Nearly 2,000 food and beverage workers at SoFi Stadium voted overwhelmingly Friday to authorize a strike just a week before the venue will stage the first World Cup game on U.S. soil in more than three decades.

Negotiations on a labor contract between Unite Here Local 11, the union representing the cooks, dishwashers, concession workers and bartenders at SoFi and, Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, are expected to continue Monday despite the vote. But Kurt Petersen, the union’s co-president, said if an agreement isn’t reached workers will walk off the job and the 70,000 fans arriving for the June 12 match between the U.S. and Paraguay will be greeted by hundreds of picketers.

Union members have been working without a contract for a year and Petersen said Unite Here is demanding salary increases, protection against subcontracting and job loss through automation, and are protesting the collection of sensitive private information such as nationality and home addresses that FIFA, organizer of the World Cup, said it needs to accreditate workers.

Workers are also demanding the right to walk off the job if federal immigration enforcement enters the stadium and creates a reasonable fear for their safety. Ninety-six percent of the vote was in favor of strike authorization.

Legends Global, the stadium’s food-service operator, responded to the vote with a statement.

“Legends Global has presented progressive wage proposals to Unite Here Local 11 throughout our negotiations and remains confident an agreement is within reach,” it read. “While we expect a contract will be finalized in time, a contingency staffing plan is in place to ensure seamless operations and no disruption to fans. We remain committed to delivering an outstanding hospitality experience at the FIFA World Cup matches.”

That contingency plan would involve hiring replacement workers who would have to undergo the same detailed accreditation procedures demanded by FIFA, plus job training. SoFi Stadium is scheduled to play host to eight World Cup matches, including two of the U.S. team’s three group-stage games. The first of those is on June 12 when the U.S. faces Paraguay in its World Cup opener.

Petersen said the union is looking for “substantial increases” in hourly pay, to more than $30 an hour. Legends’ most recent proposal calls for wage freezes for some workers and a 25-cent hourly increase for cooks and dishwashers, the union said.

But perhaps the biggest sticking point is FIFA’s demand for workers’ sensitive personal information, including Social Security numbers and fingerprints, to process background checks. Under California privacy laws, workers have the right to know exactly what personal information their employer collects, how it will be used, and who it will be shared with. Local 11 said its members fears such information, if collected, could be made available to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE.

According to Petersen, when workers were originally hired by Legends they submitted the documentation necessary for employment, and under the current collective bargaining agreement the company does not have the right to request it again for FIFA.

FIFA has refused to comment on the contract talks, saying they are “between Legends Global and Unite Here Local 11.” But its insistence on collecting personal information is something Legends cannot address during contract talks, which makes a resolution impossible.

FIFA said it was partnering with the governments of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the three countries in which the 39-day tournament will be played, “to enhance safety and security of all workers, staff, team members, vendors, journalists, volunteers, and spectators by mitigating potential insider threats. … Such name checks do not constitute pre-employment checks.”

All data collected during the name-check process, FIFA said, will be processed “in accordance with applicable data protection and privacy laws, and will be deleted by FIFA as soon as it is no longer needed for purposes of adjudicating requests for credentialed access to FIFA-controlled spaces.

TO All our colleagues at 60

FROM Lesley, Bill and Jon

We have had a hard time deciding whether to stay at 60 Minutes. We’re still deeply upset by the firings of Tanya and Draggan, strong leaders who everyone respected. As far as we can tell – because no explanation has ever been offered, they were expelled because they fought for our 60 Minutes values and stood up to protect our independence and integrity.
Newsrooms are not supposed to be run like dictatorships. Collaboration and argument are the way we have always worked at 60. Don Hewitt actually encouraged loud passionate advocacy for our pieces.

This goes for Sharyn, Cecilia and Scott as well, all at the top of the world of TV journalism who exemplified 60 Minutes’ ethos of tough questions and honest storytelling.

And Guy Campanile, an outstanding 60 Minutes producer whose advice on our stories was invaluable.

And Matt Polevoy, who ran our online operations, moved us onto YouTube, was working on developing 60 Minutes Podcasts and many other projects expanding our presence on the Web: vital and necessary for our future.

We want to express how sorry we are that these principled, fair and honest journalists were treated so shabbily, with such indecency. Tanya deserves to be celebrated, not cruelly cast off. Draggan too. It’s been heartbreaking.

But, we have decided to stay on.

We feared that our returning might be construed as an endorsement of the existing power structure. That is simply, categorically not the case.

Here’s why we’re are staying:

We don’t want to see 60 Minutes die.

