Two ongoing strikes in the cannabis industry—one in Michigan and one in Pennsylvania—have become the longest work stoppages in the industry’s history, arriving just as more states integrate labor peace or collective bargaining requirements into the licensing process and ongoing compliance. The converging pressures of the market, regulatory requirements, and national labor policy are reshaping the way cannabis operators manage their workforce.

The Two Longest Strikes in Cannabis History

The strikes at Exclusive Brands in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and at Green Thumb Industries’ RISE dispensary in York, Pennsylvania, now stand as the longest in the legal cannabis market. While both actions reflect shared themes—demands for better wages, a voice in the workplace, and concerns about bargaining conduct—they are unfolding in starkly different market contexts and with different strategic aims.

In Michigan, workers at Exclusive Brands walked out after the company declined to recognize a union election and amid an unfair labor practice charge tied to the firing of a union supporter. Organizing efforts there have focused on public visibility and testing the legal contours of federal jurisdiction over cannabis workplaces. In Pennsylvania, all unionized workers at the RISE York dispensary struck following a breakdown in contract talks, pressing for wages aligned with agreements achieved elsewhere. The Pennsylvania action is a textbook leverage strike, not unlike strikes in other industries, designed to interrupt operations and force bargaining movement.

Market conditions accentuate the divide. Michigan’s open-license adult-use market has experienced oversupply and price compression, leaving thin margins that complicate wage gains even when labor organizing succeeds. Pennsylvania, by contrast, remains a limited-license, medical-only market that supports strong unit economics for multistate operators.

Labor Peace Agreements and Collective Bargaining: Where States Stand

Several states embed labor peace expectations directly into the licensing process, acting as a structural nudge intended to reduce workplace conflict and normalize union engagement. These requirements vary considerably in scope and enforceability.

A federal court in Oregon became the first to strike down an LPA-as-licensing condition law on preemption and speech grounds, and similar challenges are now a live risk wherever LPA mandates are embedded in statute or rule. California’s regime faces its own courtroom scrutiny, while the state has separately policed sham agreements by determining certain entities were not bona fide unions—voiding those LPAs and compelling operators to replace them or risk losing their license.

What LPAs and CBAs Mean for the Industry

For operators, LPAs are a double-edged instrument. On the one hand, they can deliver stability of workforce by reducing strike exposure and clarify workers’ rights in a manner aligned with an industry that prizes compliance, community reinvestment, and public trust. They can also boost reputation with the public. On the other hand, such requirements add to operational complexity. In oversupplied markets with compressed margins, the economics of wage and benefits increases negotiated through collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) are hard to square with economic realities.

Operators should expect diligence questions related to LPA status, union relations posture, and active NLRB matters in connection with financing.

How Federal Policy Shapes Strike Risk: Biden vs. Trump Eras

Labor dynamics inside cannabis have moved with national trends. During the Biden years, major strike activity surged across the economy, and union organizing petitions rose sharply. A more pro-labor National Labor Relations Board broadened remedial theories and made it costlier for employers to run aggressive anti-union campaigns. Cannabis workers rode that tide, with high-profile first contracts, unfair labor practice actions, and successful drives in multiple states.

With a pro-business administration now in Washington, the pendulum on federal labor policy is swinging back. Employers are more likely to test the edges of union recognition and bargaining obligations, to seek narrower readings of NLRB jurisdiction in cannabis, and to leverage preemption defenses against state-level labor mandates. The Michigan and Pennsylvania strikes are the first major cannabis labor standoffs of the current era; their duration suggests that both sides are prepared for drawn-out fights in a less union-friendly enforcement environment. Put differently, while industry fundamentals are dampening union leverage in saturated markets, federal headwinds may embolden employers and cause more protracted disputes.

What to Watch Next

Industry speculators and experts predict the following forces to move the industry. First, plaintiffs will pursue litigation to test whether state LPA mandates are compatible with federal labor law and the First Amendment. Second, enforcement agencies will continue to police sham agreements and force recommendations. Third, NLRB doctrine and enforcement intensity will recalibrate under current leadership, affecting collective bargaining negotiations and remedies for unfair labor practices in cannabis.

For operators, the practical playbook is to plan ahead rather than react. Standardize neutrality and access terms where required, validate union counterparties, forecast wage and benefit progressions under realistic profit margins, and construct internal capabilities for lawful communications during organizing.

The two historic strikes in Michigan and Pennsylvania are unlikely to be isolated disputes. However they resolve, stakeholders in other states are likely to study and act accordingly.