Labor and Jobs

More stories

  • 75 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Why the Federal Reserve Won’t Commit

    by

    Facing huge economic uncertainty, the Fed is keeping its options open. Jerome H. Powell, its chair, will most likely continue that approach on Tuesday.Mark Carney, the former Bank of England governor, was once labeled the United Kingdom’s “unreliable boyfriend” because his institution had left markets confused about its intentions. Jerome H. Powell’s Federal Reserve circa 2023 could be accused of a related rap: fear of commitment.Mr. Powell’s Fed is in the process of raising interest rates to slow the economy and bring rapid inflation under control, and investors and households alike are trying to guess what the central bank will do in the months ahead, during a confusing economic moment. Growth, which was moderating, has recently shown signs of strength.Mr. Powell and his colleagues have been fuzzy about how they will respond. They have shown little appetite for speeding up rate increases again but have not fully ruled out the possibility of doing so. They have avoided laying out clear criteria for when the Fed will know it has raised interest rates to a sufficiently high level. And while they say rates will need to stay elevated for some time, they have been ambiguous about what factors will tell them how long is long enough.As with anyone who’s reluctant to define the relationship, there is a method to the Fed’s wily ways. At a vastly uncertain moment in the American economy, central bankers want to keep their options open.Strong consumer spending and inflation data have surprised economists.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesFed officials got burned in 2021. They communicated firm plans to leave interest rates low to bolster the economy for a long time, only to have the world change with the onset of rapid and wholly unexpected inflation. Policymakers couldn’t rapidly reverse course without causing upheaval — breakups take time, in monetary policy as in life. Thanks to the delay, the Fed spent 2022 racing to catch up with its new reality.This year, policymakers are retaining room to maneuver. That has become especially important in recent weeks, as strong consumer spending and inflation data have surprised economists and created a big, unanswered question: Is the pickup a blip being caused by unusually mild winter weather that has encouraged activities like shopping and construction, or is the economy reaccelerating in a way that will force the Fed to react?Mr. Powell will have a chance to explain how the central bank is thinking about the latest data, and how it might respond, when he testifies on Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee and on Wednesday before the House Financial Services Committee. But while he will most likely face questions on the speed and scope of the Fed’s future policy changes, economists think he is unlikely to clearly commit to any one path.“The Fed is very much in data-dependent mode,” said Subadra Rajappa, the head of U.S. rates strategy at Société Générale. “We really don’t have a lot of clarity on the inflation dynamics.”Data dependence is a common central bank practice at fraught economic moments: Officials move carefully on a meeting-by-meeting basis to avoid making a mistake, like raising rates by more than is necessary and precipitating a painful recession. It’s the approach the Bank of England was embracing in 2014 when a member of Parliament likened it to a fickle date, “one day hot, one day cold.”Inflation F.A.Q.Card 1 of 5What is inflation? More

  • 100 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    You’re Now a ‘Manager.’ Forget About Overtime Pay.

