Law and Legislation

More stories

  • 138 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Michigan Supreme Court Ruling to Raise Minimum Wage in the State

    by

    The ruling, raising the minimum wage and phasing out a lower wage for tipped workers, said legislators had acted improperly in dodging a referendum.The Michigan Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that legislators had unconstitutionally subverted a voter-sponsored proposal to raise the state’s minimum wage.As a result of the 4-to-3 ruling, labor groups expect Michigan’s hourly minimum wage of $10.33 to increase by at least $2 in February, once the state treasurer calculates inflation adjustments. There will be subsequent cost-of-living increases through 2029.In addition, tipped workers, who currently can be paid as little as $3.84 per hour, will be subject to the same minimum as all other workers by 2029, putting Michigan on a path to be the eighth state to establish a standard wage floor for all workers.Labor activists and union groups celebrated the Michigan court’s decision.“We have finally prevailed over the corporate interests who tried everything they could to prevent all workers, including restaurant workers, from being paid a full, fair wage with tips on top,” Saru Jayaraman, the president of One Fair Wage, a national nonprofit organizing group, said in a statement.Her group is directly cited in the case because of its involvement in gathering the necessary signatures from Michiganders in 2018 to invoke the ballot initiative and send the proposal to the Legislature, which Republicans led at the time.To prevent the wage increase proposal from reaching the 2018 general election ballot, a large cohort of restaurateurs — led by the Michigan Restaurant and Lodging Association — pushed the Legislature to simply adopt the proposal sponsored by One Fair Wage and other groups, which the Legislature did. Legislators then rolled back the law’s provisions after the election.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 100 Shares109 Views

    in Economy

    Biden Rent Cap Proposal Reignites Housing Policy Debate

    by

    A proposal to make landlords’ tax breaks contingent on rent limits has drawn industry pushback, progressive applause and some alternative approaches.When the Biden administration laid out a suite of plans this week to address housing affordability, it added a bold update to previous proposals — and sent the housing industry and the economics world buzzing.The White House called on Congress to pass legislation giving “corporate landlords” — defined by the White House as those with over 50 rental units — a choice to cap annual rent increases on existing units at 5 percent annually or lose federal tax breaks based on property depreciation.The proposal is expected to go largely unaddressed this year, with Congress in campaign mode. But public reaction has been lively.Tenant organizations and progressive leaders generally allied with the administration’s economic team cheered the news. Yet a range of economists, Wall Street analysts, real estate groups and landlord associations responded with forceful critiques, assailing the limits as counterproductive.“Increasing the supply of affordable rental housing nationwide — not politically motivated and self-defeating rent control proposals floated during election campaigns — is the best way to alleviate affordability constraints for renters,” Robert D. Broeksmit, the president of Mortgage Bankers Association, said in a statement.The policy would affect about 20 million units in the country, roughly half of all rental properties.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    No Taxes on Tips? A Trump Idea Gains Ground.

    by

    The sudden popularity of exempting tips from taxes is a reminder of the improvisational nature of economic policymaking under Donald Trump.In Donald J. Trump’s telling, the idea was born over dinner at his Las Vegas hotel, where the waitress serving his table complained about the burden of paying taxes on her tips.“I was actually surprised to hear it,” Mr. Trump said last month at a rally in Virginia, adding that he quickly decided to address the waitress’s problem with a new campaign pledge: “No taxes on tips!”The proposal has rapidly become more than just a rally talking point. The Republican Party has officially embraced it in its platform, and House Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, has said he would “pass it as soon as we can.” Some Democrats are also warming to making tipped income tax-free, with the two senators representing Nevada, a swing state with large restaurant and casino industries, endorsing it.The sudden popularity of exempting tips from taxes is a reminder of the improvisational nature of economic policymaking under Mr. Trump. Several economists involved in advising the Trump campaign said they hadn’t heard of the idea until Mr. Trump announced it publicly. But Republicans now see it as a key way to appeal to working-class Americans during the campaign against President Biden.Mr. Trump has encouraged his supporters to leave a note on restaurant tabs telling service staff that a Trump victory in November means no taxes on tips. Roughly four million Americans work in jobs where tips are common, according to an estimate by the Budget Lab at Yale.“It’s not like a gang of economists sitting around a table came up with that,” Stephen Moore, a Trump economic adviser, said. “I thought, ‘I don’t know if he’s being serious or not’, but as a political matter it’s a home run.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares199 Views

