More stories

  • in

    Biden to Emphasize Job Market Gains During State of the Union Address

    President Biden is poised to talk up the striking progress the labor market has made during the first year of his presidency — and it is true that the snapback has been rapid, exceeding most economists expectations.But the breakneck pace of hiring needs to be understood in context, because it happened as the labor market was clambering back from pandemic lockdowns that caused millions of jobs to disappear practically overnight.Overall employment might be the easiest way to understand what has gone on in the labor market since the pandemic began to bite in March 2020. About 152.5 million people had jobs in February 2020; by May 2020, that had dropped to 133 million. Between then and mid-January 2021, the final months of Donald J. Trump’s administration, the job market added back about half of the jobs it lost and employment rose to 143 million.Since Mr. Biden took office on Jan. 20, 2021, the economy has added back about 6.6 million jobs — a number Mr. Biden will emphasize, his administration said ahead of the Tuesday night speech, noting that the progress made for “one of the strongest labor market recoveries in American history.”Employment ReboundJob gains bounced back rapidly following abrupt layoffs at the start of the pandemic.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Total nonfarm employment, seasonally adjusted
    Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesThe unemployment rate has fallen swiftly and now stands at 4 percent — down from a 14.7 percent peak in May 2020. Economists in a Bloomberg survey expect the February rate, which will be released on Friday, to be down to 3.9 percent. That progress has come much more quickly than many economists, including officials at the Federal Reserve, had anticipated. Meanwhile, job openings have surged and companies are paying up to attract workers.The question is how much of the progress owes to the administration’s policies. Some of it probably can be attributed to them: By pumping money into the economy and stoking consumer demand, the $1.9 trillion aid package Democrats passed last year has created more need for employees and has probably goosed hiring.But strong demand has been a double-edged sword: It has also collided with constrained supply chains to push prices higher, and inflation is eroding wage gains, even as average hourly earnings pick up at the fastest pace in decades across a range of measures, especially for rank-and-file workers and those with less education.In fact, price gains have been so quick that pay has often failed to keep up with them in recent months, on average.Still, the reality that jobs are plentiful and that employers continue to hire voraciously is a positive talking point for the Biden administration as it approaches midterm elections.The president will emphasize the role his policies “played in positioning employers to hire and workers to rejoin the labor force and find higher quality jobs,” according to a White House fact sheet released ahead of Mr. Biden’s remarks. More

  • in

    Inflation Will Loom Over Tonight’s State of the Union

    Timing is not in the president’s favor as elections that could cost his party control of Congress approach, and inflation has yet to fade.[Follow for live updates on Biden’s 2022 State of the Union address.]President Biden is expected to devote much of his State of the Union address to emphasizing how far the economy has come since the pandemic recession, with plentiful jobs and rising wages. But he will also focus on his plans to help slow rapid inflation, underscoring the challenge Democrats face ahead of the midterm elections: Inflation is painfully high, voters are angry, and the tried and true way to bring prices down is by slowing growth and hurting the labor market.Mr. Biden will outline a four-part plan for beating back rapid price increases, including encouraging corporate competition and strengthening a supply chain that has struggled to keep up with consumer demand. Specifically, he will detail an effort to drive down ocean shipping costs, which have soared during the pandemic.But White House policies have historically served as a backup line of defense when it comes to containing inflation, which is primarily the Federal Reserve’s job. The central bank is prepared to move swiftly in the coming months to raise interest rates, making money more expensive to borrow and spend. Higher rates are meant to slow hiring, wage growth and demand enough to tamp down price increases.It is possible that inflation could cool so much on its own this year that the Fed will be able to gently slow the economy toward a sustainable path. But if price gains remain rapid, the Fed’s playbook for combating overheating is by inflicting economic pain.That is why inflation — which is running at the fastest pace in 40 years — is a major liability for the Biden administration. It is undermining consumer confidence by chipping away at paychecks and causing sticker shock for consumers trying to buy groceries, couches or used cars. And the cure could slow a solid economic rebound just as Democrats are trying to make their pitch for re-election to voters.“The biggest problem for President Biden is that there’s no good way to message inflation,” said Jason Furman, a Harvard economist and former White House economic official during the Obama administration. “There’s not a lot that he can do about it, but he can’t get up there and say: The only solution here is patience and the Federal Reserve.”Instead, Mr. Biden plans to argue that his administration’s policies can help to cool down inflation at less of a cost to the economy, by expanding its capacity to produce goods and services, according to White House excerpts from his prepared remarks.“One way to fight inflation is to drive down wages and make Americans poorer,” he will say, referencing the way that central bank policy works. “I have a better plan to fight inflation.”Mr. Furman said that while the solutions the president was expected to lay out — ideas to improve supply chains, produce goods more efficiently, and expand work force opportunities — were “the right things” for the administration to do, the nation should not be “under any illusion that it is going to add up to a lot” in terms of cooling rapid price gains.The president is also expected to use his remarks on Tuesday to try to refocus voters on the economic wins of his presidency.The economy has added 6.6 million jobs back since Mr. Biden took office, unemployment is poised to fall below 4 percent and growth has been more rapid than in many other advanced economies. The strength and scope of the rebound has surprised economists and policymakers, who often credit relief packages rolled out under the Trump and Biden administrations for fomenting such a quick recovery.But some economists warned that the $1.9 trillion legislation the administration ushered through Congress in March 2021 was too big and too poorly targeted, and that it would stoke demand and help to fuel rapid price gains. While fiscal policy was not the only reason inflation popped last year, it does seem to have contributed to high prices by encouraging more consumption.As flush consumers spent strongly in 2020 and last year, and as homebound shoppers bought more goods like easy chairs and computers rather than services like manicures and meals out, supply chains struggled to keep up.The Port of Los Angeles is America’s busiest port. Supply chains have been disrupted as ports became clogged and there were not enough ships to go around.Mark Abramson for The New York TimesVirus outbreaks continued to shut down factories, ports became clogged, and there were not enough ships to go around. The perfect storm of strong buying and limited supply pushed car prices in particular sharply higher, left consumers waiting months on end for new dining room sets, and meant that fancy bicycles were harder to find and afford.And now, inflation has moved past just those goods affected by the pandemic.The cost of food, fuel, housing, vacations, and furniture are all rising rapidly — and as conflict in Russia threatens to further push up gas prices in the coming months, the situation is likely to get worse before it gets better.While the White House spent last year downplaying popping prices, arguing that they would fade with the pandemic as roiled global supply chains righted themselves, nearly a full year of high inflation readings have proved too much to ignore. Climbing costs are eating away at paychecks and helping to drive Mr. Biden’s poll numbers to the lowest point so far in his presidency.“I don’t think that it is going to go away in a way that is going to save the incumbent party by November,” said Neil Dutta, an economist at Renaissance Macro Research. “Even though the labor market is quite strong, it’s not enough to keep pace with the shock people are feeling with respect to inflation.”The Fed is expected to raise interest rates from near-zero at its meeting this month and officials have signaled that they will then make a series of increases throughout the year as they try to put a lid on inflation.The central bank sets policy independently of the White House, and the Biden administration avoids talking about monetary policy out of respect for that tradition. But the timing could be politically tricky. The Fed could prompt an economic pullback that coincides with this autumn’s election season, creating a double whammy for the Democrats in which central bank policy is slowing down job market progress even as inflation has yet to fully fade.That might be especially true if conflict in Ukraine sends fuel prices higher, further stoking inflation and making consumers expect rapid price increases to continue, some economists said.“The Fed has to be more aggressive on inflation,” said Diane Swonk, the chief economist at Grant Thornton. “It could bleed into the unemployment rate by the end of the year.”Mr. Furman said that he thought it was more likely that the Fed’s actions would not inflict too much pain this year, though they might begin to squeeze the job market in 2023. And Mr. Dutta speculated that the Russian invasion of Ukraine could slow the central bank down somewhat, at least in the near-term.“The Fed basically has a choice — they can sink the economy into a recession, or they can let inflation run a little bit,” Mr. Dutta said. “They’re not going to risk a recession with the geopolitical situation we’re in.”The conflict overseas may also give Mr. Biden and Democrats a moment of patriotism to capitalize on. So far, Mr. Biden’s sanctions have been well-received by voters, based on the results of an ABC/Washington Post poll.A diner in New York last month. Inflation is having an impact beyond just the costs of goods. Rent prices are rising, as are the costs of travel and eating out.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesAt the same time, higher gas pump prices resulting from the conflict could further dent consumer confidence. Sentiment has swooned as price increases have climbed, and tends to be very responsive to fuel costs. The price of a barrel of gas climbed above $100 on Tuesday, the highest since 2014, based on a popular benchmark. The question is whether, in the face of rising costs, the administration will be able to turn bright spots — international cooperation and the pace of recent job gains — into something salient for consumers and voters.The answer may hinge on what happens next.Annual price gains are expected to slow down in the coming months as they are measured against relatively high readings from last year, and as supply chain delays ease somewhat. They could moderate even more later this year if the current elevated goods prices come back down, in the most hopeful scenario.If inflation moderates on its own and a relatively small response from the Fed is enough to nudge it down further, the economy could be left with strong growth, a booming labor market and a positive outlook headed into 2023.But increasingly, inflation is expected to fade more slowly.Economists at Goldman Sachs think consumer price inflation could end 2022 at 4.6 percent, more than twice the level it hovered around before the pandemic. That would mark a slowdown — the measure now stands at 7.5 percent — but it would be much higher than what the Fed normally aims for.That would allow the administration to talk about a moderation in price gains, but it might not feel like a significant improvement to consumers as they head to the polls.“Inflation is always political, because it burns, even in a good economy,” Ms. Swonk said. “It creates a sensation of chasing a moving target, which no one likes.” More

