More stories

  • in

    For Those in Need of a Job, Landing One Might Still Be a Challenge

    The unemployment rate, at 4.1 percent in October, remains low by historical standards. But under the surface, there are signs that it can be difficult to land a job.The share of unemployed workers finding jobs has been falling, and the average duration of unemployment has been rising — two indications of mounting strain for job seekers.The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a steep drop in the job-finding rate in October, extending previous months’ declines. That points to a potentially challenging dynamic: Layoffs remain relatively low, but people who lose their jobs could be struggling to find new ones.The average number of weeks of unemployment also hit a two-and-a-half-year high in October, at 22.9 weeks, up from another recent high of 22.6 weeks in September. In the past few months, more people have been falling into the category of long-term unemployment, typically defined as being out of work for more than six months.A recent downturn in open roles could have been contributing to the strain on job seekers, keeping many unemployed for longer. Available positions in September tumbled to 7.4 million, resembling prepandemic levels.Job openings did tick up in October, surpassing expectations, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released this week. And in a survey conducted last month by the Conference Board, roughly 15 percent of consumers said jobs were hard to get, down from the almost 18 percent who said the same in October, hinting at easing conditions. More

  • in

    Biden Administration Moves to End a Minimum Wage Waiver for Disabled Workers

    A plan by the Biden administration would phase out a provision that allows employers to pay workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage.The Biden administration on Tuesday moved to end a program that has for decades allowed companies to pay workers with disabilities less than the minimum wage.The statute, enacted as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, has let employers obtain certificates from the Labor Department that authorize them to pay workers with disabilities less than the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour. The department began a “comprehensive review” of the program last year, and on Tuesday it proposed a rule that would bar new certificates and phase out current ones over three years.“This proposal would help ensure that workers with disabilities have access to equal employment opportunities, while reinforcing our fundamental belief that all workers deserve fair compensation for their contribution,” Taryn Williams, assistant secretary of labor for disability employment policy, said on a call with reporters.As of May, about 800 employers held certificates allowing them to pay workers less than minimum wage, affecting roughly 40,000 workers, said Kristin Garcia, deputy administrator of the Labor Department’s wage and hour division.Those figures reflect a steep decline in employers’ reliance on the program in recent years: The number of workers with disabilities earning less than the minimum wage dropped to 122,000 in 2019 from 296,000 in 2010, according to a report published last year from the Government Accountability Office.Since 2019, more than half of workers employed under this program earned less than $3.50 an hour, according to the report.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

  • in

    Trump Picks Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer for Labor Secretary

    Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a first-term Republican representative from Oregon who narrowly lost her House seat this month, was chosen on Friday to serve as labor secretary in the coming Trump administration.“Lori has worked tirelessly with both business and labor to build America’s work force, and support the hardworking men and women of America,” President-elect Donald J. Trump said in a statement.A moderate from a swing district that includes parts of Portland, Ms. Chavez-DeRemer, 56, is not a major figure in American labor politics. But she was one of only a few House Republicans to support major pro-union legislation, and she split her district’s union endorsements with her Democratic opponent, Janelle Bynum, earning nods from ironworkers, firefighters and local Teamsters.When the House speaker, Mike Johnson, spoke at a Chavez-DeRemer rally in October, he said, “She’s got more labor union endorsements than any Republican I’ve ever seen in my life.”Labor leaders criticized Mr. Trump’s policies during his first term as president, and at one point in the race this year, he praised Elon Musk for a willingness to fire workers who go on strike. But Mr. Trump also proposed ending taxes on tips and overtime, and many rank-and-file union members embraced his pro-tariffs economic agenda.After Ms. Chavez-DeRemer’s defeat this month, the president of the Teamsters, Sean O’Brien, urged Mr. Trump to consider her for the labor secretary role, Politico reported. On Friday, Mr. O’Brien praised her selection, posting a photograph on X of himself standing with Mr. Trump and Ms. Chavez-DeRemer.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