    in Economy

    For L.G.B.T.Q. People, Moving to Friendlier States Comes With a Cost

    by

    Laws targeting gender-affirming care have uprooted thousands. But places that are more supportive can also be more expensive.When Stefanie Newell decided to move to Denver last year, the choice was about acceptance. Feeling comfortable as a transgender woman didn’t seem possible in San Antonio, her hometown, in the midst of a flood of Texas legislation targeting the L.G.B.T.Q. community.But the decision also had financial implications. In San Antonio, she lived with her mother, and the cost of living was generally low. Just driving her stuff two states north wiped out her savings.“I thought I was well prepared, and when I arrived I was flat broke,” said Ms. Newell, 25. And Denver isn’t cheap: Her one-bedroom apartment downtown costs about $1,800 a month, which she pays with a mix of part-time paralegal work, freelance writing and editing, and ad revenue from her content on Instagram. “It’s taken off to the point where I’m not in the negative,” she said. “It definitely gets close.”It’s a choice that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the United States have made for decades: Move from a less welcoming part of the country to one, usually a coastal city, with more protections and a bigger community. The price of tolerance was higher rent.The need for relocation seemed to be declining in the 21st century, as gay marriage became the law of the land and pride went mainstream. But over the last two years, a flurry of laws banning transition care for transgender youths — variations of which are now on the books in 25 states — have sent more people in search of sanctuary.Even though most of the laws are based on gender identity rather than sexual orientation, the impact goes beyond transgender people. Abbie Goldberg, director of women’s and gender studies at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., regularly surveys L.G.B.T.Q. individuals and families. In one recent study, she found that Florida’s law restricting discussion of sexual identity in public schools made parents who are L.G.B.T.Q. more likely to want to leave the state.It’s More Expensive to Live in L.G.B.T.Q.-Friendly StatesPlaces that protect LG.B.T.Q. rights, as measured by the Movement Advancement Project’s accounting of supportive and restrictive laws, also tend to have a higher cost of living, expressed as a percentage of the national average.

    Source: Movement Advancement Project, Commerce DepartmentBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Along the Hollywood Walk of Fame, a Struggle to Make a Living

    by

    Ruth Monrroy parks her metal cart on Hollywood Boulevard in Los Angeles six days a week.Adam Perez for The New York TimesKurtis Lee and Growing up in Guatemala, Ruth Monrroy often spent time at her mother’s restaurant watching in awe of how she connected with customers.“I knew I wanted to have my own business,” Mrs. Monrroy said on a recent weekday afternoon on Hollywood Boulevard, where her childhood wish has come true.Mrs. Monrroy, 44, parks her metal cart in front of the TCL Chinese Theater six days a week, selling items including fruit salad, hot dogs and energy drinks.“Mango, water, soda, Gatorade, hot dog!” she calls out to the crowds traipsing over Hollywood Walk of Fame stars dedicated to Bruce Willis and Billy Crystal.Street vending is a quintessential California job — from the pickup trucks selling cartons of strawberries next to fields near Fresno to the pop-up stands offering carne asada tacos along Oakland thoroughfares. In Los Angeles alone, an estimated 10,000 street vendors sell food.Until recently, vendors along Hollywood Boulevard were operating outside the law. And while that legal cloud has lifted, eking out a living remains a challenge. Cost-conscious tourists sometimes scoff at the prices, even if sellers struggle to break even. And while longtime street vendors respect and recognize the turf of other regulars, there are more sellers working in the area, and competition has increased.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Is Fined Nearly $6 Million Over Warehouse Work Quotas