  • in

    Starbucks Workers in Mesa, Ariz., Vote for Union

    The victory was the union’s first outside Buffalo and appeared to underscore its momentum in organizing company employees across the country.First they won in Buffalo. Now they’ve scored a victory on the other side of the country.On Friday, the National Labor Relations Board announced that workers at a Starbucks in Mesa, Ariz., had voted 25 to 3 to unionize, with three challenged votes. The result brought the number of company-owned stores with a union to three, out of roughly 9,000 nationwide.The victory was the first for the union since two stores voted to unionize in Buffalo in December, but it could mark the beginning of a larger trend. More than 100 Starbucks stores across more than 25 states have filed petitions for union elections, most of them since that first victory. The next tally will probably come from three more stores in the Buffalo area, where votes have already been cast. Starbucks workers in cities including Boston, Chicago and Seattle are scheduled to vote or are likely to vote in the coming months.“This is another historic moment for Starbucks partners and service industry workers across the country,” Michelle Hejduk, a shift supervisor at the store, said in a statement. “This movement started in Buffalo, and we’ve now brought it across the country.”Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, said in a statement that the company’s position had not changed. “As we have said throughout, we will respect the process and will bargain in good faith guided by our principles,” he said, adding: “We hope that the union does the same.”Lawyers who advise companies on labor relations said Workers United, an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union, appeared to have considerable momentum in organizing Starbucks workers.“Clearly the work force is very sympathetic to what the union is selling,” said Brian West Easley, a management-side lawyer with Jones Day. “Right now, they probably rightfully believe they have the upper hand, given the number of petitions filed each week.”The company has generally sought to challenge the union store by store, contesting the voting pool for each election before the labor board and sending company officials to cities where workers have filed for elections, partly to share its concerns about unionizing. The challenges delayed the counting of votes in Mesa and the second round of Buffalo stores.But Mr. Easley argued that it would become more difficult for Starbucks to sustain that approach if the company continued to suffer defeats, especially as the number of stores filing for elections increases.“The bigger this gets, the more stretched resources become and the more ineffective they become,” he said. “The ability to push back is eroding as the numbers increase.”At least one prominent Starbucks investor echoed that concern, arguing that the company appeared to be wasting money in its efforts to resist the union. “The company is devoting quite a bit of time and money to putting forward these arguments in front of the N.L.R.B.,” said Jonas Kron, the chief advocacy officer of Trillium Asset Management, which makes investments to further environmental, social and governance goals and had a roughly $43 million stake in Starbucks at the end of last year. “It doesn’t feel like they’re using investor resources — stakeholder resources — that well.”Mr. Kron and Trillium have urged the company to take a neutral stand toward the union. Other labor experts suggested it may eventually be forced to do so whether it wants to or not.“I’m sure there will be a tipping point at some point,” said Amy Zdravecky, a management-side lawyer at Barnes & Thornburg. “How many losses do you have before you change strategy?”Ms. Zdravecky added that the union’s ability to win an election in a state not normally sympathetic to organized labor suggested that the campaign had staying power, and that one risk for Starbucks’s approach to opposing the union is that it could begin to alienate the company’s liberal-leaning customer base.“Fighting unions may not align with where they want to be elsewhere,” she said.Many of the issues that workers in Mesa cited in their decision to support the union were similar to those identified by workers in Buffalo, like staffing and Covid-19 safety. Liz Alanna, a shift supervisor at the store, said that customers sometimes waited 45 minutes last fall after submitting a mobile order because there were not enough baristas to handle the volume. “The lobby would be full of people waiting,” Ms. Alanna said. .The Mesa campaign had an additional subplot that raised the stakes for workers. In early October, the store’s manager, Brittany Harrison, was found to have leukemia. The company initially appeared to rally behind her, Ms. Harrison said in an interview, but its posture later changed.“I’d reach out to the district manager and it would go to voice mail or ring forever and she wouldn’t call back,” she said. Ms. Harrison, and other workers like Ms. Alanna, said that she repeatedly sought an assistant manager to help at the store but that none was forthcoming.The situation came to a head on Friday, Nov. 12, when Ms. Harrison became ill at the store, then put in her two-week notice. The workers at the store filed their petition for a union election the following week. “We really had an easy time moving forward,” said Ms. Alanna, citing frustration over how the company had treated Ms. Harrison. Mr. Borges said that the company had offered Ms. Harrison support throughout her time there, and that it had offered to provide an assistant manager if she went on leave, which she had yet to do. Starbucks’s approach to the union election in Mesa resembled its approach in Buffalo. The company sent a variety of officials to the store — including two new managers, at least two new assistant managers, a senior human resources official based in Colorado, a senior manager who had worked in California and a regional vice president based in Colorado.Workers said they felt the managers and other officials were partly there to monitor them. Ms. Hejduk said the new managers appeared to implement a policy in which at least one manager must be in the store at all times to “babysit,” as she put it.Ms. Hejduk said she had been told on a recent weekday morning that the store was closing and that her shift was being canceled because no manager was available to come in, even though she has a key and frequently worked in the store without a manager before the union election filing. She said the policy was relaxed after the union voting ended.In Mesa, as in at least one of the Buffalo stores, Starbucks also brought in several new workers after the election filing, who typically had spent a few weeks training at other stores. The union argued that the offsite training was meant to ensure that workers began their employment with no contact with union supporters and that the workers were brought in to dilute support for the union. The union, which argues that some of the new workers had not worked at the store long enough to be eligible to vote, won a challenge on similar grounds in Buffalo.Mr. Borges said the officials were addressing operational issues like staffing and soliciting input from workers and educating them about the risks of unionizing, though he said Starbucks respected the rights of its employees to unionize. He said that having a separate location focused on instructing new employees allowed the company to train them more efficiently, and that all of the workers who received ballots were eligible under N.L.R.B. rules. He said it was occasionally a policy to have one manager on at all times when there was new leadership in a store.The count in Mesa and at the three additional Buffalo-area stores had been held up by management challenges over a key legal issue: the proper voting pool for the union elections.In a rebuff to Starbucks, the labor relations board ruled Wednesday that stores could vote individually, rather than having to cast ballots with other stores in a geographic area. The board’s detailed ruling makes it more difficult for Starbucks to get its way on the issue elsewhere.Unions typically favor voting on a smaller scale to reduce the number of votes needed to secure a majority in at least some locations, but Starbucks has argued that stores in the same market are akin to a single unit because employees can work at multiple locations and because district managers oversee them as a cohesive group.One option for Starbucks in light of its recent defeats, said Mr. Easley of Jones Day, would be to resign itself to a union presence and position the company to minimize the union’s influence. He suggested, for example, that Starbucks might focus its opposition on cities where the union had already won, to make sure there weren’t several unionized stores that would provide it with greater leverage.“The next phase of this may be divide and conquer,” he said. “Make sure they don’t end up with voting blocks that could shut down business in a market.”He added, referring to the union: “If they can control market in a particular location, they have leverage to get Starbucks to do something.” More

