journal reported.

• Still, many executives are huffing "hope-ium," believing Trump wouldn't want to hurt U.S. businesses, as the New York Times reported.

PWC's model finds tariff increases are often larger than an importer's annual profits across a range of industries including autos, retailers, communications equipment-makers, and companies that import fruits and vegetables.

• That's leading companies to question if they can change their supply chain strategies to adjust or pass costs to consumers, Desmond says.

What they're saying: "This is one of the biggest events in my career to impact so many U.S. multinational companies that deal with property imports," he says.

Reality check: It's certainly possible some firms that import goods may absorb these costs and accept lower profit margins, but many have already said they will pass the increased costs through.

Flashback: Not only do companies pass through tariff costs to consumers, sometimes they take the opportunity to raise prices on other goods, too.

• After the 2018 tariffs on washing machines hit, the price of dryers — which weren't tariffed — went up too, per research published in the American Economic Review in 2020.

Even if companies can preserve their margins by raising prices, there are other issues weighing on executives.

• Firms with China exposure saw their stock market valuation cut by $1.7 trillion when Trump announced new Chinese tariffs in 2018, per a study from the New York Fed.

The bottom line: There's a lot of uncertainty out there, but it's a safe bet that companies won't just sit by and let their profits disappear.

Renters in the U.S. spent an extra $3.8 billion last year because of pricing algorithms used by landlords, according to an analysis from the White House Council of Economic Advisers first shared with Axios.

Why it matters: The report puts some hard numbers to accusations that have piled up against RealPage, a company that makes software that helps big landlords and property managers set prices.

• In August, the Department of Justice filed an antitrust suit against the company, alleging its pricing algorithm allows landlords to collectively push rents higher.

What they're saying: "We are disappointed The White House CEA never contacted RealPage about their report, which is riddled with flawed assumptions," company spokeswoman Jennifer Bowcock said in a detailed statement Wednesday.

• "Their conclusions are based on the erroneous assumption that all property managers are setting coordinated rents, but that is not how RealPage's revenue management software (RMS) works."
• Earlier this month, the company filed a motion seeking to dismiss the DOJs claims in the antitrust suit, arguing that the agency hasn't shown any real anticompetitive effects of its product.

The big picture: The U.S. is in the grips of a housing affordability crisis — creating huge financial headaches for many Americans.

Reality check: Even if these algorithms were pushing up rents, as the CEA suggests, they wouldn't be the driving force behind rising housing prices.

• Instead a long-term shortage of affordable housing is the main culprit, as the CEA itself notes.

Between the lines: It's unclear whether the incoming Trump administration will want to pursue the suit against RealPage. The analysis looks like the White House's last push to draw attention to the issue.

Zoom in: For their analysis, the researchers modeled the price difference between two scenarios using a range of publicly available data.

• In one scenario landlords used RealPage software to set prices. In another they set prices individually.
• They found that those living in algorithm-utilizing buildings spent an average of $70 more per month. That number goes up in metro areas where RealPage use is more common.
• For example, in Atlanta, 68% of landlords of multifamily buildings use this software — and renters in those buildings paid an additional $181, on average, per month, per the CEA's analysis.

Editor's Note: This story has been updated with a detailed response from RealPage.

Your company's holiday party is probably pretty chill this year — maybe it's at a dive bar or a restaurant or even virtual —  if you're having one at all.

Why it matters: The traditional corporate holiday bash is falling out of fashion as younger workers opt for more meaningful and activity-filled, less alcohol-saturated festivities.

By the numbers: The share of companies hosting any kind of holiday party has been declining for ages. In 2007, 90% of firms said they were hosting one, according to data from Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

• This year 64% of 173 companies surveyed told Challenger they're having one, a share that's flat from 2023.
• Ask the workers directly and the number looks even lower. A new Harris Poll of 1,238 employed adults, out Saturday, finds only 48% of workplaces now hold regular, annual, in-person holiday parties.

Zoom in: Virtual parties, unheard-of before COVID, are a growing fixture of work life.

• The share of companies hosting one rose slightly to 4.5% this year, up from 3.9% in 2023, per Challenger.
• In the Harris poll, 9% of respondents said they have an annual virtual party.