    by

    New evidence shows that many employers are mislabeling rank-and-file workers as managers to avoid paying them overtime.For four years beginning in 2014, Tiffany Palliser worked at Panera Bread in South Florida, making salads and operating the register for shifts that began at 5 a.m. and often ran late into the afternoon.Ms. Palliser estimates that she worked at least 50 hours a week on average. But she says she did not receive overtime pay.The reason? Panera officially considered her a manager and paid her an annual salary rather than on an hourly basis. Ms. Palliser said she was often told that “this is what you signed up for” by becoming an assistant manager.Federal law requires employers to pay time-and-a-half overtime to hourly workers after 40 hours, and to most salaried workers whose salary is below a certain amount, currently about $35,500 a year. Companies need not pay overtime to salaried employees who make above that amount if they are bona fide managers.Many employers say managers who earn relatively modest salaries have genuine responsibility and opportunities to advance. The National Retail Federation, a trade group, has written that such management positions are “key steps on the ladder of professional success, especially for many individuals who do not have college degrees.”But according to a recent paper by three academics, Lauren Cohen, Umit Gurun and N. Bugra Ozel, many companies provide salaries just above the federal cutoff to frontline workers and mislabel them as managers to deny them overtime.Because the legal definition of a manager is vague and little known — the employee’s “primary” job must be management, and the employee must have real authority — the mislabeled managers find it hard to push back, even if they mostly do grunt work.The paper found that from 2010 to 2018, manager titles in a large database of job postings were nearly five times as common among workers who were at the federal salary cutoff for mandatory overtime or just above it as they were among workers just below the cutoff.“To believe this would happen without this kind of gaming going on is ridiculous,” Dr. Cohen, a Harvard Business School professor, said in an interview.Under federal law, employers are required to pay time-and-a-half overtime to salaried workers after 40 hours if they make about $35,500 or less.Scott McIntyre for The New York TimesDr. Cohen and his co-authors estimate that the practice of mislabeling workers as managers to deny them overtime, which often relies on dubious-sounding titles like “lead reservationist” and “food cart manager,” cost the workers about $4 billion per year, or more than $3,000 per mislabeled employee.And the practice appears to be on the rise: Dr. Cohen said the number of jobs with dubious-sounding managerial titles grew over the period he and his co-authors studied.Federal data appear to underscore the trend, showing that the number of managers in the labor force increased more than 25 percent from 2010 to 2019, while the overall number of workers grew roughly half that percentage.From 2019 to 2021, the work force shrank by millions while the number of managers did not budge. Lawyers representing workers said they suspected that businesses mislabeled employees as managers even more often during the pandemic to save on overtime while they were short-handed.“There were shortages of people who had kids at home,” said Catherine Ruckelshaus, the general counsel of the National Employment Law Project, a worker advocacy group. “I’m sure that elevated the stakes.”But Ed Egee, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, argued that labor shortages most likely cut the other way, giving low-level managers the leverage to negotiate more favorable pay, benefits and schedules. “I would almost say there’s never been a time when those workers are more empowered,” he said. (Pay for all workers grew much faster than pay for managers from 2019 to 2021, though pay for managers grew slightly faster last year.)Experts say the denial of overtime pay is part of a broader strategy to drive down labor costs in recent decades by staffing stores with as few workers as possible. If a worker calls in sick, or more customers turn up than expected, the misclassified manager is often asked to perform the duties of a rank-and-file worker without additional cost to the employer.