Baristas at a handful of Starbucks around Los Angeles as well as in Chicago and Seattle went on strike Friday, kicking off a work stoppage that union officials said would include hundreds of the coffee giant’s stores by Christmas Eve.

The union, Starbucks Workers United, said the strike was necessary after they failed to reach a deal in negotiations with the company over what would be a first contract for Starbucks workers. By walking out from five locations in the Los Angeles area and other key markets, workers are hoping to pressure Starbucks during the busy holiday season, when its frappuccinos and themed drinks are in high demand.

The union said it plans to spread the work stoppages to potentially hundreds of stores over the course of the five-day action that will conclude on Christmas Eve. It is looking to extract from Starbucks a more robust wage proposal and an agreement to quickly resolve outstanding unfair labor practice charges filed by workers in recent years.

A Starbucks tucked into a strip mall on Alameda Street in Burbank that typically opens at 4:30 a.m. stayed closed Friday. At 10 a.m. a crowd of about 30 Starbucks workers, union organizers and supporters walked a picket line outside, chanting, “No contract, no coffee,” and, “Hey, Starbucks, you can’t hide, we can see your greedy side.”

Kai Krawczeniuk, 25, a shift supervisor at the Burbank store, said Starbucks “made an economic offer that was unacceptable.”

“It was insulting, frankly. That made us feel like we have to act, we have to show them we mean business,” Krawczeniuk said.

In a statement, the union said Starbucks had proposed an economic package earlier this month “with no new wage increases for union baristas now and a guarantee of only 1.5% in future years.”

Starbucks said about 10 of its more than 10,000 company-operated stores in the United States did not open as planned today.

“There has been no significant impact to our store operations. We are aware of disruption at a small handful of stores, but the overwhelming majority of our US stores remain open and serving customers as normal,” Starbucks spokesperson Phil Gee said in an emailed statement.

The company criticized the union, saying it had proposed an immediate 64% wage increase that “is not sustainable” and prematurely ended bargaining sessions this week.

“It is disappointing they didn’t return to the table given the progress we’ve made to date,” the company said in its statement.

Besides the Burbank location, four other stores in Southern California, including in Van Nuys, Santa Clarita, Highland Park and Anaheim, were also hit with strikes, said Evelyn Zepeda, organizing director in California for Workers United.

Former Burbank Mayor Konstantine Anthony, who currently is a member of the City Council, joined the Starbucks picket line Friday morning and said the company was “nickel-and-diming” workers. It was “no coincidence,” he said, that the Starbucks strike coincided with work stoppages by Amazon warehouse workers and delivery drivers in the run-up to Christmas.

“Workers have shown up at the exact moment where these two companies make their biggest profits, Christmas season,” Anthony said. “Power lies with the people, people who make the drinks, people who deliver the packages. If you want to give a good product to your customers, you need to treat the people delivering that product well.”

The new work stoppages mark a major turning point for Starbucks Workers United, which formed in 2021 and steadily has made headway in its campaign to persuade baristas at Starbucks around the U.S. to join. Hopes that the two sides would be able to hammer out a deal had been high since February, when the company pledged publicly to work with the union and take a more neutral approach toward the drive to organize workers.

The conciliatory stance was an about-face for a company that previously had intensely resisted the campaign to organize its workers. Federal regulators found Starbucks repeatedly violated labor laws by disciplining and firing workers involved in unionizing activity, shutting down stores and stalling contract negotiations.

The National Labor Relations Board has conducted a total of 647 union elections at Starbucks stores, with 109 of them falling short, several others with challenged ballots and 528 currently with certified bargaining units, according to NLRB spokesperson Kayla Blado. In California, 66 stores have held union elections and 44 of them have had their bargaining units recognized by the labor board.

Blado said workers have filed more than 700 unfair labor charges against Starbucks, its subsidiary Siren Retail Corp., or its law firm Littler Mendelson, alleging a range of violations. The union has not filed any new charges against Starbucks since late February.