The big picture: Work culture has evolved considerably over the past decade.

• The impact of the MeToo movement put behavior at alcohol-soaked bashes under a microscope. (Employers generally want to avoid providing the ingredients for a sexual harassment lawsuit.)
• Meanwhile, COVID and the rise of remote work shook up workplace norms.
• Companies that have gone remote since 2020 have had to rethink their approach — from one big event, to smaller local gatherings or virtual meet-ups.

Where it stands: Generationally, tastes have changed. 42% of Gen Z workers surveyed by Harris would prefer no alcohol or a moderate amount at the party — compared to 37% of all workers.

• More than half of Gen Z and Millennial workers say they'd prefer a themed party with interactive elements (escape rooms, games, etc.) — compared to 44% for Gen X and 25% of Boomers.
• Cash is king though: 79% of workers surveyed said they'd prefer a bonus over a party.

What they're saying: "What is the goal of the holiday party? Is it to let off steam and have too much to drink? Or is it to really get to know each other better and bond and have these more meaningful interactions with colleagues — that's more what you see with Gen Z," says Libby Rodney, chief strategy officer at The Harris Poll.

The bottom line: Once upon a time, a the notion of a raucous office holiday party evoked jokes about drunkenly photocopying someone's butt on the Xerox machine — today your butt is more likely to be in an office chair as you Zoom with colleagues.

Editor's note: This story has been corrected to show that 37% (not 35%) of all workers said they'd prefer little to no alcohol at a holiday party, per the Harris survey.

The boardrooms of most major companies are no longer completely male-dominated — globally nearly all large public firms now have at least one woman director.

Why it matters: It's a reflection of a big push for diversity in the boardroom that's now stalled out.

• Amid the DEI backlash, and on the cusp of an administration openly hostile to diversity efforts, progress could even move backwards.

Driving the news: This week a federal court struck down a rule that required firms listed on the Nasdaq to include at least one woman, person of color or LGBTQ director on their boards — or explain why they don't.

• The rule, approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission, was established in 2020 — and companies had just started sending Nasdaq information last year.
• Even though it wasn't in effect very long, the provision, along with another diversity law passed in California but later overturned in court, seems to have driven some progress.
• Boards are more diverse now than in 2020 in terms of gender and race.

The big picture: For years, advocates argued that a variety of perspectives is good for business — not just in terms of demographics but also expertise and experience.

• Now opponents are aggressively pushing back on that argument in court, with more anti-diversity efforts expected after President-elect Trump takes office.
• After a surge in 2020 and 2021, companies are actually now appointing fewer women and people of color to their boards.

By the numbers: Data on the board composition of the more than 3,000 Nasdaq firms is hard to come by. But we can clearly see the trends from other reports on public companies.

• In 2024, women made up 34% of directors on the S&P 500, up from 27% in 2020, according to an analysis from the Conference Board.
• Gender diversity also jumped on the broader Russell 3000 to 29% from 21% over that time period.
• Racial diversity increased too. In 2024, 26% of S&P 500 directors were people of color, up from 20% in 2020.
• Globally, the boards of most large firms now have at least one female director, per a 2024 analysis of 1,792 major companies across 44 countries conducted by Egon Zehnder.

Yes, but: After a surge in 2020 and 2021, companies are actually now appointing fewer women and people of color to their boards.

• The share of new directors who were women, appointed globally in 2024, fell to 14% from 16% in 2022 and 17% in 2020, per Egon Zehnder.
• The proportion of new directors who were Black at S&P 500 companies fell to 10% in 2024 from 26% in 2022, per the Conference Board.
• "There are some indications that the shift to defending DEI rather than promoting it has created a chilling effect," write the authors from Egon Zehnder.

Between the lines: For a long time, shame was a powerful motivator for bigger companies when it came to board diversity.

• In October 2013, critics called out Twitter for having an all-male board. There were three directors named Peter, but no women — a data point that caught people's attention.
• By December of that year, the social media company appointed its first female board member, Marjorie Scardino.
• Now, with Elon Musk at the helm, the renamed X has no directors at all. And Musk is hardly one to be shamed into action on this front.