  • in

    Why Trump Allies Say Immigration Hurts American Workers

    JD Vance and others on the “new right” say limiting immigration will raise wages and give jobs to sidelined Americans. Many studies suggest otherwise.As President-elect Donald J. Trump’s second administration takes shape, his plans for a signature campaign promise are becoming clear: mass deportations of undocumented immigrants, including new detention centers, workplace raids and possibly the mobilization of the military to aid in expulsions.Most economists are skeptical that this project will improve opportunities for working-class Americans. Mr. Trump and his allies don’t typically argue for purging undocumented immigrants on economic grounds; the case is more often about crimes committed by migrants, or simply a need to enforce the law.But there is an intellectual movement behind immigration restriction that seeks to reshape the relationship between employers and their sources of labor. According to this rising conservative faction, most closely identified with Vice President-elect JD Vance, cutting off the supply of vulnerable foreigners will force employers to seek out U.S.-born workers.“We cannot have an entire American business community that is giving up on American workers and then importing millions of illegal laborers,” Mr. Vance said in an interview with The New York Times in October, adding, “It’s one of the biggest reasons why we have millions of people who’ve dropped out of the labor force.”Mr. Vance is correct that the share of men in their prime working years who are in the labor force — that is, either working or looking for work — has declined in recent decades, sliding during recessions and never totally recovering. (Women in that age group, 25 to 54 years old, are working at the highest levels on record.)It seems like a simple equation: When fewer workers are available, employers have to try harder to compete for them. Certainly that dynamic played a role in the swift wage growth early in the pandemic, when people willing to do in-person jobs — waiters or nurses, for example — were in especially short supply.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

  • in

    Logging Is the Deadliest Job, but Still an Oregon Way of Life

    In southwestern Oregon, semi trucks loaded with logs snake along roads through dark, lush forests of Douglas fir. The logging industry has shaped and sustained families here for generations.A steady demand for lumber and a lack of other well-paying jobs in rural parts of the state have made logging one of the most promising career paths.It also comes with grave risk.A glossary of logging terms includes an entry for heavy broken branches that can fall without warning: widowmakers.Inside the Deadliest Job in AmericaMostly employed in densely forested pockets of the Pacific Northwest and the South, loggers have the highest rate of fatal on-the-job injuries of any civilian occupation in the nation, outpacing roofers, hunters and underground mining machine operators.About 100 of every 100,000 logging workers die from work injuries, compared with four per 100,000 for all workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Logs stacked for shipment at a port in North Bend, Ore.“There is a mix of physical factors — heavy equipment and, of course, the massive trees,” said Marissa Baker, a professor of occupational health at the University of Washington who has researched the logging industry. “Couple that with steep terrain and unforgiving weather and the rural aspect of the work, and it leads to great danger.”In the most rural stretches of Oregon, where swaths have been scarred by the clear-cutting of trees, many workers decide the risk is worth it. Most loggers here earn around $29 an hour. And average timber industry wages are 17 percent higher than local private-sector wages, according to a recent report from the Oregon Department of Administrative Services.Logging operates mostly year round, with workers usually bouncing among companies — sometimes called outfits — where pay can vary according to the specific job that needs to be done. But the industry has declined steeply since the 1990s, partly because of competition from other countries, including Brazil and Canada, and years of legal battles as conservationists seek to limit logging in old-growth forests.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