“This allows them to make sure they’re not staffing any more than they need to,” said Deirdre Aaron, a former Labor Department lawyer who has litigated numerous overtime cases in private practice. “They have assistant managers there who can pick up the slack.”Ms. Palliser said that her normal shift at Panera ran from 5 a.m. to 2 p.m., but that she was often called in to help close the store when it was short-staffed. If an employee did not show up for an afternoon shift, she typically had to stay late to cover.Gonzalo Espinosa said that he had often worked 80 hours a week as the manager of a Jack in the Box but that he had not received overtime pay.Max Whittaker for The New York Times“I would say, ‘My kids get out of school at 2. I have to go pick them up, I can’t keep doing this,’” said Ms. Palliser, who made from about $32,000 to $40,000 a year as an assistant manager. She said her husband later quit his job to help with their child-care responsibilities.She won a portion of a multimillion-dollar settlement under a lawsuit accusing a Panera franchisee, Covelli Enterprises, of failing to pay overtime to hundreds of assistant managers. Panera and representatives of the franchise did not respond to requests for comment.Gassan Marzuq, who earned a salary of around $40,000 a year as the manager of a Dunkin’ Donuts for several years until 2012, said in a lawsuit that he had worked roughly 70 hours or more in a typical week. He testified that he had spent 90 percent of his time on tasks like serving customers and cleaning, and that he could not delegate this work “because you’re always short on staff.”Mr. Marzuq eventually won a settlement worth $50,000. A lawyer for T.J. Donuts, the owner of the Dunkin’ Donuts franchise, said the company disputed Mr. Marzuq’s claims and maintained “that he was properly classified as a manager.”Workers and their lawyers said employers exploited their desire to move up the ranks in order to hold down labor costs.“Some of us want a better opportunity, a better life for our families,” said Gonzalo Espinosa, who said that in 2019 he often worked 80 hours a week as the manager of a Jack in the Box in California but that he did not receive overtime pay. “They use our weakness for their advantage.”Mr. Espinosa said his salary of just over $30,000 was based on an hourly wage of about $16 for a 40-hour workweek, implying that his true hourly wage was closer to half that amount — and well below the state’s minimum wage. The franchise did not respond to requests for comment.The paper by Dr. Cohen and his co-authors includes evidence that companies that are financially strapped are more likely to misclassify regular workers as managers, and that this tactic is especially common in low-wage industries like retail, dining and janitorial services.Still, lawyers who bring such cases say the practice also occurs regularly in white-collar industries such as tech and banking.When companies are financially strapped or in low-wage industries like retail and fast food, they are more likely to misclassify regular workers as managers, a recent report found.Max Whittaker for The New York Times“They have a job title like relationship manager or personal banker, and they greet you, try to get you to open account,” said Justin Swartz, a partner at the firm Outten & Golden. “They’re not managers at all.”Mr. Swartz, who estimated that he had helped bring more than two dozen overtime cases against banks, said some involved a so-called branch manager inside a big-box store who was the only bank employee on site and largely performed the duties of a teller.The practice appears to have become more difficult to root out in recent years, as more employers have required workers to sign contracts with mandatory arbitration clauses that preclude lawsuits.Many of the cases “are not economically viable anymore,” said Mr. Swartz, citing the increased difficulty of bringing them individually through arbitration.Some lawyers said only an increase in the limit below which workers automatically receive overtime pay is likely to meaningfully rein in misclassification. With a higher cutoff, simply paying workers overtime is often cheaper than avoiding overtime costs by substantially increasing their pay and labeling them managers.“That’s why companies fought it so hard under Obama,” said Ms. Aaron, a partner at Winebrake & Santillo, alluding to a 2016 Labor Department rule raising the overtime limit to about $47,500 from about $23,500. A federal judge suspended the rule, arguing that the Obama administration lacked the authority to raise the salary limit by such a large amount.The Trump administration later adopted the current cutoff of about $35,500, and the Biden administration has indicated that it will propose raising the cutoff substantially this year. Business groups say such a change will not help many workers because employers are likely to lower base wages to offset overtime pay. More