  • in

    Starbucks Strategy for Responding to Union Elections Is Dealt a Setback

    The National Labor Relations Board dealt a blow to Starbucks’s legal strategy in response to a growing union campaign on Wednesday, rejecting the company’s argument that workers seeking to unionize in a geographic area must vote in a single union election.In a ruling involving an election in Mesa, Ariz., the board noted the longstanding presumption that a single store is an appropriate unit for a vote — as union supporters have insisted.Starbucks workers at more than 100 stores nationwide have filed for union elections and workers at two stores in Buffalo have already unionized.Unions typically prefer smaller elections, which tend to increase their chances of winning, albeit on a smaller scale. Workers United, the union seeking to represent Starbucks employees, has complained that Starbucks has repeatedly resisted store-by-store elections despite gaining little traction on the issue as a way to delay votes and stop the union’s momentum.Starbucks has argued that the elections should be marketwide because employees can work at multiple locations and because the stores in a market are managed as a relatively cohesive unit. It has made this case in its requests to appeal labor board decisions ordering elections on a store-by-store basis in Buffalo and Mesa, and in other filings related to union elections around the country.Before Wednesday’s ruling, the board had been unmoved by the company’s argument in Buffalo as well. But unlike the request for an appeal in Buffalo, which the board rejected on an ad hoc basis, the action in the Arizona case sets a binding precedent and will most likely make it more difficult for Starbucks to successfully raise such objections in the future.Nonetheless, the company indicated it would still press the issue. “Our position since the beginning has been that all partners in a market or district deserve the right to vote on a decision that will impact them,” Reggie Borges, a Starbucks spokesman, said in a statement, using the company’s term for its employees. “We will continue to respect the N.L.R.B.’s process and advocate for our partners’ ability to make their voices heard.”Workers in Mesa and at three Buffalo-area locations have voted in store-by-store elections, but the board postponed those vote counts while resolving Starbucks’s appeals. In the short term, the board decision means that a vote count at a Starbucks store in Mesa can go forward after being postponed last week.In a statement Wednesday, the union criticized both Starbucks and the labor board for the delays in counting ballots. “Partners are confident in our ability to stand strong, but justice delayed is justice denied, and we will continue to push for our right to organize without delay,” the statement said. More

  • in

    Could Wages and Prices Spiral Upward in America?

