Corporations

Latest story

88 Shares134 Views

Alabama Prison Labor Program Faces Legal Challenges

by

In the back of a nondescript industrial park on the outskirts of Montgomery, Ala., past the corner of Eastern Boulevard and Plantation Way, there is a manufacturing plant run by Ju-Young, a car-part supplier for Hyundai. On a Tuesday in May, about half of the workers there — roughly 20 — were prisoners.Listen to this article with reporter commentaryThey were contracted to the company by the Alabama Department of Corrections as part of a “work-release” day labor program for inmates who, according to the state, have shown enough trustworthiness to work outside prison walls, alongside free citizens.The inmates bused there by the state make up just one crop of the thousands of imprisoned people sent to work for private businesses — who risk disciplinary action if they refuse.Sitting against a chain-link fence under the shade of a tree in the company parking lot, commiserating over small talk and cigarettes with fellow assembly workers, one of the imprisoned men, Carlos Anderson, argued that his predicament was simple. He could work a 40-hour week, at $12 an hour — and keep a small fraction of that after the state charges transportation and laundry fees, and takes a 40 percent cut of pretax wages — or he could face working for nothing at the prison.Under Alabama prison rules, there are thin lines between work incentives, forced labor and “involuntary servitude” — which reforms to the Alabama Constitution in 2022 banned. From the viewpoint of Mr. Anderson and more than a dozen other Alabama inmates interviewed by The New York Times, the ultimate message, in practice, is straightforward: Do this, or else.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

More stories

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Kamala Harris’s Economic Plan Has Been Shaped by Business Leaders

    by

    The vice president has repeatedly incorporated suggestions from business executives into her economic agenda.When two of Vice President Kamala Harris’s closest advisers arrived in New York last month, they were seeking advice. The Democratic nominee was preparing to give her most far-reaching economic speech, and Tony West, Ms. Harris’s brother-in-law, and Brian Nelson, a longtime confidant, wanted to know how the city’s powerful financiers thought she should approach it.Over two days, the pair held meetings across Wall Street, including at the offices of Lazard, an investment bank, and the elite law firm Paul, Weiss. Among the ideas the attendees pitched was to provide more lucrative tax breaks for companies that allowed their workers to become part owners, according to two people at the meetings. The campaign had already been discussing such an idea with an executive at KKR, the private equity firm.A few days later, Ms. Harris endorsed the idea during her speech in Pittsburgh. “We will reform our tax laws to make it easier for businesses to let workers share in their company’s success,” she said.The line, while just a piece of a much broader speech, was emblematic of Ms. Harris’s approach to economic policy since she took the helm of the Democratic Party in July. As part of a bid to cut into former President Donald J. Trump’s polling lead on the economy, her campaign has carefully courted business leaders, organizing a steady stream of meetings and calls in which corporate executives and donors offer their thoughts on tax policy, financial regulation and other issues.The private feedback has, in sometimes subtle ways, shaped Ms. Harris’s economic agenda over the course of her accelerated campaign. At several points, she has sprinkled language into broader speeches that business executives say reflects their views. And, in at least one instance, Ms. Harris made a specific policy commitment — to pare back a tax increase on capital gains — after extended talks with her corporate allies.This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen campaign officials, policy experts, donors, lobbyists and business leaders.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    How the Fed Cutting Interest Rates Affects Banks, Stocks and More

    by

    For corporate America, this week’s expected interest rate cut carries risks along with rewards.It’s easy to assume that lower interest rates are a panacea. Almost everyone, after all, is affected to some degree by the cost of borrowing. When the Federal Reserve cuts its benchmark rates — as it is expected to do this week for the first time since the pandemic — that makes credit less expensive for consumers and corporations alike.The cheaper debt means companies can spend more to expand, just as consumers might be able to afford bigger homes with lower mortgage rates.But there is a complicated and somewhat unpredictable interplay between interest rates and the business world. Lower rates bolster the economy, but for companies and their investors, lower rates do not always carry unalloyed positive effects.Here’s what to expect for corporate America when the Fed lowers rates:For markets, it’s all about ‘why.’All else equal, lower rates are good for the stock market. When investors gauge the value of a stock, they tend to come up with a higher figure when interest rates fall because of a common valuation principle known as discounting, in which a company’s future cash flows and costs become more attractive under low-rate conditions.Fed officials are expected to cut rates by a quarter or a half a percentage point at this week’s meeting. In practice, according to analysts, the reason rates are being lowered matters more than the precise timing or magnitude.If the economy is faltering, forcing the Fed to lower rates quickly, that can be a headwind to the stock market. A gentle return to a more normal level of rates — at least in the context of the past few decades — is less likely to crimp corporate profits in the way that an economic downturn could.“It’s less about when they cut and how quickly, and more about why they cut,” said Greg Boutle, head of U.S. equity and derivatives strategy at BNP Paribas.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 163 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How SMIC, China’s Semiconductor Champion, Landed in the Heart of a Tech War