  • 125 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Starbucks Violated Labor Law in Buffalo Union Drive, Judge Rules

    by

    The decision cited “egregious and widespread misconduct,” including illegal monitoring and firing of workers. Starbucks signaled that it would appeal.In a sweeping decision, an administrative judge in New York ruled on Wednesday that Starbucks had violated federal labor law dozens of times in responding to a union campaign in the Buffalo area shortly after the campaign began roughly 18 months ago.Michael A. Rosas, a judge for the National Labor Relations Board, concluded that Starbucks had illegally monitored, disciplined and fired employees engaged in union organizing; added workers to stores to dilute support for the union; and promised new benefits to workers in an attempt to defuse support for the union.The ruling mandates the reinstatement of seven Buffalo-area workers who the judge concluded were unlawfully discharged from the company, and back pay and damages to more than two dozen workers who the judge concluded had suffered retaliation that affected their compensation, such as a reduction of hours.In addition, the judge ordered the chief executive of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, to read or be present for the reading of a notice, more than 10 pages long, promising to refrain from committing a series of labor law violations in the future, and to make and distribute a video of the reading.Because of the company’s “egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for the employees’ fundamental rights,” Judge Rosas wrote, it was necessary to issue a broad order requiring Starbucks “to cease and desist from infringing in any other manner on rights guaranteed employees.”“This is truly a historic ruling,” Gary Bonadonna Jr., the regional head of Workers United, the union organizing Starbucks, said in a statement. “We will continue to fight and hold billionaires like Howard Schultz accountable for their actions. We will not rest until every Starbucks worker wins the right to organize.”The ruling can be appealed to the labor board in Washington, and to federal court after that, and Starbucks indicated that it might do so. “We believe the decision and the remedies ordered are inappropriate given the record in this matter and are considering all options to obtain further legal review,” the company said in a statement.The organizing campaign notched its first victory in Buffalo in 2021. Since then, more than 280 of the roughly 9,300 corporate-owned Starbucks locations in the United States have unionized. The ruling covers the period from August 2021 to July 2022, by which point the campaign had spread from the Buffalo area to dozens of stores nationwide.In the early months of the campaign, Starbucks workers complained that executives and other company officials were converging on Buffalo in an attempt to undermine their unionization effort.Judge Rosas found that Starbucks had violated labor law by “having high-ranking company officials make repeated and unprecedented visits to stores in order to more closely supervise, monitor or create the impression that employees’ union activities are under surveillance.”He also ordered the company to bargain with the union at a Buffalo-area location where the union lost an election in December 2021, concluding that the scope of the violations at the store tainted the vote and made a rerun of the election an “insufficient” remedy.It is rare but not unprecedented for a judge to effectively order in a union upon concluding that it had support among workers but that a fair vote is nearly impossible. More