    A labor shortage that began as businesses reopened from pandemic lockdowns is helping to push up pay. The Fed is watching carefully.Amazon, Bank of America and Chipotle are among a spate of companies raising wages this year as they compete for workers in a labor market with more open positions than unemployed job seekers.But that positive development for workers could morph into a challenge for the Federal Reserve if climbing wages help to keep inflation high, prompting employees to ask for even more money and generating an upward spiral.So far, many economists think such a situation can be kept at bay. But the Fed is closely monitoring inflation and pay data to assess the risk, because the consequences if wages and prices begin to drive each other steadily higher could be serious, requiring a response from the central bank that could be economically painful.The Fed is already poised to raise interest rates in March in an attempt to begin cooling off the economy as inflation runs at its fastest pace in 40 years. But if it needed to restrain a self-perpetuating burst in wages and prices, officials might decide to adjust policy more drastically. Higher interest rates could abruptly hit the brakes on lending and spending, potentially sending the United States into recession and foiling central bankers’ hopes of guiding growth gently toward a more sustainable path.“I think we’re much more likely to have something messier than a magical soft landing,” said Olivier Blanchard, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “The wage evolutions are going to be the thing to look at.”Wages are already rising sharply. Pay for restaurant servers and hotel workers began to increase notably in 2021 as companies, reopening after lockdown, struggled to rehire people quickly. Now a wide array of industries are giving raises: The government’s latest employment report showed pay accelerating sharply for education and health workers, manufacturers, and professional and business services.Average hourly earnings jumped 5.7 percent in the year through January, a full percentage point more than economists had forecast.Earnings calls are replete with chief executives explaining that they are increasing pay to attract and retain talent. Unions have won pay bargaining fights. And the White House regularly celebrates signs that power in the work force seems to have shifted toward employees and away from employers.For the most part, that’s good news for labor. But economists have increasingly warned that the confluence of economic trends shaping up now — high inflation, a sense among consumers that prices might stay high for a while and a strong labor market that has handed workers bargaining power — could set the stage for a situation in which wage growth and prices feed off each other.“The combination of very high inflation, hot wage growth and high short-term inflation expectations means that concerns about falling into a wage-price spiral deserve to be taken seriously,” Goldman Sachs economists wrote in a note last week.That would be a big shift. America has not experienced a wage-price spiral since the 1970s and early 1980s, when rapid inflation and skyrocketing wages seemed to perpetuate each other. The Fed lifted interest rates to double digits and caused a painful recession to bring prices under control. Both wage growth and inflation have been slow in the decades since — until now.But even if wages and prices are both rising now, it is not clear that they are egging each other on yet, which is a crucial distinction. In fact, labor market experts point out three big reasons to doubt that a wage-price spiral will happen today.Chief among them: Productivity growth looks strong. If each individual worker can churn out more goods and services, companies should be able to pay more without hurting their profit margins and leading them to pass along the higher costs. Nick Bunker, an economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab, said recent productivity data was an encouraging sign but not a definitive one.“It’s really hard to observe in real time,” he said of the data, noting that the numbers jump around a lot. “I think it’s something to keep an eye on.”It is also unclear just how much wage bargaining power employees have, even with employers eager to hire. Wage growth appears to have been falling behind price increases for many income groups in recent months, suggesting that workers aren’t managing to persuade their companies to compensate them fully for rising costs. Unionization is much lower than in the 1970s, which could leave workers with fewer tools to bargain up pay.If that begins to crimp consumers’ ability to buy new couches and cars, it could cause demand to moderate, naturally restraining inflation.And the tie between wages and prices has been tenuous in recent decades. While research has found a link between the two in the 1960s and 1970s, the relationship collapsed after the early 1980s and has remained tame since.“The relationship between wage growth and services inflation just isn’t that tight,” said Laura Rosner-Warburton, an economist at MacroPolicy Perspectives. “Yes, you will see more inflation from wages in 2022. The question is how much?”A coffee shop in New York advertised open positions this month.Amir Hamja for The New York TimesWhile a wage-price spiral is on a “large list of risk factors” that the administration is closely watching, the “dominant forecast” is that the labor market will stay strong and price gains will moderate this year, said Jared Bernstein, a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.Wall Street economists generally think inflation will fade toward 3 percent this year, based on recent analyst notes and interviews. A recent survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York showed that consumers, who had been penciling in higher inflation in the years ahead, have begun to lower their expectations for price increases.But several forecasters said there was room for humility and wariness, because the pandemic economy has repeatedly confounded expectations. It has also drastically changed America’s economic backdrop.“The last 20 years have been years of very low inflation, very stable inflation,” Mr. Blanchard said. Before the coronavirus, inflation had hovered around — and then below — 2.5 percent for decades. Today, it has jumped to 7.5 percent.As prices for products including gas, steaks, bacon and camping equipment climb rapidly, eating into paychecks and dominating headlines, consumers are more likely to take note and ask for better pay.“Things change completely when inflation is a big number,” Mr. Blanchard said. “Salience changes.”There are signs that wages are feeding into price increases, at the margin. Prices have recently begun to rise sharply for core services, a set of purchases outside of health care, rent and transportation for which wages tend to make up a major cost of production.“That was concerning,” said Alan Detmeister, an economist at UBS who formerly led the Fed’s wage and price section. But, he added, it is hardly conclusive.More anecdotally, stories of workers winning big wage increases in a tight labor market abound.While wages in lower-qualification fields like leisure and hospitality have been rising rapidly for months, professional pay may also be on the cusp of picking up: Banks have been making big base salary increases, and Amazon will raise its maximum base salary for corporate and technology workers to $350,000 from $160,000 as it competes for a limited pool of highly trained employees.Amazon, which has also increased wages for warehouse employees, has raised prices partly in response.“With the continued expansion of Prime member benefits and the increased member usage that we’ve seen, as well as the rise in wages and transportation costs, Amazon will increase the price of our Prime membership in the United States,” Brian T. Olsavsky, the company’s chief financial officer, said on a Feb. 3 earnings call. The monthly price is rising to $14.99 from $12.99, and the annual membership is jumping to $139 from $119.“This is our first price increase since 2018,” Mr. Olsavsky noted.Other companies are raising pay but have said they are covering the climbing costs by improving efficiency. That’s the sort of sweet spot the White House and the Fed are hoping for, because it could leave workers earning more without pressuring prices relentlessly up.“We do anticipate when we do our annual review process that we will have a nominally higher wage rate increase provided to our associates,” Kevin Hourican, president and chief executive at the food distributor Sysco, said on a Feb. 8 earnings call. “And we have productivity improvement efforts that can help offset those types of increases.” More