    by

    Efforts by the Beijing-backed Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, to break through innovation barriers have landed it in a geopolitical tech battle.In a sprawling factory in eastern Shanghai, where marshy plains have long since been converted into industrial parks, China’s most advanced chipmaker has been hard at work testing the limits of U.S. authority.Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation, or SMIC, is manufacturing chips with features less than one-15,000th of the thickness of a sheet of paper. The chips pack together enough computing power to create advancements like artificial intelligence and 5G networks.It’s a feat that has been achieved by just a few companies globally — and one that has landed SMIC in the middle of a crucial geopolitical rivalry. U.S. officials say such advanced chip technology is central not just to commercial businesses but also to military superiority. They have been fighting to keep it out of Chinese hands, by barring China from buying both the world’s most cutting-edge chips and the machinery to make them.Whether China can advance and outrace the United States technologically now hinges on SMIC, a partly state-backed company that is the sole maker of advanced chips in the country and has become its de facto national semiconductor champion. SMIC pumps out millions of chips a month for other companies that design them, such as Huawei, the Chinese technology firm under U.S. sanctions, as well as American firms like Qualcomm.So far, SMIC hasn’t been able to produce chips as advanced as those of rivals such as Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company in Taiwan, or others in South Korea and the United States. But it is racing forward with a new A.I. chip for Huawei called the Ascend 910C, which is expected to be released this year.Huawei’s chip is not as fast or sophisticated as the coveted processors from Nvidia, the U.S. chip giant, which the White House has banned for sale in China. SMIC can also most likely make only a small fraction of what Chinese firms want to buy, experts said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Kamala Harris Blames ‘Price Gouging’ for Grocery Inflation. Here’s What Economists Say.

    by

    Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.In detailing her presidential campaign’s economic agenda, Vice President Kamala Harris will highlight an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups, which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris will call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.The Harris campaign announcement cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not immediately respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 88 Shares189 Views

    in Economy

    Many CEOs Still Support Biden Over Trump

    by

    Corporate executives complain about some of President Biden’s policies, along with his rhetoric. But so far they have not abandoned him en masse.When the White House chief of staff, Jeffrey Zients, met with dozens of top executives in Washington this month, he encountered a familiar list of corporate complaints about President Biden.The executives at the Business Roundtable, a group representing some of the country’s biggest corporations, objected to Mr. Biden’s proposals to raise taxes. They questioned the lack of business representation in the Cabinet. They bristled at what they called overregulation by federal agencies.While the meeting was not antagonistic, it was indicative of three and a half years of executive grousing about Mr. Biden. Business leaders have criticized his remarks on “corporate greed” and his appearance on a union picket line. They chafe at the actions of officials he has appointed — particularly the head of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, who has moved to block a series of corporate mergers.A number of prominent figures in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street — including the venture capitalists David Sacks and Marc Andreessen, and the hedge fund magnate Kenneth Griffin — have grown increasingly vocal in their criticism of Mr. Biden, their praise of former President Donald J. Trump, or both.Still, that shift mostly reflects movement among executives who already supported Republican politicians but had not previously embraced Mr. Trump. There is little evidence of a major shift in allegiance among executives away from Mr. Biden and toward Mr. Trump.Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor who is in frequent contact with corporate leaders, said most chief executives he had spoken to preferred Mr. Biden to Mr. Trump, “some of them enthusiastically and some of them biting their lip and holding their nose.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    California Moves to Modify Law Letting Workers Sue Employers

    by

    Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a deal with business and labor leaders heading off a ballot measure to repeal the law, which has cost companies billions.A last-minute political compromise has headed off an effort to repeal a California law allowing workers to sue employers for workplace violations — a legal tool that has cost companies billions of dollars.The compromise, announced on Tuesday by Gov. Gavin Newsom, followed meetings with business leaders and the powerful California Labor Federation over ways to modify the 2004 law, the Private Attorneys General Act.The law, known as PAGA, lets employees file civil complaints — on their own behalf and for fellow workers — against businesses, sometimes costing them tens of millions of dollars in settlements.“We came to the table and hammered out a deal that works for both businesses and workers, and it will bring needed improvements to this system,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement on Tuesday. “This proposal maintains strong protections for workers, provides incentives for businesses to comply with labor laws and reduces litigation.”A study released in February by a coalition opposing the law found it had cost businesses around $10 billion since 2013. That same report found more than 3,000 proposed settlements under the law in 2022, a tenfold increase from 2016. (In most cases, the state records settlement proposals but not the amount ultimately paid.)In 2023, Google settled for $27 million after employees used the law as their basis for accusing the tech company of unfair labor practices. And in 2018, Walmart employees won a settlement of $65 million after accusing the retailer of not providing sufficient seating for workers.Business groups got a measure to repeal the law on the November ballot. They agreed to withdraw the measure once legislation reflecting the compromise is passed and signed into law.Labor groups have cited the law as a necessary check on corporations.A recent report from the U.C.L.A. Labor Center found that the prospective ballot measure would effectively eliminate “one of California workers’ strongest remaining tools for preventing and correcting wage theft and other workplace abuses,” said Tia Koonse, the center’s legal and policy research manager.The compromise calls for, among other things, creating higher penalties on employers that flout labor laws and increasing the amount of penalty money that goes to employees to 35 percent from 25 percent. Moreover, it stipulates that any legal action must be initiated by the employee who experiences the violations described in the suit.“This package provides meaningful reforms that ensure workers continue to have a strong vehicle to get labor claims resolved, while also limiting the frivolous litigation that has cost employers billions without benefiting workers,” Jennifer Barrera, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement.Lorena Gonzalez, the leader of the California Labor Federation, said in a statement that her group was pleased “to have negotiated reforms to PAGA that better ensure abusive practices by employers are cured and that workers are made whole, quicker.”“PAGA is an essential tool to help workers hold corporations accountable for widespread wage theft, safety violations and misclassification,” she said. More