The bottom line: These days companies announcing that they want more women or people of color in leadership positions are actively being criticized, and sometimes sued for these efforts.

• The forces of shame might be working in the opposite direction.

President-elect Trump appeared to indicate his support for the dockworkers union in its contract dispute with the United States Maritime Alliance (USMX) that led to a major strike at East Coast and Gulf ports earlier this year.

Why it matters: Though port workers are back on the docks after a three-day work stoppage in October, they haven't yet finalized a new contract with the shipping companies — the prospect of an economy-crushing strike still looms. The deadline is just five days before Trump's inauguration.

Driving the news: "I've studied automation, and know just about everything there is to know about it," Trump said on Truth Social after meeting with International Longshoremen's Association president Harold Daggett and executive vice president Dennis Daggett.

• "The amount of money saved is nowhere near the distress, hurt, and harm it causes for American Workers, in this case, our Longshoremen."
• Trump said foreign companies had "made a fortune in the U.S." and he'd rather they spend it on dock workers than expensive machinery that will constantly have to be replaced.
• "For the great privilege of accessing our markets, these foreign companies should hire our incredible American Workers, instead of laying them off, and sending those profits back to foreign countries," Trump added.

Context: The United States Maritime Alliance and International Longshoremen's Association agreed to a 62% pay rise over six years to end the strike, but negotiations have reached an impasse over semi-automated cranes.

What they're saying: "It's clear President-elect Trump, USMX, and the ILA all share the goal of protecting and adding good-paying American jobs at our ports," USMX said in a statement.

• "We need modern technology that is proven to improve worker safety, boost port efficiency, increase port capacity, and strengthen our supply chains."

Between the lines: The president-elect's post is a sign that Trump 2.0 might be more labor friendly than Trump 1.0.

• Trump's pick for Labor Secretary, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), also has appeared to signal a more pro-union approach.

Go deeper: Striking port workers are trying to fend off the inevitable

Editor's note: This article has been updated with more details from the negotiations.

Melinda French Gates is donating $150 million to a battery of nonprofits to help remove barriers for women in the workplace.

• Nearly a third of the cash is going toward advancing women in AI and the tech industry.

Why it matters: The announcement from Gates' nonprofit advocacy group Pivotal comes at a time when companies are pulling back on diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that typically include gender.

• The incoming Trump administration is expected to accelerate that retreat.
• "Regardless of political party, we remain committed to our issues," Pivotal's vice president of program strategy Renee Wittemyer tells Axios.
• "As it stands, the modern workplace simply wasn't built with women in mind, and it's time for that to change," French Gates says in a video released Wednesday morning.

Zoom in: $45 million will be put toward increasing women's representation in AI and tech, including the Center for Inclusive Computing and Rewriting the Code.

• Some of those funds will go to Break Through Tech AI, which helps women outside of top schools get the training and support they need to land work in the industry.
• Women make up just 22% of AI workers globally, per data from Interface, a European think tank. That's especially worrying, given how fast-growing the sector is. Overall, the industry is closer to 30% women.
• A list of "who's who" in AI published in the New York Times late last year featured no women and got a good amount of blowback from women in the industry. Meanwhile, arguably the most important company of the moment — OpenAI — is losing its female execs.

The rest of the Pivotal money will go toward a variety of nonprofits and advocacy groups, including $75 million — half of the announced funds — to the Aspen Institute to establish a workplace innovation council next year.

• $30 million is going to groups like the National Partnership for Women & Families, Gretchen Carlson's Lift Our Voices, and Harvard Kennedy School's women and public policy program.

The big picture: The money is part of the $1 billion commitment that French Gates made earlier this year to provide funding through 2026 to groups working on women and family issues in the U.S. and globally.

• That was on top of $1 billion over 10 years she committed in 2019.

Flashback: In June, French Gates walked away the foundation she started with her ex-husband, Microsoft founder Bill Gates. They divorced in 2021.

Gas prices haven't been this low since spring 2021.

Why it matters: Displayed prominently on big signs everywhere you drive, prices at the pump are a key economic indicator for the general public.

• The recent lows are a big sign that inflation is increasingly in our rear-view mirror.
• And, of course, the lower prices are happy news for drivers — especially ahead of the holiday driving season.