We have been grieving because this whole mess has wounded and damaged the broadcast. We want to stay and fight, try to repair and preserve our reputation by continuing the Mike Wallace tradition of hold their feet to the fire as well as Morley’s brand of quirky off-kilter reports like his on why people in Finland like to tango!

1

When rain falls on California shopping centers and warehouses, the water runs off parking lots carrying metal dust and chemicals from vehicle tires and brake pads, oil and grease from engines, and bacteria from trash.

The gunk washes into storm drains and pollutes creeks, rivers and beaches.

Now environmental advocates are pushing state regulators to crack down by requiring stormwater permits — essentially best practices — for businesses that haven’t been held accountable for their polluted runoff.

“Commercial properties right now are not regulated under any stormwater permit,” said Sean Bothwell, executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance. “Think Costco, think Amazon warehouses. Large places with large parking lots are really what we’re going after.”

Groups that represent the businesses say they are already paying property taxes that in L.A. County include a special tax for cleaning up stormwater, and that imposing new regulations in this way doesn’t make sense.

But California Coastkeeper Alliance and other nonprofit groups submitted petitions to regional water officials across the state this week demanding they begin regulating commercial properties such as big-box stores, auto dealers and industrial parks.

The groups want the State Water Resources Control Board to establish a statewide rule, or permit, for “commercial, industrial and institutional” properties, which also include stadiums, malls and private hospitals.

If the state doesn’t act, Bothwell said, “our waterways will never be safe to fish or swim in, particularly Southern California beaches.”

That’s because a large portion of the pollution fouling waterways comes from these businesses. Bothwell said his group estimates, using methods developed by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, that unregulated businesses are responsible for 30% to 60% of metals like copper and zinc found in waterways, depending on the area. At high concentrations, these are toxic to fish and other animals.

Many Southern California creeks and concrete-lined channels are deemed “impaired” by regulators because pollution levels violate water quality standards.

The way California currently enforces the federal Clean Water Act, the businesses have no obligation to reduce the filthy water that flows into drains, and the costs of cleanup efforts fall to cities and counties, Bothwell said.

Because large parking lots often contribute to polluted stromwater runoff, environmental groups are urging state regulators to start requiring permits.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

Advertisement

Instead, the cities or counties where they are located are regulated. Researchers estimate California cities and counties spend more than $700 million each year on capturing and cleaning up stormwater.

California would be the first in the country to adopt such a statewide standard or permit. In addition to cities, the state already requires stormwater permits for construction sites, roads and certain industrial plants.

Business groups have opposed the proposal. John Myers, a spokesperson for the California Chamber of Commerce, noted that the effort to mandate stormwater permits has been discussed for several years in L.A. County after environmental groups won a favorable court ruling. “Simply choosing to use that effort as a template for other diverse regions, without a careful analysis of benefits and costs, could have major impacts on California’s economy,” he said.

The Los Angeles County Business Federation, or BizFed, raised similar concerns.

“Everyone wants cleaner waterways. However, this proposal simply isn’t ready for prime time,” said Mike Lewis, BizFed’s water co-chair.

As written, the proposal “hits existing property owners with retroactive costs while simultaneously ignoring the stormwater taxes they’ve been paying in good faith for years,” Lewis said in an email. “This seems less like environmental policy and more like a penalty. There are better, fairer ways to clean up stormwater.”

If there were a statewide measure for commercial businesses, many would probably have to build retention ponds or swales to filter out contaminants before water percolates underground. Or they could pay an annual fee, helping to fund local stormwater projects that cities need.

The money collected from companies, Bothwell said, would be used for building wetlands, water-absorbing parks and other green spaces next to parking lots — which help clean runoff instead of letting it run into storm drains.

At the same time, Southern California cities have been investing in projects to capture stormwater and recharge groundwater as they seek to rely less on water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River.

Unless the state acts, contaminated water will continue running off businesses’ parking lots into drains, adding to the “toxic soup” in Southern California waterways, said Bruce Reznik, executive director of Los Angeles Waterkeeper.

California Coastkeeper Alliance and a coalition of local Waterkeeper groups submitted the petitions to regional boards in the Inland Empire, San Diego, the Bay Area, the Central Coast, the north coast and the Sacramento Valley.

They invoked a provision of the Clean Water Act that authorizes states to require additional permits on a case-by-case basis.

L.A. Waterkeeper and other environmental groups successfully used the same provision to convince the EPA in 2024 to require permits for businesses near the polluted Dominguez Channel and Los Cerritos Channel in L.A. County. State regulators are preparing to issue those permits.

The regional water boards received the new petitions and will consider them, said Ailene Voisin, a spokesperson.

In 2022, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed legislation that would have required stormwater permits for many businesses statewide. In 2025, a similar bill faced opposition and died in the Legislature.