  • in

    The Age of Anti-Ambition

    Listen to This ArticleAudio Recording by AudmTo hear more audio stories from publications like The New York Times, download Audm for iPhone or Android.I used to think of my job as existing in its own little Busytown — as in the Richard Scarry books, where there’s a small, bright village of workers, each focused on a single job, whose paths all cross in the course of one busy, busy day. In my neighborhood in Brooklyn, I would see the same person at the Myrtle Avenue bus stop several days a week and imagine where he was going with his Dell laptop bag and black sneakers. I’d buy coffee from a rotating cast of the same baristas at the cafe on the third floor of my office building, where I worked as an editor at a magazine. I’d stop to chat with another editor, whose office was on the other side of the wall from mine; sometimes, she would motion for me to shut the door, and we would say what we really thought about some piece of minor professional gossip, important to at most about 3.5 people in the world. I would watch my boss walk toward a meeting with his boss and wonder whether their chat would wind up affecting my job.We all mostly worked on computers, typing in documents and sending emails to the person on the other side of a cubicle wall, but there was a bustle to the whole endeavor. It was a little terrarium where we all spent 50 hours a week, and we filled it with office snacks and bathroom outfit compliments and after-work drinks. Even on a day when nothing much happened professionally, there was the feeling of having worked, of playing your part in an ecosystem.Every job had its own Busytown. Although no one in the broader world wanted to talk about, say, cost-cutting strategies for a potential new client, you could find someone in your Busytown who was just as preoccupied about it as you were. In Scarry’s actual Busytown, meanwhile, the world is populated by people (OK, animals) who find it very easy to explain their jobs. They’re policemen and grocers and postmen and doctors and nurses. When the pandemic hit, the people with those Scarry-style jobs had to keep going to work. Their Busytowns rolled on. And actually, those jobs got harder.Everyone else has lost all touch with theirs. They log on to Slack and Zoom, where their co-workers are two-dimensional or avatars, and every day is just like the last one. Depending on what’s happening with the virus, their children might be there again, just as in March 2020, demanding attention and sapping mental energy. The internet is definitely there, always, demanding attention and sapping mental energy. A job feels like just one more incursion, demanding attention and sapping mental energy.And it didn’t help that, early in the pandemic, all jobs were pointedly rebranded: essential or nonessential. Neither label feels good. There is still plenty of purpose to be found in a job that isn’t in one of the helper professions, of course. But “nonessential” is a word that invites creeping nihilism. This thing we filled at least eight to 10 hours of the day with, five days a week, for years and decades, missed family dinners for … was it just busy work? Perhaps that’s what it was all along.For the obviously essential workers — I.C.U. nurses, pulmonologists — the burden of being needed is a costly one. The word “burnout,” promiscuously applied these days, was in fact coined to diagnose exhaustion in medical workers (in a more quaint time, when we weren’t heading into the third year of a multiwave global pandemic). And meanwhile, a vast majority of people deemed essential have jobs like Amazon warehouse worker or cashier. To be told that society can’t function without you, and that you must risk your health to come in, while other people push around marketing reports from home — often for much more money — it becomes difficult not to wonder if “essential” is cynical, a polite way of classing humans as “expendable” or “nonexpendable.”Teachers, who happen to be both highly unionized and college-educated, haven’t taken kindly to being on the expendable end of the equation, asked to work in person with tiny people who aren’t good at distancing and masking and have spent the past years cooped up. In early January, I read an article in The Times about the drama between the Chicago teachers’ union and the city over in-person instruction. When classes were abruptly canceled, a mother who worked as a bank teller had taken her child in for day care, provided by nonunionized school employees. (Day care workers: even further down the ugly new caste lines than teachers.) “I understand they want to be safe, but I have to work,” the bank teller said of her child’s teachers. “I don’t understand why they are so special.” This kind of comparison can curdle people’s relationships to one another — and to their own jobs.Essential or nonessential, remote or in person, almost no one I know likes work very much at the moment. The primary emotion that a job elicits right now is the determination to endure: If we can just get through the next set of months, maybe things will get better.The act of working has been stripped bare. You don’t have little outfits to put on, and lunches to go to, and coffee breaks to linger over and clients to schmooze. The office is where it shouldn’t be — at home, in our intimate spaces — and all that’s left now is the job itself, naked and alone. And a lot of people don’t like what they see.There are two kinds of stories being told about work right now. One is a labor-market story, and because that’s a little dull and quite confusing, it’s mixed up with the second one, which is about the emotional relationship of American workers to their jobs and to their employers. The Great Resignation is the phrase that has been used, a little incorrectly, to describe each story.The Future of WorkDive into the magazine’s annual exploration of the ways in which work, and our lives with it, is changing.The Age of Anti-Ambition: When 25 million people leave their jobs, it’s about more than just burnout.Calling All Job Haters: Inside the rise and fall of r/Antiwork — the Reddit community that made it OK to quit, but couldn’t quite spark a labor movement.Nurse Shortages: As the coronavirus spread, demand for nurses came from every corner. Some jobs for those willing to travel  paid more than $10,000 a week. Is this a permanent shift?It’s true that we’re in the midst of a “quitagion,” as this paper has jauntily termed it, citing the record number of people (4.5 million) who gave notice in November alone. An estimated 25 million people left their jobs in the second half of 2021; it’s all but certain that this is the highest U.S. quit rate since the Bureau of Labor Statistics began tracking those numbers in 2000.The labor market, as economists like to say, is tight: Employment statistics are strong and getting stronger. Despite inflation, real income is up across all income levels. It’s a remarkable turnaround, following the early pandemic’s horrific job losses, which disproportionately affected the lowest earners and those with little job security. Many of the recent quitters have been on the lower part of the income ladder. They’re getting or seeking better work, for more money, because they can. And that kind of labor market means at least some lower-income workers get to think about their jobs the way the white-collar class more traditionally has, as something that needs to work for them, rather than the other way around.But those top-line numbers obscure a muddier truth. After the latest employment numbers were released in February (which seemed to show remarkable job growth and an unemployment rate of 4 percent), one B.L.S. economist took to his Substack to call it the “most complicated job report ever.” In addition to those workers trying to trade their way into objectively better jobs, millions of others have simply left the work force — because they’re sick, or taking care of children, or retiring, or just plain miserable.The precise reasons are a little mysterious. The jobs recovery isn’t spread evenly across industries, nor is the quit rate. Staffing levels in the leisure and hospitality sectors are still 10 percent lower than they were prepandemic, and according to December’s