By the numbers: The average gallon of gas cost $2.98 on Monday, and has been under $3 since Saturday, according to GasBuddy data.

Between the lines: The good news comes too late for the Biden administration, which suffered politically when inflation and the war in Ukraine drove prices above $5 a gallon in 2022.

• Instead, low gas prices are more likely to benefit President-elect Donald Trump, who campaigned on bringing them down.

Stunning stat: The average American worker now needs to put in just 5.44 minutes of work to buy an average gallon of gas, GasBuddy analyst Patrick De Haan writes.

• Outside of the COVID-19 pandemic (when fewer people were driving and prices plummeted), that's the fewest since 2015.

What's next: Gas prices typically drop in autumn and winter, as Americans drive less in cooler weather, reducing demand.

• "We'll likely continue to see additional downward pressure on gas prices, with the national average potentially falling another 10 to 15 cents by Christmas," De Haan writes.

After four years of a pro-labor White House, the pendulum appears to be swinging back in favor of business — by at least one measure, anyway: The extraordinary wealth of the incoming Trump team.

Why it matters: The economic background of political leaders influences how they govern — richer lawmakers generally push for policies that favor business interests and those of the wealthy.

Catch up quick: Politicians in the U.S., and around the world, have always been wealthier than most Americans — yet even so, the wealth of the incoming Trump team is extraordinary.

• It's not hyperbole to call the incoming Trump team a government of billionaires, as Axios' Zachary Basu recently wrote.
• Besides Trump, at least 11 billionaires will be serving in key roles in the administration. (The total net worth of President Biden's Cabinet was an estimated $118 million when he took office, per Forbes.)

Zoom in: Trump's Cabinet — plus the influence on the president-elect wielded by the world's richest man — is an escalation of what's been a consistent feature in American politics.

• Those serving in positions of power are "vastly better off than citizens on every economic measure," per a recent review of research on the topic co-authored by Nicholas Carnes, a political science professor at Duke.

The big picture: Wealthier lawmakers, or those who've held high-paying private sector jobs, tend to favor more pro-business policies, according to Carnes' own research.

• Politicians see the world differently depending on their economic background — just like everyone else, he tells Axios.
• "But on average, the wealthier somebody is, the harder it is for them to understand the concerns of people who are working," Carnes says.

What they're saying: When business elites have disproportionate influence on policymaking, it can result "in policies such as tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of industries, and reduced funding for social welfare programs — potentially exacerbating inequality," Darrian Stacy, a political science professor at the U.S. Naval Academy who also studies the topic, tells Axios by email, adding that his views don't reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. government, Defense Department or U.S. Naval Academy.

• He points to the tax cuts in the 2017 tax bill, which brought big benefits to corporations and high-income earners. Extending those cuts is a major Trump 2.0 priority, as is deregulation.

Reality check: The president-elect has signaled support for some working class policies — like eliminating taxes on tips and overtime.

• His pick for Labor secretary, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.) is also widely viewed as pro-labor.

Plus: Just being super rich isn't determinative. It doesn't mean you'll favor the elite in governing. We can all point to President Franklin Roosevelt as the most obvious counterpoint — though it's a decades-old example.

• "If anything I view the large net worth of many of President Trump's appointees as a positive indication of their capabilities," Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, tells Axios in an email.
• "But of course we should form views about their likely effectiveness based on a broader set of factors than their net worth."

Firms that provide security to executives are bracing for an influx of calls after the head of UnitedHealthcare, Brian Thompson, was shot and killed yesterday in what appeared to be a targeted attack in midtown Manhattan.

Why it matters: It's not uncommon for high-profile executives to hire security guards. Thompson, however, was a relative unknown and had no protection.

• "I'm just shocked the guy didn't have a protective detail," says Michael Julian, CEO of MPS Security & Protection.
• Thompson's wife told NBC News that he had received threats, but it was unclear if they were related to the incident.
• No executives at UnitedHealth received any personal security or protection benefits, per Bloomberg.

By the numbers: Nearly 28% of S&P 500 firms disclosed spending on security for at least one top executive from 2021 to 2023, per Equilar data cited by Bloomberg.