  • 100 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Nominates Julie Su as US Labor Secretary

    by

    President Biden’s choice to lead the Labor Department is the deputy to the incumbent, Martin J. Walsh, who is leaving the administration.President Biden on Tuesday announced his intention to nominate Julie Su, the deputy labor secretary, to succeed Labor Secretary Martin J. Walsh, who has said he plans to leave his position in March.Ms. Su has helped oversee the Department of Labor during an administration that has made strong overtures to organized labor and to workers, both by communicating support for workers who are striking or seeking to unionize and through a series of regulatory, enforcement and legislative actions.Among those initiatives are a rule that would make it more likely for workers to be considered employees, granting them access to a minimum wage and unemployment insurance, and legislation that provides incentives to owners of clean energy projects to pay wages similar to union rates.Ms. Su’s contribution to these administration achievements won her widespread backing from labor unions.“Julie Su is broadly respected by unions, cares about the plight of workers, and folks appreciate her ability to manage the plumbing inside of D.O.L. and make the case to the world,” said Patrick Gaspard, a former senior union official and ambassador to South Africa who now heads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.If confirmed, Ms. Su will take over the department at a time of rising interest in labor organizing. The labor secretary has little formal role in promoting unionization; it is the National Labor Relations Board that enforces labor rights. But Mr. Biden leaned on his first labor secretary to encourage workers to unionize, appointing Mr. Walsh to a task force to explore ways to increase union membership and including him in a White House meeting with union organizers.Ms. Su would probably be deployed in a similar way and make the case for legislation that the administration had failed to enact, which could benefit Mr. Biden politically even if it was unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House over the next two years.Among the assignments that may land on her desk are promoting the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or PRO Act, which would make it easier for workers to unionize by threatening fines for employers that violated labor law, and elevating the importance of workers in service professions like child care and home care.Mr. Biden has proposed spending hundreds of billions of dollars to benefit care workers, but the proposals were largely absent from the legislation that Congress passed during his first two years in office. The PRO Act passed the House in 2021 but stalled in the Senate. It was reintroduced in Congress on Tuesday.In his announcement, Mr. Biden urged the Senate to advance Ms. Su’s nomination quickly “so that we can finish the job for America’s workers,” a refrain he appears to have adopted in support of an expected re-election campaign..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.If she is confirmed, Ms. Su’s opportunities to advance a new regulatory agenda will also be somewhat limited. As deputy labor secretary, she helped oversee the department’s push for rules designed to protect workers from Covid-19; a rule making it more likely for workers in the gig economy and elsewhere to be classified as employees rather than contractors; and a rule that would most likely raise the wages paid to workers on federally funded construction projects. The latter two rules have yet to be made final.Some Republicans cited concern over her involvement in advancing such regulations. “Deputy Secretary Su has a troubling record and is currently overseeing the Department of Labor’s development of anti-worker regulations that will dismantle the gig economy,” said Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the ranking Republican on the committee that will hold a hearing on her nomination, in a statement on Tuesday.But few high-profile regulatory items remain. The most prominent is a move to raise the cutoff below which most salaried workers are automatically eligible for time-and-a-half overtime pay. The current cutoff is about $35,500, and the Biden administration is expected to propose raising it substantially, likely setting up a challenge from the business community.A federal judge struck down a 2016 rule put forth by the Obama administration raising the cutoff to about $47,500.Ms. Su, a speaker of Mandarin whose parents were immigrants, served as head of California’s Labor and Workforce Development Agency before joining the Biden administration in 2021.The agency won praise from worker groups for being quick to establish rules protecting workers from hazards related to Covid-19, but critics highlighted accusations that the agency paid out billions in fraudulent unemployment claims. Ms. Su conceded that a large number of unemployment insurance payouts during the pandemic had been improper, and Republicans cited those accusations in opposing her 2021 nomination as deputy, which the Senate approved, 50 to 47.For several years before taking over the Labor and Workforce Development Agency in 2019, Ms. Su served as California’s labor commissioner — its top enforcer of minimum-wage and overtime laws. In that capacity, she was known as an innovative regulator, reorienting the agency so that it relied on worker complaints as the basis for investigations rather than random inspections of workplaces.She helped draw attention to cases in which employers cheated workers on minimum-wage and overtime payments with a public-relations campaign announcing that “Wage Theft Is a Crime.”Before entering government, she was known for her work in the 1990s on behalf of several dozen Thai seamstresses who had been forced to work in a Southern California sweatshop for far below the minimum wage until the authorities freed them. Ms. Su helped the workers win compensation from the companies that used the sweatshop as a supplier. The MacArthur Foundation cited her work on behalf of the workers when it awarded her a “genius” grant in 2001. More