job report, people who work in hotels and restaurants are the most likely to have quit. Eight percent of all jobs in health care are open right now. There are almost 400,000 fewer health care workers now than there were before the pandemic. As LinkedIn’s chief economist put it to CBS News, “It may not just be worth it for some folks.”Even among the people who were technically employed, a sizable number were unable to work because of child care issues or sick leave. Add to that the fact that many people who would prefer full-time work with benefits are still working on employers’ terms, which means part-time, unstable employment, as The Times’s Noam Scheiber recently reported. And if you dig into the quit numbers for higher-wage workers, it’s still hardly about people going on “Eat, Pray, Love” journeys. The full picture just isn’t that rosy.It’s also not entirely a fluke of this moment. For decades, job productivity has been increasing while real wages haven’t. People were already stretched thin. The writer Anne Helen Petersen, who has made a specialty of truffle-hunting for the millennial internet’s preoccupations, recently wrote a book about professional-class burnout based on a viral 2019 BuzzFeed article she wrote on the same subject. (Her lead personal example involved not getting around to having her knives sharpened.) I was in a particularly stressful moment of a management job at the time and would Google the symptoms of burnout late at night, on a private browser screen. But I was allergic to people talking ostentatiously about it, and I was embarrassed by the indulgence of the language, or, maybe, what I saw as the self-importance of it.Now, though, it’s as if our whole society is burned out. The pandemic may have alerted new swaths of people to their distaste for their jobs — or exhausted them past the point where there’s anything to enjoy about jobs they used to like.Perhaps that’s why the press is filled with stories about widespread employee dissatisfaction; last month a Business Insider article declared that companies “are actively driving their white-collar workers away by presuming that employees are still thinking the way they did before the pandemic: that their jobs are the most important things in their lives,” and pointed to a Gallup poll that showed that last year only a third of American workers said they were engaged in their jobs.At Amazon, in its managerial ranks, employee departures have reached what is being seen as a “crisis” level, according to Bloomberg’s Brad Stone. (A source told him that the turnover rate was as high as 50 percent in some groups, although Amazon disputes this.) One woman, leaving her job, posted in an internal listserv she started called Momazonian, which has more than 5,000 members. “While it has been an incredibly rewarding place to work, the pressure often feels relentless and at times, unnecessary,” she wrote, in a Jerry Maguire screed for the careful networker set; she also copied senior vice presidents and some board members.It’s not an accident that it was the moms’ affinity group where she aired that feeling. A McKinsey study from last year showed that 42 percent of women feel burned out, compared with 32 percent in 2020. (For men, it jumped to 35 percent from 28 percent.) At the beginning of the pandemic, the working world lost more than 3.5 million mothers, according to the Census Bureau; and the National Women’s Law Center found that in early 2021, women’s labor-force participation was at a 33-year-low, returning us all the way back to the era when “Working Girl” was revolutionary. Many of those women haven’t come back.Illustration by María Jesús ContrerasSo the numbers are bad enough. But then there’s the way the hard facts of the economy interact with our emotions. Consider this theory: that the current office ennui was simply the inevitable backlash to the punishing culture of the previous decade’s #ThankGodItsMonday culture. And furthermore, sometime around the rise of #MeToo (and after Donald Trump’s election), ambition began to seem like a mug’s game. The enormous personal costs of getting to the top became clear, and the potential warping effects of being in charge also did. It wasn’t just the bad sexually harassing bosses who were fired but the toxic ones, too, and soon enough we began to question the whole way power in the office worked. What started out as a hopeful moment turned depressing fast. Power structures were interrogated but rarely dismantled, a middle ground that left everyone feeling pretty bad about the ways of the world. It became harder to trust anyone who was your boss and harder to imagine wanting to become one. Covid was an accelerant, but the match was already lit.Recently, I stumbled across the latest data on happiness from the General Social Survey, a gold-standard poll that has been tracking Americans’ attitudes since 1972. It’s shocking. Since the pandemic began, Americans’ happiness has cratered. The graph looks like the heart rate has plunged and they’re paging everyone on the floor to revive the patient. For the first time since the survey began, more people say they’re not too happy than say they’re very happy.The plague, the death, the supply chain, long lines at the post office, the collapse of many aspects of civil society might all play a role in that statistic. But in his classic 1951 study of the office-working middle class, the sociologist C. Wright Mills observed that “while the modern white-collar worker has no articulate philosophy of work, his feelings about it and his experiences of it influence his satisfactions and frustrations, the whole tone of his life.” I remember a friend once saying that although her husband wasn’t depressed, he hated his job, and it was effectively like living with a depressed person.After the latest job report, the economist and Times columnist Paul Krugman estimated that people’s confidence in the economy was about 12 points lower than it ought to have been, given that wages were up. As the pandemic drags on, either the numbers aren’t able to quantify how bad things have become or people seem to have persuaded themselves that things are worse than they actually are.It’s not in just the data where the words “job satisfaction” seem to have become a paradox. It’s also present in the cultural mood about work. Not long ago, a young editor I follow on Instagram posted a response to a question someone posed to her: What’s your dream job? Her reply, a snappy internet-screwball comeback, was that she did not “dream of labor.” I suspect that she is ambitious. I know that she is excellent at understanding the zeitgeist.It is in the air, this anti-ambition. These days, it’s easy to go viral by appealing to a generally presumed lethargy, especially if you can come up with the kind of languorous, wry aphorisms that have become this generation’s answer to the computer-smashing scene in “Office Space.” (The film was released in 1999, in the middle of another hot labor market, when the unemployment rate was the lowest it had been in 30 years.) “Sex is great, but have you ever quit a job that was ruining your mental health?” went one tweet, which has more than 300,000 likes. Or: “I hope this email doesn’t find you. I hope you’ve escaped, that you’re free.” (168,000 likes.) If the tight labor market is giving low-wage workers a taste of upward mobility, a lot of office workers (or “office,” these days) seem to be thinking about our jobs more like the way many working-class people have forever. As just a job, a paycheck to take care of the bills! Not the sum total of us, not an identity.Even elite lawyers seem to be losing their taste for workplace gunning. Last year, Reuters reported an unusual wave of attrition at big firms in New York City — noting that many of the lawyers had decided to take a pay cut to work fewer hours or move to a cheaper area or work in tech. It’s happening in finance, too: At Citi, according to New York magazine, an analyst typed “I hate this job, I hate this bank, I want to jump out the window” in a chat, prompting human resources to check on his mental health. “This is a consensus opinion,” he explained to H.R. “This is how everyone feels.”Things get weird when employers try to address this discontent. Amazon’s