Zoom in: Other experts said it wasn't that surprising Thompson was unguarded. Not all companies want to pay for protection, particularly if the executive isn't a widely recognized person.

• Famous billionaire CEO types, like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk, pay millions for security coverage — or, rather, their companies do.
• Top execs are walking around Manhattan all day long unprotected, Glen Kucera, president of Enhanced Protection Services at Allied Universal, tells Axios.
• After an incident like this, he typically gets flooded with requests (and said the calls had already started coming in).
• If a year goes by without incident, companies will typically call off the guards.

How it works: Security can mean 24/7 protection from an armed detail that extends to family members, or a more targeted approach where an executive is accompanied on travel to more dangerous locations or high-profile events.

• About 95% of what these firms do is provide "visual deterrence," says Kucera. Just the sight of armed bodyguards near an executive is enough to scare away potential attackers.
• Although sometimes it doesn't work. When Bill Gates was hit in the face with a pie back in 1998, he was accompanied by security guards.

Threat level: Threats against corporate executives are especially common with consumer-facing companies in areas like travel, transportation and retail, Chris Pierson, CEO of security firm BlackCloak, tells Axios.

• These are areas where people have deep personal connections and grievances. Certainly, health care is in that club. The sector has grown increasingly troubled by violent incidents in recent years — though these episodes typically occur at hospitals or other medical settings.
• Threats are also common in controversial sectors. For example, the CEO of a weapons manufacturer hired Julian's firm during the height of the Afghanistan war.
• "The CEO, who gets the coffee every morning at Starbucks at the exact same time, started seeing the same exact vehicle at the same time, and then he followed her, and she freaked," he says. They covered her 24/7 after that, driving the CEO everywhere she went.

Adding to the challenge of protecting corporate executives is that publicly traded companies are required to disclose certain details about their public events, including investor conferences where leaders will make appearances, Pierson says.

The bottom line: Even the best security isn't foolproof. If someone is intent on causing harm, it's not always possible to stop them.

Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson's advocacy group is launching a new corporate scorecard to shine a light on the secretive practices companies use to silence workers about sexual harassment and discrimination.

Why it matters: The idea behind the Lift Our Voices scoring system is to track employers' use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) and forced arbitration (secret courts outside the public system) — similar to how other surveys examine benefits like health insurance or paid leave.

Catch up quick: Carlson, a former Fox News host, cofounded the nonprofit with Julie Roginsky, also formerly with the network. Neither can talk about their experiences at Fox because of NDAs.

• "I may never own my own truth. And you know, it's crazy, because people think I do. They'll say to me, 'Hey, I loved your movie,' 'I loved your mini series,' and I'm like, they were not mine," Carlson tells Axios.

Carlson pushed to get two federal laws passed on these issues:

1. The Ending Forced Arbitration Act, which she started working on in 2017 at the height of the MeToo movement, bans the use of forced arbitration in sexual harassment or assault cases and was passed in early 2022.
2. Later that year, she started pushing for the Speak Out Act, which prohibits the use of NDAs to silence workers about sexual harassment and assault claims before any dispute has actually happened. It was signed that December.

Between the lines: Awareness of these laws is key to their actual usefulness. If you don't know it's illegal to be forced into arbitration, you can simply wind up there.

• A majority of respondents to a separate Lift Our Voices survey were unaware of either law.

How it works: Starting in January, the group will send out surveys to Russell 3000 firms.

• Among the questions for human resource officers: Do they use forced arbitration to resolve employee disputes? Are NDAs used in employment contracts outside of protecting IP? Are the firms even aware of the two laws?

Companies already taking steps on these issues will want to publicize their efforts, Carlson says.

• "Why wouldn't they want to tell people that they don't silence their workers?" she says.
• For everyone else, a.k.a. the majority of employers: "We want to help carry them along to get to the right place. So we're not going to vilify them. We are simply giving them a soft nudge to get on the right side of history."

Reality check: The survey and ranking system come at a time when businesses have been going silent on social justice issues of all kinds — against a fierce backlash.