  • 150 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    What’s in the CHIPS Act, Aimed at Childcare Expansion and National Security

    by

    A sprawling new program for the semiconductor industry is foremost about national security, but it will try to advance other priorities as well.The Biden administration unveiled rules Tuesday for its “Chips for America” program to build up semiconductor research and manufacturing in the United States, beginning a new rush toward federal funding in the sector.The Commerce Department has $50 billion to hand out in the form of direct funding, federal loans and loan guarantees. It is one of the largest federal investments in a single industry in decades and highlights deepening concern in Washington about America’s dependence on foreign chips.Given the huge cost of building highly advanced semiconductor facilities, the funding could go fast, and competition for the money has been intense.Here’s a look at the CHIPS and Science Act, what it aims to do and how it will work.Funding chip production and researchThe largest portion of the money— $39 billion — will go to fund the construction of new and expanded manufacturing facilities. Another $11 billion will be distributed later this year to support research into new chip technologies.The bulk of the manufacturing money is likely to go to a few companies that produce the world’s most advanced semiconductors — including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Samsung Electronics, Micron Technology and, perhaps in the future, Intel — to help them build U.S. facilities.Some will go to makers of older chips that are still essential for cars, appliances and weapons, as well as suppliers of raw materials for the industry and companies that package the chips into their final products.While some critics have questioned the wisdom of giving grants to a profitable industry, semiconductor executives argue that they have little incentive to invest in the United States, given the higher costs of workers and running a factory.The Global Race for Computer ChipsU.S. Industrial Policy: In return for vast subsidies, the Biden administration is asking chip manufacturers to make promises about their workers and finances, including providing affordable child care.Arizona Factory: Internal doubts are mounting at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s biggest maker of advanced chips, over its investment in a new factory in Phoenix.CHIPS Act: Semiconductor companies, which united to get the sprawling $280 billion bill approved last year, have set off a lobbying frenzy as they argue for more cash than their competitors.A Ramp-Up in Spending: Amid a tech cold war with China, U.S. companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for chip manufacturing projects since early 2020. But the investments have limits.The administration does not plan to fund entire projects: Biden administration officials say they plan to offer grants of between 5 to 15 percent of a company’s capital expenditures for a project, with funding not expected to exceed 35 percent of the cost. Companies can also apply for a tax credit reimbursing them for 25 percent of project construction.Limiting foreign dependenceGina Raimondo, the secretary of commerce, describes the program as foremost a national security initiative.While the United States is still a leader in designing chips, most manufacturing has been sent offshore. Today, more than 90 percent of the most technologically advanced chips, which are critical for the U.S. military and the economy, are produced in Taiwan. That has prompted concerns about the supply’s vulnerability, given China’s aggression toward Taiwan and the potential for a military invasion of the island.At the same time, China has increased its market share in less advanced chips that are still critical for cars, electronics and other products. The United States manufactures 12 percent of chips, though none of the world’s most advanced.Chip shortages during the pandemic forced factories to halt work and brought home in a tangible way how vulnerable the supply chain is to disruption. Workers at Ford Motor factories in Michigan and Indiana worked a full week just three times last year because of a chips shortage, Ms. Raimondo said in a speech at Georgetown University last week. That helped create a car shortage and raise the price of cars, stoking inflation.The Commerce Department says the program will also provide the Department of Defense and the national security community with a domestic source of the world’s most advanced chips.An Intel factory under construction in Arizona. The Biden administration unveiled the rules for its program to build up U.S. semiconductor research and manufacturing.Philip Cheung for The New York TimesBuilding chip hubsAccording to Ms. Raimondo, the goal is to build at least two U.S. manufacturing clusters to produce the most advanced types of logic chips, as well as facilities for other kinds of chips, and complex supply networks to support them.Commerce officials have declined to speculate where these facilities might be, saying they must review applications. But chip makers have already announced billions of dollars in plans for new investments around the United States.TSMC, which produces most of the world’s leading-edge chips, has been busy expanding in Arizona, while No. 2 Samsung is growing in Texas. Micron, which makes advanced memory chips, has announced big expansion plans in New York. And Intel, a U.S. technology giant that is investing heavily to try to capture a technological edge, has broken ground on a “megasite” in Ohio.Ms. Raimondo has said the vision is to restore the United States to a position of leadership in semiconductor technology, to the point where every major global chip company wants to have both research and manufacturing facilities in the United States.Still, there is skepticism about how much the program can do. One 2020 study, for example, found that a $50 billion investment in the industry would increase U.S. market share only to 14 percent.Protecting taxpayer fundsThe stakes are high for the Biden administration to prove this foray into industrial policy can work. Critics have argued that the federal government may not be the best judge of winners and losers. If the administration gets it wrong, it could face intense criticism.The Commerce Department said it would look closely at companies that applied for funding, to try to ensure that they were not being given more taxpayer dollars than they needed.In a decision that may irk some companies, the department said projects receiving grants would be required to share a portion of any unanticipated profits with the federal government, to ensure that companies gave accurate financial projections and didn’t exaggerate costs to get bigger awards.The Commerce Department also said it would dole out funding over time as companies hit project milestones, and give preference to those that pledged to refrain from stock buybacks, which tend to enrich shareholders and corporate executives by increasing a company’s share price.Companies are also barred from making new, high-tech investments in China or other “countries of concern” for at least a decade, to try to ensure that taxpayer money does not go to fund new operations in China.But analysts said it remained to be seen how difficult it would be to enforce these provisions. Company finances can be opaque, and when a company saves a dollar in the United States, it may then choose to invest it elsewhere.Helping workers by attaching big stringsThe program also includes some ambitious and unusual requirements aimed at benefiting the people who will staff semiconductor facilities.For one, the department will require companies seeking awards of $150 million or more to guarantee affordable, high-quality child care for plant construction workers and operators. This could include building company child care centers near construction sites or new plants, paying local child care providers to add capacity at an affordable cost or directly subsidizing workers’ care costs. Ms. Raimondo has said child care will draw more people into the work force, when many businesses are struggling in a tight labor market.Applicants are also required to detail their engagement with labor unions, schools and work force education programs, with preference given to projects that benefit communities and workers.Other provisions will encourage companies, universities and other parties to offer more training for workers, both in advanced sciences and in skills like welding. The department said it would give preference to projects for which state and local governments were providing incentives with “spillover” benefits for communities, like work force training, education investment or infrastructure construction.This is part of the Biden administration’s “worker-centered” approach to economic policy, which seeks to use the might of the federal government to benefit workers. But some critics say it could put the program’s goal of building the most advanced semiconductor factories at risk, if it adds excessive costs to new projects. More