warehouse workers have, for the past year, been asked to participate in a wellness program aimed at reducing on-the-job injuries. The company recently came under fire for the reporting that some of its drivers are pushed so hard to perform that they’ve taken to urinating in bottles, and warehouse employees, for whom every move is tracked, live in fear of being fired for working too slowly. But now, for those warehouse workers, Amazon has introduced a program called AmaZen: “Employees can visit AmaZen stations and watch short videos featuring easy-to-follow well-being activities, including guided meditations [and] positive affirmations.” It’s self-care with a dystopian bent, in which the solution for blue-collar job burnout is … screen time.The cultural mood toward the office even appears in the television shows that knowledge workers obsessed over. Consider “Mad Men,” a show set during the peaking economy of the late 1960s. It was a show that found work romantic. I don’t mean the office affairs. I mean that the characters were in love with their work (or angrily sometimes out of love, but that’s a passion of its own). More than that, their careers and the little dramas of their daily work — the presentations to clients, the office politics — gave their lives a sense of purpose. (At the show’s end, Don Draper went to a resort that looks an awful lot like Esalen to find out the meaning of life, and meditated his way into a transformative … Coke ad campaign.)Peggy Olson, the striving adwoman on the make, has recently been taken up as the patron saint of quitters. An image of her shows up frequently illustrating articles about people leaving their jobs, sometimes in GIF form. In it, Olson is wearing sunglasses, carrying a box of office stuff. She has a cigarette dangling from her mouth, off to the side for maximum self-assurance. But she isn’t actually quitting in that scene. Instead, she’s walking into a new, better job at a different agency. The swagger she has comes from ambition, not from opting out.That show was on the air from 2007 to 2015, at the peak of what sometimes gets called hustle culture (and Obama-era optimism). Back then — just before, during and after a psyche-shattering global recession — work had betrayed large swaths of the population, but many (at least those who were better off, for whom the economy recovered much more quickly) took that as inspiration to work harder, to short-circuit the problems of employment with entrepreneurship, or the dreams of it. Start a company! Build a brand! Become a girlboss! (A word that used to be a compliment, not an insult.)Now, Sunday nights are for “Succession,” the beloved pitch-black workplace drama of the post-Trump nihilistic years. On that show, whose third season recently came to a close, work is a corrupting force. The Roy family is ruined not by their money but by their collective desire to run a conglomerate. Ambition perverts the love between parent and child, husband and wife, brother and sister. Even the from-nothing strivers on the show are ruined by their jobs. It’s a Greek tragedy filtered through the present moment, in which every bit of labor is said to happen under late capitalism, and all the jobs are burnout jobs.When “Succession” was over, the office workers of America got up off the couch, and they turned off the TV. They dozed off thinking about the psychological abuse the Roys heap on one another and their Waystar Royco underlings, then sat on the same couch Monday morning.It’s important to acknowledge that some people have reacted to this moment by becoming less cynical about the possibilities of work. The broader world is getting darker — climate change, crumbling democracy. It feels impossible to change it. But work? Work could change. An idealistic generation has set about demanding a utopian world, on a local scale, in their own little Busytowns. More diversity, more attention to structural racism, better hours, better boundaries, better leave policies, better bosses.At some companies, it finally feels as if the old hierarchies are being upended, and the top-paid people are running a little scared of their underlings, rather than the other way around. (No one has much sympathy for managers, and it’s true, as Don Draper once told Peggy Olson, that’s what the money is for. But steering a company through the past few years has been its own particular challenge.)Confronted with this world, many young people with professional options want to be in solidarity with their colleagues instead of climbing the ladder above them. The meaning that they once found in work is now found in trying to make the workplace itself better. At Authentic, a Democratic consulting firm, some members of the unionized staff are refusing to work a contract serving Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Unionized think-tankers at the Center for American Progress, which tends to serve as a pipeline to coveted roles in Democratic presidential administrations, threatened to strike in mid-February over their wages. Some congressional staff members have begun the process of forming a union.I’m now on staff at a digital news site that is unionized; I marvel at the fact that I can have a job with a title like “editor at large” and all the benefits that come from union membership. At Google, home of plush offices and free meals, the company formally recognized a union in early 2021 composed of 400 of its highly paid engineers. The professional managerial classes — as Bernie Sanders supporters called that slice of the white-collar work force pejoratively — are in the middle of developing a class consciousness.So some of the most prestigious offices are organizing, and the college-educated make up a larger slice of the union pie than ever, thanks largely to growth among teachers’ unions. But union membership, more broadly, is at an all-time low. Those warehouse employees at Amazon voted against unionization in Alabama last year. (A federal review board found that Amazon had improperly pressured staff members against forming a union, and ordered a revote, which will take place in five weeks.) Amazon workers might end up voting to join a union. Starbucks employees are starting the process, too. But somehow, workplace protections still seem in danger of becoming one more luxury item that accrues to the privileged.Perhaps there’s no better example of this than what happened at Goldman Sachs last year. Junior bankers in San Francisco felt alienated over their long hours, what they considered low pay and lack of Seamless stipends while working from home. They made a formal presentation to their office’s top executives, relying on survey data they gathered that showed, for instance, that three-quarters of them felt they had been victims of workplace abuse. It was something a little like collective action by America’s future elite.One lead organizer of that action was, as Bloomberg reported, the son of the vice chairman of TPG Capital, a private-equity firm. His father, a creature of a previous zeitgeist, got his start working for Michael Milken at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the famously competitive (and corrupt) investment bank.The son’s hostile takeover worked. The Goldman analysts got their base pay raised by nearly 30 percent. New York magazine reported that while at least five of the 13 analysts from the protest cohort in San Francisco had already left Goldman (four of whom were women of color), the bank was having no trouble recruiting college students to join the next class of analysts.The Goldman raise is a reminder of a cold, hard fact. One that is explained in the very first sentence of Richard Scarry’s “What Do People Do All Day?”: “We all live in Busytown and we are all workers. We work hard so that there will be enough food and houses and clothing for our families.” Work is mainly, really, about making money to live. And then trying to make some more. A boring, ancient story. The future of work might be more like its past than anyone admits.Noreen Malone is an editor at large for Slate Magazine. In 2015, she won a George Polk Award and a Newswomen’s Club award for her reporting in New York magazine on the women who accused Bill Cosby of rape and sexual assault. More