• Companies are walking away from the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index, which ranks businesses on their commitment to LGBTQ+ rights.
• The tailwind of #MeToo — Carlson's lawsuit against Fox's Roger Ailes helped launch that movement — seems less fierce at the moment, as well.
• None of the survey recipients are under any obligation to answer, and given the thorny legal issues, it's hard to imagine many will.

Zoom out: Carlson and Roginsky say their index is different — it's about all workers, not any specific demographic group.

• Still, getting employers to go public about systems they use to keep matters private is a big ask.
• Says Carlson: "We're really excited about being able to start this process, and we're not naive enough to think that it's not going to take years for it to catch on."

Companies in the U.S. were already backing off on DEI, then Walmart entered the chat: This week the retail giant said it would cut back its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Why it matters: Walmart is the largest private employer in the country, and where it goes others are likely to follow.

Between the lines: This is a win for Robby Starbuck, a 35-year-old "anti-woke" music producer-turned-activist who's pushed around a dozen companies to retreat on DEI this year. He first announced Walmart's move — and took credit for it — in a post on X Monday.

• "I've been talking to companies who will be following in their footsteps," Starbuck tells Axios over email. "I do have a list of targets," he adds, saying he keeps those names private.
• "Companies have tried every different tactic to deal with us and they all failed," he says. "Walmart smartly decided to just fix this together. I encourage other companies to work with us to do the same."

State of play: Walmart will phase out the term "diversity, equity and inclusion." It is also:

• Reviewing supplier diversity programs to ensure that they don't provide preferential treatment.
• Discontinuing the use of the controversial term Latinx.
• Pulling out of the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index — a scorecard for a business's commitment to LGBTQ+ equality and causes.
• Wrapping up a five-year commitment to the Center for Racial Equity, which began in 2020.

Some of these changes, like the supplier diversity update, were already underway before this week, according to a source close to the situation.

Reality check: A lot of this is symbolic. It appears that Walmart will continue an internal upskilling program that's been successful in promoting Black and Hispanic employees.

Zoom out: Symbolism still matters — quite a lot, says Frank Dobbin, a Harvard professor who's studied corporate diversity initiatives for the past decade.

• "In a company that's had a history of mostly being led by white people, certainly at the top, that's not sending a message that we want you to succeed whatever your race or gender."
• Prospective workers of color and current workers of color could feel the chill — and Dobbin says that could hurt recruiting for the firm.

Yes, but: "I'd say that assertion is hilarious because I'm a Latino man with a mixed ethnic background and I was a big motivation for them dropping these woke policies," Starbuck tells Axios.

• "People of all racial backgrounds are sick of woke policies and leftism being shoved down our throats."

Flashback: Walmart CEO Doug McMillon was among most vocal and prominent among Fortune 100 chief executives to speak out publicly about the company's commitment to racial justice back in 2020.

• "Inside the company, our work to recruit, develop and support African Americans and other people of color will be even more of a priority," he said in a statement in June 2020, announcing a $100 million commitment to a new center on racial equity.

Walmart's statement now: "We've been on a journey and know we aren't perfect, but every decision comes from a place of wanting to foster a sense of belonging, to open doors to opportunities for all our associates, customers and suppliers and to be a Walmart for everyone."

Editor's note: This story has been updated with corrected information from Walmart to say it's not ending supplier diversity programs (but reviewing them to ensure they don't provide preferential treatment) and that it's wrapping up a five-year commitment to the Center for Racial Equity (not ending training through it).

President-elect Trump's pick for Labor secretary, Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-Ore.), appears to be a genuine union supporter and that's freaking out some business groups and conservative advocates.

Why it matters: Trump campaigned as a pro-worker and somewhat pro-labor candidate — though he was a decidedly anti-union president in his first term.

• This pick is a marked change — and a win for Teamsters president Sean O'Brien who pushed for Chavez-DeRemer.

Between the lines: The nomination, part of Trump's "messy coalition," is a sign that O'Brien's decisions to speak at the Republican National Convention and to refrain from endorsing a presidential candidate are already paying off.

Catch up fast: The daughter of a Teamsters father, Chavez-DeRemer served just one term in the House — she lost a close race in November.

• She was one of just three Republicans to co-sponsor the Pro Act, a bill reviled by conservative groups, most Republicans and the business lobby.