  • 138 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    U.S. Accuses Hyundai and Two Other Companies of Using Child Labor

    by

    The Labor Department filed a lawsuit accusing Hyundai, one of its suppliers and a staffing company of jointly employing a 13-year-old on an auto body parts assembly line in Alabama.The Labor Department on Thursday sued Hyundai over the use of child labor in Alabama, holding the car manufacturer liable for the employment of children in its supply chain, including a 13-year-old girl who worked up to 60 hours per week making car parts.In the suit, filed in a federal court in Montgomery, Ala., the department said Hyundai was responsible for the employment of children at a Smart Alabama factory in Luverne, Ala., which produces parts like body panels that are shipped to a Hyundai factory in Montgomery. The suit also claimed a staffing agency, Best Practice Service, recruited the children to work at the supplier’s plant.In a statement, Hyundai said child labor was “not consistent with the standards and values we hold ourselves to as a company.” It added that the Labor Department used “an unprecedented legal theory that would unfairly hold Hyundai accountable for the actions of its suppliers.”Smart did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Representatives of Best Practice Service, which is no longer in business, could not be reached for comment.From July 2021 to February 2022, a 13-year-old girl worked at the Smart plant, where she was recruited to work by Best Practice Service, the suit claimed. The suit also contended that two other children were employed at the plant.The Labor Department said that through the employment of children at its supplier, Hyundai was in violation of the “hot goods” provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, which prevents the interstate commerce of goods “that were produced in violation of the minimum wage, overtime or child labor provisions” of that law.“Companies cannot escape liability by blaming suppliers or staffing companies for child labor violations when they are in fact also employers themselves,” said Seema Nanda, the Labor Department’s chief legal officer, in a statement Thursday.The suit comes after investigations by Reuters and The New York Times documented the use of child labor by the suppliers of car companies. In 2022, Reuters found that Smart Alabama had used child labor at its facility, and that Kia, which is part of the same South Korean conglomerate as Hyundai, had also used child labor in the South. A 2023 investigation by The Times found children employed at the suppliers of General Motors and Ford Motor.Hyundai imports many of its vehicles from South Korea but has made big investments in factories in the South, spending nearly $8 billion on an electric vehicle plant in Georgia. The United Automobile Workers union has said it hopes to organize workers at Hyundai’s Montgomery plant. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    The Trustbuster Who Has Apple and Google in His Sights

    by

    Shortly after Jonathan Kanter took over the Justice Department’s antitrust division in November 2021, the agency secured an additional $50 million to investigate monopolies, bust criminal cartels and block mergers.To celebrate, Mr. Kanter bought a prop of a giant check, placed it outside his office and wrote on the check’s memo line: “Break ’Em Up.”Mr. Kanter, 50, has pushed that philosophy ever since, becoming a lead architect of the most significant effort in decades to fight the concentration of power in corporate America. On Thursday, he took his biggest swing when the Justice Department filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. In the 88-page lawsuit, the government argued that Apple had violated antitrust laws with practices intended to keep customers reliant on its iPhones and less likely to switch to competing devices.That lawsuit joins two Justice Department antitrust cases against Google that argue the company illegally shored up monopolies. Mr. Kanter’s staff has also challenged numerous corporate mergers, including suing to stop JetBlue Airways from buying Spirit Airlines.“We want to help real people by making sure that our antitrust laws work for workers, work for consumers, work for entrepreneurs and work to protect our democratic values,” Mr. Kanter said in a January interview. He declined to comment on the Google cases and other active litigation.At a news conference about the Apple lawsuit on Thursday, Mr. Kanter compared the action to past Justice Department challenges to Standard Oil, AT&T and Microsoft. The suit is aimed at protecting “the market for the innovations that we can’t yet perceive,” he said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More