In March, the federal board ordered Starbucks to stop threatening and interrogating employees at a store in Cypress Park about union organizing efforts and to post a notice of workers rights. In September, the board ordered Starbucks to stop threatening workers with the closure of a store in Los Angeles if organizing activity continued. And in October, the board found that Starbucks’ former chief executive, Howard Schultz, violated labor law by encouraging a Long Beach employee to quit after they raised issues related to unionization in 2022.

As parents rush into malls for the final days of Christmas shopping, many will be armed with wishlists full of beauty products for their children.

Skin care is a fast-growing phenomenon among Gen Alpha, typically defined as those born from 2010 and on. Dubbed “Sephora kids,” the tweens and teens have been buying up products from buzzy brands including Drunk Elephant, Bubble and Glow Recipe and diligently following multistep, antiaging skin-care routines popularized on social media.

With kids becoming a powerful segment of the booming $164-billion global skin-care industry, brands have been catering to them with new products packaged in colorful, eye-catching bottles and jars.

Dermatologists say getting children into the habit of taking care of their skin is a good thing, but they’re urging parents to exercise caution as they splurge on holiday gifts.

“For pediatric dermatology, we always say to be very mindful and wary of active ingredients that are in products,” said Dr. Jayden Galamgam, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health. “A lot of the time, simple is better.”

What products are OK for my kid to use?

A gentle cleanser, a hydrating moisturizer and a good sunscreen are recommended and appropriate for any age.

“You don’t need to be using all these products; you don’t need a 10-step routine,” Galamgam said. “Use three products. Most don’t need anything more than that.”

Look for broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher; it should be worn daily and reapplied every couple of hours.

What products should I avoid?

Anti-wrinkle serums, exfoliants and peels are not appropriate for children. Avoid products containing potent alpha hydroxy acids, beta hydroxy acids and retinol, Galamgam said.

“I would definitely try to stay away from those, because they can cause a lot of irritation for kids,” he said.

Social media trends often encourage tweens to experiment with cosmetics that are inappropriate for their skin type or age, so parents need to look carefully at ingredient labels before buying, said Sam Cutler, founder of Beverly Hills-based tween skin-care brand Petite ’n Pretty.

“We want to caution parents about the growing trend of products marketed as ‘kid-friendly’ due to their bright, playful packaging, which can be misleading,” she said. “Many of these products are formulated for adults and contain harsh ingredients, such as hydroxy acids, retinoids and artificial fragrances, which are too aggressive for young, delicate skin and can cause irritation or long-term damage.”

My kid wants antiaging products anyway. What should I say?

You can talk to them them about the potential harmful side effects, and about the risks of following the advice of online “skinfluencers.”

“There are a lot of teens that are using these products inappropriately due to misinformation or wanting to fit in with their friends based on what they’re seeing on TikTok,” said Dr. Carol Cheng, a pediatric dermatologist and an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at UCLA.

“They’re easily susceptible. A lot of them don’t realize that these influencers are probably being paid to promote certain products.”

Is anything being done to protect kids from potentially harmful skin-care products?

In February, California Assemblymember Alex Lee introduced legislation to ban the sale of antiaging products to kids under the age of 13, but the bill failed to pass in the California Legislature.

What Donahue knew was that we — women especially — were eager, desperate, to be understood, to learn and learn and learn. We call his job “host” when, really, the way he did it, running that microphone throughout the audience, racing up, down, around, sticking it here then here then over here, was closer to “switchboard operator.” It was “hot dog vendor at Madison Square Garden.” The man got his steps in. He let us do more of the questioning than he did — he would just edit, interpret, clarify. Egalitarianism ruled. Articulation, too. And anybody who needed the mic usually got it.

The show was about both what was on our mind and what had never once crossed it. Atheism. Naziism. Colorism. Childbirth. Prison. Rapists. AIDS. Chippendales, Chernobyl, Cher. Name a fetish, Phil Donahue tried to get to its bottom, sometimes by trying it himself. (Let us never forget the episode when he made his entrance in a long skirt, blouse and pussy bow for one of the show’s many cross-dressing studies.) Now’s the time to add that “Donahue” was a morning talk show. In Philadelphia, he arrived every weekday at 9 a.m., which meant that, in the summers, I could learn about compulsive shopping or shifting gender roles from the same kitchen TV set as my grandmother.