Perhaps most controversially, the bill would hold companies accountable for workers they don't directly employ.

• For example, McDonald's would be responsible for workers at its franchises. Or Uber for its drivers. The first Trump administration reversed a similar rule. (Intriguingly, Chavez-DeRemer voted for a resolution to overturn a Biden effort to revive it.)

State of play: Business groups and Republican lawmakers want to know where she stands on the Pro Act now.

• "That's going to be the issue she's going to have to answer for," in meetings with lawmakers, says Matthew Haller, CEO of the International Franchise Association.
• Meanwhile: Others quickly condemned her, including the Wall Street Journal and several conservative advocates on X.

Not all Republicans are wary: "President O'Brien was a strong voice in a chorus that includes many Republicans eager to ensure the GOP acts in the interests of working people, not just corporations and financial elites," Teamsters spokesperson Kara Deniz tells Axios.

• Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) was among a few GOP lawmakers who encouraged Trump to go with Chavez-DeRemer, according to Deniz and a source familiar with the process.
• Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) advised her on how to play the situation, another source familiar told Axios.
• Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) called her a "great pick!" on X.

Reality check: Trump's first term was staunchly anti-labor, and union groups today aren't holding their breath for a 180 — putting out cautious statements of support that call out Trump's positions in his first term.

• "Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States — not Rep. Chavez-DeRemer — and it remains to be seen what she will be permitted to do," AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler said in a statement.

What to watch: How the incoming administration treats public-sector unions as it tries to slash the size of the federal workforce.

Axios' Juliegrace Brufke contributed reporting

Twenty-something knowledge workers are pretty much all using generative AI tools, finds a survey out Monday from Google Workspace.

Why it matters: The youngs are early adopters. If Gen Z is doing it — there's a good chance that at some point soon everyone else might, too.

• Think of any popular office tech — from email to Slack-type tools to collaborative document use — typically it's the youngest who got there first. We all follow.

How they did it: In the late summer, Google surveyed 1,005 full-time knowledge workers, age 22-39, who are either in leadership roles or aspire to one.

What they found: 93% of Gen Z respondents, age 22 - 27, said they were using two or more AI tools a week — such as ChatGPT, DALL-E, Otter.ai, and other generative AI products.

• 79% of millennials (28 - 39) said they used two or more of these tools a week.

Zoom in: Younger workers are using AI to revise emails and documents, to take notes during meetings or even just to start generating ideas, says Yulie Kwon Kim, VP of product at Google Workspace.

• 88% of Gen Z workers said they'd use AI to start a task that felt overwhelming.

Reality check: Google has a big stake in selling AI as the future of work. It's invested billions of dollars in the nascent technology — this is just one small survey that helps make its case.

• A larger study of full-time workers — of all ages — out earlier this month found overall AI adoption is stalling out, with nearly half workers saying they weren't comfortable even admitting to using the technology.
• But younger workers are a bit more open about what they're doing, per Google's findings. 52% of those age 22-27 said they frequently discuss their use of AI tools with colleagues.

What to watch: AI boosters say that all these tools make life easier for workers. They can avoid certain drudgeries — like note taking in meetings, for example — and focus on bigger picture tasks.

• Down the line that could translate into both big productivity gains for the macro-economy — and potentially job loss.

After years of wondering why there was a disconnect between how Americans feel about the economy (bad) and the actual state of the economy (pretty good), we may have the answer — it was politics all along.

Why it matters: If politics is the main driver of consumer sentiment, then it's no longer nearly as useful as an economic indicator.

The big picture: A real-time measure of consumer sentiment abruptly turned positive last week for the first time since June 2021, as Republican optimism surged on Donald Trump's victory. (See the chart below.)

• Overall sentiment hit 100.6 on Nov. 11, according to the Morning Consult Consumer Sentiment Index. (Anything over 100 is positive.)
• Heading into the election, Republican sentiment was negative (around 83), as it had been essentially since Biden entered the White House. It spiked to 107.5 in the days after Trump won.
• Democratic sentiment fell at the same time, but the drop was mild in comparison and the overall index still turned upbeat.
• "It's pretty clear politics was a big part of it," says Ben Harris, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.