    by

    California officials cited failures to disclose productivity requirements at two locations. The company said it would appeal.A California labor regulator said on Tuesday that it had fined Amazon nearly $6 million for thousands of violations of a safety law that took effect in 2022.The measure, known as the Warehouse Quotas Law, lets employees request written explanations of any productivity quotas that apply to them, as well as explanations of any discipline they may face in failing to meet the quotas.The state labor commissioner’s office said Amazon violated the law more than 59,000 times at two Southern California warehouses between October and March.The system that Amazon used in the two warehouses “is exactly the kind of system that the Warehouse Quotas Law was put in place to prevent,” the labor commissioner, Lilia García-Brower, said in a statement.An Amazon spokeswoman said in a statement that the company had appealed the penalties and denied that the company used “fixed quotas.” The spokeswoman, Maureen Lynch Vogel, said that “individual performance is evaluated over a long period of time, in relation to how the entire site’s team is performing,” and that workers can “review their performance whenever they wish.”The California law also proscribes quotas that interfere with employees’ ability to take state-mandated breaks or use the bathroom, or that prevent employers from following state health and safety laws.Experts have said the law was among the first in the country to regulate warehouse quotas that are monitored by algorithms and to require employers to make the quotas transparent to workers. The penalties announced on Tuesday are the largest issued under the law.The labor commissioner’s office said its investigation had been assisted by a labor advocacy group, the Warehouse Worker Resource Center, which issued a statement quoting a worker at one of the penalized Amazon facilities who described significant pressure to hit quotas.“If you don’t scan enough items you will get written up,” said the worker, Carrie Stone. “This happened to me. I got written up for not making rate. They said I missed by one point, but I didn’t even know what the target was.”Other Amazon workers raised similar concerns while the Legislature debated the bill in 2021, and studies by labor advocacy groups have shown that Amazon has significantly higher rates of serious injury than other warehouse employers, like Walmart.The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Amazon several times in recent years for exposing workers to ergonomic injuries and over record-keeping for such injuries, and the Justice Department is investigating whether the company made false representations about its safety record when applying for loans.Amazon has cited hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of investments in safety improvements in recent years, including more than $300 million in 2021.Other states, like New York and Washington, have since enacted similar laws, and Senator Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, introduced a federal version last month. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    California Moves to Modify Law Letting Workers Sue Employers

    by

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

  • 113 Shares159 Views

    in Economy

    Will Billions More in New Aid Save Family Farms?

    by

    Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has a line about the state of small-scale agriculture in America these days.It’s drawn from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, which shows that as the average size of farms has risen, the nation had lost 544,000 of them since 1981. “That’s every farm today that exists in North Dakota and South Dakota, added to those in Wisconsin and Minnesota, added to those in Nebraska and Colorado, added to those in Oklahoma and Missouri,” Mr. Vilsack told a conference in Washington this spring. “Are we as a country OK with it?”Even though the United States continues to produce more food on fewer acres, Mr. Vilsack worries that the loss of small farmers has weakened rural economies, and he wants to stop the bleeding. Unlike his last turn in the same job, under former President Barack Obama, this time his department is able to spend billions of dollars in subsidies and incentives passed under three major laws since 2021 — including the biggest investment in conservation programs in U.S. history.The plan in a nutshell: Multiply and improve revenue streams to bolster farm balance sheets. Rather than just selling crops and livestock, farms of the future could also sell carbon credits, waste products and renewable energy.“Instead of the farm getting one check, they potentially could get four checks,” Mr. Vilsack said in an interview. He is also helping schools, hospitals and other institutions to buy food grown locally, and investors to build meatpacking plants and other processing facilities to free farmers from powerful middlemen.American Farms Are DisappearingAs agriculture consolidates, fewer operations grow more crops.

    Source: U.S. Department of AgricultureBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More