Sex and sexuality were the show’s prime subjects. There was so much that needed confessing, correction, corroboration, an ear lent. For that, Donahue needed an expert. Many times, the expert was Dr. Ruth, a godsend who didn’t land in this country until she was in her late 20s and didn’t land on television until she was in her 50s. Ruth Westheimer arrived to us from Germany, where she started as Karola Ruth Siegel and strapped in as her life corkscrewed, as it mocked fiction. Her family most likely perished in the Auschwitz death camps after she was whisked to the safety of a Swiss children’s home, where she was expected to clean. The twists include sniper training for one of the military outfits that would become the Israel Defense Forces, maiming by cannonball on her 20th birthday, doing research at a Planned Parenthood in Harlem, single motherhood and three husbands. She earned her doctorate from Columbia University, in education, and spent her postdoc researching human sexuality. And because her timing was perfect, she emerged at the dawn of the 1980s, an affable vector of an era’s craze for gnomic sages (Zelda Rubinstein, Linda Hunt, Yoda), masterpiece branding and the nasty.

Hers was the age of Mapplethorpe and Madonna, of Prince, Skinemax and 2 Live Crew. On her radio and television shows, in a raft of books and a Playgirl column and through her promiscuous approach to talk-show appearances, she aimed to purge sex of shame, to promote sexual literacy. Her feline accent and jolly innuendo pitched, among other stuff, the Honda Prelude, Pepsi, Sling TV and Herbal Essences. (“Hey!” she offers to a young elevator passenger. “This is where we get off.”) The instructions for Dr. Ruth’s Game of Good Sex says it can be played by up to four couples; the board is vulval and includes stops at “Yeast Infection,” “Chauvinism” and “Goose Him.”

On “Donahue,” she is direct, explicit, dispelling, humorous, clear, common-sensical, serious, vivid. A professional therapist. It was Donahue who handled the comedy. On one visit in 1987, a caller needs advice about a husband who cheats because he wants to have sex more often than she does. Dr. Ruth tells Donahue that if the caller wants to keep the marriage, and her husband wants to do it all the time, “then what she should do is to masturbate him. And it’s all right for him to masturbate himself also a few times.” The audience is hear-a-pin-drop rapt or maybe just squirmy. So Donahue reaches into his parochial-school-student war chest and pulls out the joke about the teacher who tells third-grade boys, “Don’t play with yourself, or you’ll go blind.” And Donahue raises his hand like a kid at the back of the classroom and asks, “Can I do it till I need glasses?” Westheimer giggles, maybe noticing the large pair on Donahue’s face. This was that day’s cold open.

They were children of salesmen, these two; his father was in the furniture business, hers sold what people in the garment industry call notions. They inherited a salesman’s facility for people and packaging. When a “Donahue” audience member asks Westheimer whether her own husband believes she practices what she preaches, she says this is why she never brings him anywhere. “He would tell you and Phil: ‘Do not listen to her. It’s all talk,’” which cracks the audience up.

But consider what she talked about — and consider how she said it. My favorite Dr. Ruth word was “pleasure.” From a German mouth, the word conveys what it lacks with an American tongue: sensual unfurling. She vowed to speak about sex to mass audiences using the proper terminology. Damn the euphemisms. People waited as long as a year and a half for tickets to “Donahue” so they could damn them, too. But of everything Westheimer pitched, of all the terms she precisely used, pleasure was her most cogent product, a gift she believed we could give to others, a gift she swore we owed ourselves.

I miss the talk show that Donahue reinvented. I miss the way Dr. Ruth talked about sex. It’s fitting somehow that this antidogmatic-yet-priestly Irish Catholic man would, on occasion, join forces with a carnal, lucky-to-be-alive Jew to urge the exploration of our bodies while demonstrating respect, civility, reciprocation. They believed in us, that we were all interesting, that we could be trustworthy panelists in the discourse of being alive. Trauma, triviality, tubal ligation: Let’s talk about it! Fear doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Or if it did, it was never a deterrent. Boldly they went. — And with her encouragement, boldly we came.

Wesley Morris is a critic at large for The New York Times and a staff writer for the magazine.