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    To Tap Federal Funds, Chip Makers Will Need to Provide Child Care

    by

    The move seeks to help more women join the work force as industry leaders complain of labor shortages.WASHINGTON — The Biden administration plans to leverage the federal government’s expansive investment in the semiconductor industry to make progress on another goal: affordable child care.On Tuesday, the Commerce Department will announce that any semiconductor manufacturer seeking a slice of nearly $40 billion in new federal subsidies will need to essentially guarantee affordable, high-quality child care for workers who build or operate a plant.Last year, a bipartisan group of lawmakers passed the CHIPS Act, which devoted $39 billion to directly boost U.S. semiconductor factories as part of $52 billion in subsidies for the industry, in hopes of making the nation less reliant on foreign suppliers for critical chips that power computers, video games, cars and more.Companies that receive the subsidies to build new plants will be able to use some of the government money to meet the new child care requirement. They could do that in a number of ways, in consultation with Commerce officials, who will set basic guidelines but not dictate how companies ensure workers have access to care they can afford.That could include building company child-care centers near construction sites or new plants, paying local child-care providers to add capacity at an affordable cost for workers, directly subsidizing workers’ care costs or other, similar steps that would ensure workers have access to care for their children.American employers, including manufacturers, are increasingly raising concerns that a lack of access to affordable child care is blocking millions of Americans from looking for work, particularly women. President Biden pushed Congress to address those concerns over the last two years, proposing hundreds of billions of dollars for new child care programs, but he was unable to corral support from even a majority of Senate Democrats.But Mr. Biden did convince lawmakers to approve a range of new spending programs seeking to boost American manufacturing. Now, Commerce is trying to utilize a centerpiece of those efforts, which aims to expand American semiconductor manufacturing, to make at least a small dent in his large goals for the so-called care economy.The Global Race for Computer ChipsA Ramp-Up in Spending: Amid a tech cold war with China, U.S. companies have pledged nearly $200 billion for chip manufacturing projects since early 2020. But the investments have limits.Crackdown on China: The United States has been aiming to prevent China from becoming an advanced power in chips, issuing sweeping restrictions on the country’s access to advanced technology.Arizona Factory: Internal doubts are mounting at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the world’s biggest maker of advanced chips, over its investment in a new factory in Phoenix.CHIPS Act: Semiconductor companies, which united to get the sprawling $280 billion bill approved last year, have set off a lobbying frenzy as they argue for more cash than their competitors.It joins a growing list of administration efforts to expand the reach of Mr. Biden’s economic policies beyond their primary intent. For instance, administration officials have attached stringent labor standards and “Buy America” provisions to money from a bipartisan infrastructure law. The child care requirement will be flexible for chip makers, but it will almost certainly divert some subsidy dollars that are meant to expand factory capacity and create jobs.The Commerce Department is expected to release its application on Tuesday, allowing companies to begin making a case for federal subsidies that the industry lobbied hard to secure from Congress.The prospect of accessing those funds has already enticed domestic and foreign-owned chip makers to announce billions of dollars in plans for new investments in Arizona, central New York and elsewhere.But even as they ramp up investments, companies are complaining of difficulties in finding workers to build and operate manufacturing facilities.America’s child care industry has not fully rebounded from the pandemic recession. It is still about 58,000 workers, or 5 percentage points, short of its prepandemic peak, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by the Center for the Study of Childcare Employment at the University of California-Berkeley.Shortly before the pandemic, the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington surveyed 35 states and found more than 11 million children had a potential need for child care — yet fewer than 8 million slots were available.That shortage is particularly acute in some of the areas where manufacturers are set to begin building new chip plants spurred by the new legislation. Commerce Department officials calculate that in the Syracuse area, where Micron announced a $100 billion chip making investment last year after Mr. Biden signed the new law, the need for slots in child care facilities is nearly three times the size of the actual care capacity in the region.In Phoenix, where semiconductor manufacturing is booming, child care costs consume about 18 percent of a typical construction or manufacturing worker’s salary. That share is higher than the national average.Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, center, with Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York, said that the child care requirements should help companies hire mothers, easing a labor shortage.Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesGina Raimondo, the Commerce secretary, said in an interview that the child-care requirements should help companies cope with a tight labor market by making it easier for them to attract and retain caregivers who have been kept from working by difficulties finding care for their children.In a speech last week, Ms. Raimondo called efforts to attract more women to the work force “a simple question of math” for industries complaining of labor shortages. “We need chip manufacturers, construction companies and unions to work with us toward the national goal of hiring and training another million women in construction over the next decade to meet the demand not just in chips, but other industries and infrastructure projects as well,” she said.Only about 3 in 10 U.S. manufacturing workers are women. Ms. Raimondo said the CHIPS Act would fail if the administration did not help companies change those numbers, by bringing in women who have children.“You will not be successful unless you find a way to attract, train, put to work and retain women, and you won’t do that without child care,” Ms. Raimondo said in an interview.The Commerce requirement would represent a relatively small step toward Mr. Biden’s much larger, and as-yet unfulfilled, child care ambitions.Mr. Biden unveiled a $4 trillion economic agenda in the months after he took office. It was split into two parts. One focused on physical investments: repairing bridges and water pipes, laying broadband cable, spurring a shift to low-emission sources of energy and catalyzing new manufacturing capacity to compete on a global stage. It was a source of repeated legislative success for the president, who signed a bipartisan infrastructure bill, the CHIPS bill and a climate, health and tax bill that passed with only Democratic votes.But Mr. Biden failed to persuade centrist holdouts in his party, like Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, to back most of the provisions in the second half of his agenda. Those were largely the president’s plans to invest in people: federally guaranteed paid leave; subsidized care for children, the disabled and older Americans; universal prekindergarten; free community college for all, and more.The lopsided nature of Mr. Biden’s success threatens to exacerbate existing gender disparities in the economy. Some economists warn they could hinder future economic growth. Many of Mr. Biden’s people-focused programs were deliberately aimed at boosting female participation in the work force.It could be years before Democrats have another opportunity to pass those programs. Republicans won control of the House of Representatives last fall and roundly oppose Mr. Biden on new spending proposals and the tax increases on corporations and high earners that he has called for to cover that spending. Progressive groups and liberal lawmakers largely concede there is little chance of a child care bill making its way to Mr. Biden’s desk before the 2024 election.When it became clear last year that sweeping plans to expand and subsidize child care would not make it into the climate, health and tax bill that marked the culmination of Mr. Biden’s economic efforts in Congress, Ms. Raimondo gathered aides around a conference table. She told them, she said, that “if Congress wasn’t going to do what they should have done, we’re going to do it in implementation” of the bills that did pass.Some American manufacturers have already turned to on-site care facilities to help meet workers needs. The automaker Toyota has provided 24-hour care at a factory in Kentucky since 1993 and one in Indiana since 2004.Chad Moutray, director of the Center for Manufacturing Research at the Manufacturing Institute, which is affiliated with the National Association of Manufacturers, wrote in a report late last year that child care availability is part of the reason women do not seek more jobs in manufacturing.“Women represent a sizable talent pool that manufacturers cannot ignore,” he wrote. More