  • in

    Making ‘Dinobabies’ Extinct: IBM’s Push for a Younger Work Force

    Documents released in an age-discrimination case appear to show high-level discussion about paring the ranks of older employees.In recent years, former IBM employees have accused the company of age discrimination in a variety of legal filings and press accounts, arguing that IBM sought to replace thousands of older workers with younger ones to keep pace with corporate rivals.Now it appears that top IBM executives were directly involved in discussions about the need to reduce the portion of older employees at the company, sometimes disparaging them with terms of art like “dinobabies.”A trove of previously sealed documents made public by a Federal District Court on Friday show executives discussing plans to phase out older employees and bemoaning the company’s relatively low percentage of millennials.The documents, which emerged from a lawsuit contending that IBM engaged in a yearslong effort to shift the age composition of its work force, appear to provide the first public piece of direct evidence about the role of the company’s leadership in the effort.“These filings reveal that top IBM executives were explicitly plotting with one another to oust older workers from IBM’s work force in order to make room for millennial employees,” said Shannon Liss-Riordan, a lawyer for the plaintiff in the case.Ms. Liss-Riordan represents hundreds of former IBM employees in similar claims. She is seeking class-action status for some of the claims, though courts have yet to certify the class.Adam Pratt, an IBM spokesman, defended the company’s employment practices. “IBM never engaged in systemic age discrimination,” he said. “Employees were separated because of shifts in business conditions and demand for certain skills, not because of their age.”Mr. Pratt said that IBM hired more than 10,000 people over 50 in the United States from 2010 to 2020, and that the median age of IBM’s U.S. work force was the same in each of those years: 48. The company would not disclose how many U.S. workers it had during that period.A 2018 article by the nonprofit investigative website ProPublica documented the company’s apparent strategy of replacing older workers with younger ones and argued that it followed from the determination of Ginni Rometty, then IBM’s chief executive, to seize market share in such cutting-edge fields as cloud services, big data analytics, mobile, security and social media. According to the ProPublica article, based in part on internal planning documents, IBM believed that it needed a larger proportion of younger workers to gain traction in these areas.In 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released a summary of an investigation into these practices at IBM, which found that there was “top-down messaging from IBM’s highest ranks directing managers to engage in an aggressive approach to significantly reduce the head count of older workers.” But the agency did not publicly release evidence supporting its claims.The newly unsealed documents — which quote from internal company emails, and which were filed in a “statement of material facts” in the lawsuit brought by Ms. Liss-Riordan — appear to affirm those conclusions and show top IBM executives specifically emphasizing the need to thin the ranks of older workers and hire more younger ones.“We discussed the fact that our millennial population trails competitors,” says one email from a top executive at the time. “The data below is very sensitive — not to be shared — but wanted to make sure you have it. You will see that while Accenture is 72% millennial we are at 42% with a wide range and many units falling well below that average. Speaks to the need to hire early professionals.”“Early professionals” was the company’s term for a role that required little prior experience.Another email by a top executive, appearing to refer to older workers, mentions a plan to “accelerate change by inviting the ‘dinobabies’ (new species) to leave” and make them an “extinct species.”A third email refers to IBM’s “dated maternal workforce,” an apparent allusion to older women, and says: “This is what must change. They really don’t understand social or engagement. Not digital natives. A real threat for us.”Mr. Pratt, the spokesman, said that some of the language in the emails “is not consistent with the respect IBM has for its employees” and “does not reflect company practices or policies.” The statement of material facts redacts the names of the emails’ authors but indicates that they left the company in 2020.Both earlier legal filings and the newly unsealed documents contend that IBM sought to hire about 25,000 workers who typically had little experience during the 2010s. At the same time, “a comparable number of older, non-Millennial workers needed to be let go,” concluded a passage in one of the newly unsealed documents, a ruling in a private arbitration initiated by a former IBM employee.Similarly, the E.E.O.C.’s letter summarizing its investigation of IBM found that older workers made up over 85 percent of the group whom the company viewed as candidates for layoffs, though the agency did not specify what it considered “older.”The newly unsealed documents suggest that IBM sought to carry out its strategy in a variety of ways, including a policy that no “early professional hire” can be included in a mass layoff in the employee’s first 12 months at the company. “We are not making the progress we need to make demographically, and we are squandering our investment in talent acquisition and training,” an internal email states.Previously sealed documents show IBM executives bemoaning the company’s relatively low percentage of millennials.David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
    The lawsuit also argues that IBM sought to eliminate older workers by requiring them to move to a different part of the country to keep their jobs, assuming that most would decline to move. One internal email stated that the “typical relo accept rate is 8-10%,” while another said that the company would need to find work for those who accepted, suggesting that there was not a business rationale for asking employees to relocate.And while IBM employees designated for layoffs were officially allowed to apply for open jobs within the company, other evidence included in the new disclosure suggests that the company discouraged managers from actually hiring them. For example, according to the statement of material facts, managers had to request approval from corporate headquarters if they wanted to move ahead with a hire. Several of the plaintiffs in a separate lawsuit brought by Ms. Liss-Riordan appeared to have been on the receiving end of these practices. One of them, Edvin Rusis, joined IBM in 2003 and had worked as a “solution manager.” He was informed by the company in March 2018 that he would be laid off within a few months. According to his legal complaint, Mr. Rusis applied for five internal positions after learning of his forthcoming layoff but heard nothing in response to any of his applications.Mr. Pratt, the spokesman, said that the company’s efforts to shield recent hires from layoffs, as well as its approach to relocating workers, were blind to age, and that many workers designated for layoffs did secure new jobs with IBM.The ProPublica story from 2018 identified employees in similar situations, and others who were asked to relocate out of state and decided to leave the company instead.The company has faced other age discrimination claims, including a lawsuit filed in federal court in which plaintiffs accused the company of laying off large numbers of baby boomers because they were “less innovative and generally out of touch with IBM’s brand, customers and objectives.” The case was settled in 2017, according to ProPublica.In 2004, the company agreed to pay more than $300 million to settle with employees who argued that its decision in the 1990s to replace its traditional pension plan with a plan that included some features of a 401(k) constituted age discrimination.The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibits discrimination against people 40 or over in hiring and employment on the basis of their age, with limited exceptions.The act also requires companies to disclose the age and positions of all people within a group or department being laid off, as well as those being kept on, before a worker waives the right to sue for age discrimination. Companies typically require such waivers before granting workers’ severance packages.But IBM stopped asking workers who received severance packages to waive their right to sue beginning in 2014, which allowed it to cease providing information about the age and positions of workers affected by a mass layoff.Instead, IBM required workers receiving a severance package to bring any discrimination claims individually in arbitration — a private justice system often preferred by corporations and other powerful defendants. Mr. Pratt said the change was made to better protect workers’ privacy.While some former employees preserved their ability to sue IBM in court by declining the severance package, many former employees accepted the package, requiring them to bring claims in arbitration. Ms. Liss-Riordan, who is running for attorney general of Massachusetts, represents employees in both situations.The particular legal matter that prompted the release of the documents in federal court was a motion by one of the plaintiffs whose late husband had signed an agreement requiring arbitration, and whose arbitration proceeding IBM then sought to block.IBM argued that the plaintiff sought to pursue the claim in arbitration after the window for doing so had passed, and that some of the evidence the plaintiff sought to introduce was confidential under the arbitration agreement. The plaintiff argued that those provisions of the arbitration agreement were unenforceable.The judge in the case, Lewis J. Liman, has yet to rule on the merits of that argument. But in January, Judge Liman ruled that documents in the case, including the statement of material facts, should be available to the public.IBM asked a federal appellate court to stay Judge Liman’s disclosure decision, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the company’s argument, and the full circuit court also declined to grant a stay. The New York Times filed an amicus brief to the circuit court arguing that the First Amendment applied to the documents in question. More

  • in

    Far From the Big City, New Economic Life

    GAINESBORO, Tenn. — There is not much to suggest prosperity in Gainesboro, a hamlet of 920 in Tennessee’s Upper Cumberland region. Almost one in seven homes are vacant. One-quarter of the population lives in poverty.Yet from his office in the Jackson County Courthouse, County Mayor Randy Heady outlines a picture of plenty: Revenue from sales and occupancy taxes almost doubled in the last fiscal year, and he expects another 20 percent increase this year. “Sales tax is up, occupancy tax is up, liquor tax is up,” he said.And outsiders are flocking into the county. “They are coming from other states, trying to get away from the high taxes,” Mr. Heady said. “People are moving from Arizona and California, New York and New Jersey.”Economists have long voiced fear that rural places like this are being left behind. The last of the textile businesses, once an economic mainstay, departed in the 1990s. Jackson County and several other counties in the Upper Cumberland are considered “distressed” or “at risk” by the Appalachian Regional Commission. More