Flashback: For many years, consumer sentiment was an important leading indicator for investors and economists. It could foreshadow a coming recession faster than other economic data that take longer to come out.

• "If an economic forecaster were trapped on a desert island with only data on consumer confidence," using this measure to hazard a guess about the economy "would not be a bad idea," concludes an explainer from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis published in 2003.

Zoom in: Since the pandemic, the measure's usefulness stumbled.

• Even with low unemployment, falling inflation and a growing GDP, consumer sentiment has been at levels last seen during the Great Recession.
• The disconnect led to the coining of a new term, "vibecession," to describe Americans' dismal mood.
• "The fact that macroeconomic indicators have become so divorced from consumer sentiment, it's reasonable to ask does this even matter from an economic standpoint anymore?" asks Brookings' Harris.

How it works: Both Republicans and Democrats see the economy more favorably when their party controls the White House, but the GOP skew is far more pronounced.

• That's per an analysis of University of Michigan sentiment data from two Stanford economists published last year.
• The Republican partisan bias is two-and-half times larger than it is for Democrats, write Ryan Cummings and Neale Mahoney in their paper.

Put another way: "Republicans cheer louder when their party is in control and boo louder when their party is out of control," they write.

Reality check: That asymmetry explains 30% of the difference between observed consumer sentiment and what you would predict using economic fundamentals, Cummings and Mahoney found.

• Inflation explains another chunk. Even though the rate of inflation has fallen quite a bit this year, consumers are still adjusting to higher price levels. It's a process that takes a few years.
• "Most people have adjusted to the fact that a Coke costs more than a nickel," Mahoney, Cummings and Harris wrote in a paper for Brookings.
• Other factors contributed to the sentiment slump that economists still don't fully understand. In the Wall Street Journal, Greg Ip wrote about "referred pain," or pessimism about the economy that may "reflect dissatisfaction with the country as a whole."

What to watch: It's still early days, so we'll be watching post-election data closely as it comes in.

• The University of Michgan's survey looking at sentiment in November will be released on Nov. 22. (This is the best-known consumer sentiment measure.)

The bottom line: If the gloomy data was just about partisanship, "then the vibecession was really just vibes," Kyla Scanlon, author of "In This Economy?" who coined the term, tells Axios.

Republicans are feeling positive about the economy for the first time in four years, while the Democratic vibes have plunged, per new data from Morning Consult.

Why it matters: Consumer sentiment used to reflect current economic conditions, but for the past several years it's grown increasingly political.

• Put plainly, when your person is in the White House, or about to be, you feel good and hopeful about the economy. When you're on the outs, not so much.

How it works: Morning Consult measures sentiment by asking people questions about both current economic conditions (good or bad?) and their expectations for the future ( better or worse?).

By the numbers: Heading into the election, Republican consumer sentiment, as measured by the index, was at about 83 overall— any number under 100 indicates negativity. Now, a week post-Trump victory, it's at 107.5.

• Democrat sentiment heading into Election day was 116; now it's at 100.
• Overall sentiment (with everyone included) is higher, and is into positive territory for the first time since June 2021, as the GOP cheer offsets the Democratic gloom.

The big picture: Overall consumer sentiment had been trending up over the past month leading to Election Day, but it rose fairly quickly in the days since across many groups, as Republicans' expectations for the future improved.

• There were similar jumps in positivity across age groups and income levels, which track pretty closely with voting patterns.
• Notably, Black consumer sentiment fell from 114 to 109, though it's still positive territory.

Reality check: People's feelings about future financial conditions have risen notably. But their feelings about their present personal finances haven't changed much post-election — and overall remain negative.

• Sentiment also isn't entirely divorced from economic conditions; inflation has come down and the overall mood reflects that.

Flashback: In 2020, after President Biden was elected, the partisan sentiment switcheroo took a bit more time.

• GOP sentiment fell below 100 about a week after Election Day, a few days after it was called for Biden.
• The Democratic vibes only crossed into positive territory in late January 2021, perhaps over concerns about Trump not leaving the White House.

What to watch: The question now is, will positive feelings about the future translate into good feelings about the present?