  • 138 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    What Layoffs? Many Employers Are Eager to Hang On to Workers.

    by

    During the height of the pandemic, hungry and housebound customers clamored for Home Run Inn Pizza’s frozen thin-crust pies. The company did everything to oblige.It kept its machines chugging during lunch breaks and brought on temporary workers to ensure it could produce pizzas at the suddenly breakneck pace.More recently, demand has eased, and Home Run Inn Pizza, based in suburban Chicago, has reversed some of those measures. But it does not plan to lay off any full-time manufacturing employees — even if that means having a few more workers than it needs during its second shift.“We have really good people,” said Nick Perrino, the chief operating officer and a great-grandson of the company’s founder. “And we don’t want to let any of our team members go.”Despite a year of aggressive interest rate increases by the Federal Reserve aimed at taming inflation, and signs that the red-hot labor market is cooling off, most companies have not taken the step of cutting jobs. Outside of some high-profile companies mostly in the tech sector, such as Google’s parent Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft, layoffs in the economy as a whole remain remarkably, even historically, rare.There were fewer layoffs in December than in any month during the two decades before the pandemic, government data show. Filings for unemployment insurance have barely increased. And the unemployment rate, at 3.4 percent, is the lowest since 1969.Layoffs Are Uncommonly Low More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Judge Scales Back Ruling Against Starbucks in Union Fight

    by

    After barring Starbucks from firing any U.S.-based worker over labor activity, a federal judge said he had erred and limited the action to one store.It was the most sweeping intervention by a court in the 18-month campaign to unionize Starbucks: Last week, a federal judge in Michigan issued an order blocking Starbucks from firing any U.S. worker because they engaged in collective action, like seeking to form a union.Union supporters cheered. Starbucks seemed taken aback, calling the order “extraordinary” and “unwarranted” and denying that the company had broken the law.But a few days later, the judge, Mark A. Goldsmith, announced that he had made certain unspecified “errors” and withdrew his earlier injunction. On Thursday, Judge Goldsmith issued a new injunction — only this time it was limited to a store in Michigan where a worker said she had been fired for her involvement in union organizing. The injunction’s national scope had vanished.In a revised opinion accompanying Thursday’s order, Judge Goldsmith said that the key criterion for determining whether to impose a nationwide injunction was whether the company had pursued a general policy of violating labor law. He said that while the National Labor Relations Board had filed about 24 complaints involving roughly 50 workers fired by Starbucks across the country, many of those cases were in their early stages.As a result, Judge Goldsmith concluded, the evidence supported an injunction only at a store in Ann Arbor, Mich., where a labor board judge found in October that a worker had illegally been fired.Legal experts said that the original injunction would have allowed the labor board to seek expedited reinstatement of workers who had been fired at any of the roughly 9,000 corporate-owned Starbucks stores in the country, and that it could have led to fines if the court found that Starbucks was continuing to fire workers for union organizing. Now those measures will apply only to a single store.The general counsel of the labor board, who oversees the office that had gone to federal court seeking the worker’s reinstatement, called the reversal disappointing but said in a statement that “the judge’s revised order still provides critical protection for the workers at Starbucks’ Ann Arbor store.” The statement said the agency would continue to seek nationwide remedies for labor law violations “as appropriate.”The union, Workers United, said it would “continue to fight for a national remedy to address Starbucks’ unprecedented union-busting campaign and hold the company accountable for their actions.”A Starbucks spokesman said, “We are pleased that the court rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s overreaching and inappropriate request for a nationwide cease-and-desist order as we pursue a full legal review of the merits of the case.”As to why the court initially issued the national injunction before abandoning it, Judge Goldsmith’s opinion did not elaborate.Legal experts said they couldn’t recall seeing a judge make a similar about-face. “I don’t think I can think of anything like this,” Wilma Liebman, a former chairwoman of the National Labor Relations Board, said in an email.Ms. Liebman said the most plausible explanation she could imagine was that the board had provided the judge with the order it was seeking, and that the judge had incorporated the order without sufficient modification — “careless but not intentionally mistaken,” Ms. Liebman said.A clerk reached at the court said the judge could not comment. More