  • in

    NLRB Bars Mandatory Anti-Union Meetings After Amazon Draws Complaint

    The ruling, stemming from a complaint against Amazon, bars companies from compelling workers to attend meetings on unionization’s downsides.The National Labor Relations Board ruled on Wednesday that companies may not compel workers to attend meetings on the downsides of unionization, a tactic that unions say stifles worker organizing.The decision, the latest in a slew of labor board rulings under the Biden administration aimed at supporting workers’ right to unionize, stems from a complaint over Amazon’s conduct before a successful union election in 2022 at a Staten Island warehouse, the first Amazon warehouse in the nation to unionize. The company held hundreds of meetings there and at another location to discourage workers from supporting a union.The N.L.R.B.’s ban on so-called captive audience meetings is a precedent with potential impact beyond Amazon, though it could be reversed after President-elect Donald J. Trump takes office. Facing a wave of union campaigns since the onset of the pandemic, large employers including Starbucks, Trader Joe’s and REI have held such meetings in what labor regulators and unions have described as an effort to clamp down on organizing. The companies have denied accusations of anti-union campaigns.These meetings, which employees are often required to attend, give employers “near-unfettered freedom to force their message about unionization on workers,” Lauren McFerran, the Democratic chairman of the labor board, said in a statement. She added that they undermine employees’ ability to choose whether they want union representation, a right guaranteed under federal law.“Today’s decision better protects workers’ freedom to make their own choices in exercising their rights,” Ms. McFerran said, “while ensuring that employers can convey their views about unionization in a noncoercive manner.”Amazon intends to appeal the decision, said Mary Kate Paradis, a company spokeswoman, calling the ruling a violation of the First Amendment and adding that it “contradicts the express language” of the National Labor Relations Act. Meetings are often held “because the decision about whether or not to join a union is an important one, and employees deserve to understand the facts so they can make an informed choice,” she said in a statement.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

  • in

    How Trump’s Immigration Plans Could Affect the Economy

    Expelling noncitizens on a mass scale is likely to raise prices on goods and services and lower employment rates for U.S. workers, many economists say.The wave of migrants who arrived during the Biden administration fueled some of the anger that propelled Donald J. Trump back to power. They also offset a labor shortage, putting a damper on inflation.With the next administration vowing to seal the border and carry out the largest deportation program in American history, those economic forces could reverse — depending on the degree to which Mr. Trump can fulfill those promises.Mr. Trump’s newly appointed “border czar,” Tom Homan, has said that the administration would start with the immigrants who have committed crimes. There are not nearly enough of those to amount to removals on a mass scale, however, and Vice President-elect JD Vance has also said that all 11 million undocumented immigrants should prepare to leave. “If you are in this country illegally in six months, pack your bags, because you’re going home,” Mr. Vance said in September.The numbers could rise by another 2.7 million if the new administration revokes several types of temporary humanitarian protection, as the Trump adviser Stephen Miller previewed last year. On top of that, millions of undocumented residents live with U.S.-born children or green card holders who could end up leaving the country as well.There are logistical, legal, diplomatic and — even though Mr. Trump has said there is “no price tag” he wouldn’t direct the government to pay — fiscal obstacles to expelling millions of people who would rather stay. (According to the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group for immigrants, it would cost $315 billion to arrest, detain, and deport all 13.3 million living in the United States illegally or under a revocable temporary status.)That’s why forecasting a precise impact is impossible at this point. But if Mr. Trump accomplishes anything close to what he has pledged, many economists expect higher prices on goods and services and possibly lower employment rates for American workers.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

  • in

    Trump Is Expected to Upend Biden Labor Policies Favoring Unions

    After gains by organized labor under President Biden, a second Trump administration is likely to change course on regulation and enforcement.Joseph R. Biden Jr. promised to be the most pro-labor president in history. He embraced unions more overtly than his predecessors in either party, and filled his administration with union supporters.Labor seemed to respond accordingly. Filings for unionization elections spiked to their highest level in a decade, as did union victories. There were breakthroughs at companies like Starbucks and Amazon, and unions prevailed in organizing a major foreign auto plant in the South. A United Automobile Workers walkout yielded substantial contract gains — and images of Mr. Biden joining a picket line.As Donald J. Trump prepares to retake the White House, labor experts expect the legal landscape for labor to turn sharply in another direction.Based on Mr. Trump’s first term and his comments during the campaign — including his praise for Tesla’s chief executive, Elon Musk, for what he said was Mr. Musk’s willingness to fire striking workers — these experts say the new administration is likely to bring fewer challenges to employers who fight unions. “There will be a concerted effort to repeal pro-worker N.L.R.B. precedents,” said Heidi Shierholz, a senior Labor Department official during the Obama administration, referring to the National Labor Relations Board.Experts like Ms. Shierholz, who is now president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute, said they also expected the Trump administration to ease up on enforcing safety rules, to narrow eligibility for overtime pay and to make it harder for gig workers to gain status as employees.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