Most drivers will begin paying new congestion tolls on Jan. 5 to reach the heart of Manhattan, if all goes as planned. The fees are meant to relieve some of the world’s worst gridlock and pollution while raising billions of dollars for important upgrades to New York City’s subways and buses. Officials also hope to […] More
The National Retail Federation had said that nearly half of the industry’s $94.5 billion in missing merchandise in 2021 was the result of organized theft. It was likely closer to 5 percent, experts say.A national lobbying group has retracted its startling estimate that “organized retail crime” was responsible for nearly half the $94.5 billion in store merchandise that disappeared in 2021, a figure that helped amplify claims that the United States was experiencing a nationwide wave of shoplifting.The group, the National Retail Federation, edited that claim last week from a widely cited report issued in April, after the trade publication Retail Dive revealed that faulty data had been used to arrive at the inaccurate figure.The retraction comes as retail chains like Target continue to claim that they are the victims of large shoplifting operations that have cut into profits, forcing them to close stores or inconvenience customers by locking products away.The claims have been fueled by widely shared videos of a few instances of brazen shoplifters, including images of masked groups smashing windows and grabbing high-end purses and cellphones. But the data show this impression of rampant criminality was a mirage.In fact, retail theft has been lower this year in most of the country than it was a few years ago, according to police data. Some exceptions, including New York City, exist. But in most major cities, shoplifting incidents have fallen 7 percent since 2019.Organized retail crime, in which multiple individuals steal products from several stores to later sell on the black market, is a real phenomenon, said Trevor Wagener, the chief economist at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, who has conducted research on retail data. But he said organized groups were likely responsible for just about 5 percent of the store merchandise that disappeared from 2016 to 2020.He emphasized that there’s “a lot of uncertainty and imprecision” in measuring losses, because it is difficult to parse out what is shoplifting and what is organized crime.Mr. Wagener testified in Congress in June about the discrepancy in the National Retail Federation’s report.Even as it retracted the figure and revised the report, the federation, which has more than 17,000 member companies, insisted in an emailed statement that its focus on the problem was appropriate.“We stand behind the widely understood fact that organized retail crime is a serious problem impacting retailers of all sizes and communities across our nation,” the statement said. “At the same time, we recognize the challenges the retail industry and law enforcement have with gathering and analyzing an accurate and agreed-upon set of data.”At issue is “total annual shrink” — the industry term for the value of merchandise that disappears from stores without being paid for, through theft, damage and inventory tracking mistakes.Mary McGinty, a spokeswoman for the federation, said the error was caused by an analyst from K2 Integrity, an advisory firm that helped produce the report.The analyst, who was not named, linked a 2021 National Retail Federation survey with a quote from Ben Dugan, the former president of the advocacy group Coalition of Law Enforcement and Retail, who said in Senate testimony in 2021 that organized retail crime “accounts for $45 billion in annual losses for retailers.”Mr. Dugan was citing the federation’s 2016 National Retail Security Survey, which was actually referring to the overall cost of shrink in 2015 — not the amount lost to just organized retail crime, Ms. McGinty said.Alec Karakatsanis, a civil rights lawyer who has studied and critiqued how the media has covered organized retail crime, said that the retraction underscored how some news organizations, which have extensively covered the issue of shoplifting, were “used as a tool by certain vested interests to gin up a lot of fear about this issue when, in fact, it was pretty clear all along that the facts didn’t add up.”One of the most prominent examples came in October 2021, when Walgreens said it would close five stores in San Francisco, citing repeated instances of organized shoplifting. The company’s decision had come months after a video seen millions of times showed a man, garbage bag in hand, openly stealing products from a Walgreens as others watched.But an October 2021 analysis by The San Francisco Chronicle showed that Police Department data on shoplifting did not support Walgreen’s explanation for the store closings.Eventually, Walgreens retreated from its claims. In January, an executive at the company said that Walgreens might have overstated the effects on its business, saying: “Maybe we cried too much last year.”Mr. Karakatsanis said the exaggerated narrative of widespread shoplifting was weaponized by the retail industry as it lobbied Congress to pass bills that would regulate online retailers, which they claim is where much of the stolen product ends up.Commentators and politicians have seized on the issue. Earlier this year, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Democrat of California, responded to reports of large-scale thefts in the state with a call for tough prosecution of shoplifters and a plan to invest millions of dollars to fight “organized retail theft.” Gov. Ron DeSantis, Republican of Florida, signed a bill last year aimed at retail theft, and former President Donald J. Trump called for violence, telling Republican activists in California this year that the police should shoot shoplifters as they are leaving a store.Mr. Wagener, the chief economist at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, said that the National Retail Federation’s report in April immediately stuck out to him as wrong. The error was troubling, he said, because the federation has long been viewed as a trusted provider of data for the industry.What made the federation’s mistake even more surprising, Mr. Wagener said, was how starkly the figure contrasted to the group’s own previous findings.In 2020, the federation said in a report that organized retail crime cost retailers an average of $719,548 per $1 billion in sales — a number that would point nowhere near the roughly 50 percent claim made in the April report.Another National Retail Federation survey showed that all external theft — including thefts unrelated to organized retail crime — accounted for 37 percent of shrink, a figure that would still be billions of dollars less than the incorrect estimate of 50 percent made in April.“It would be a bit like the census claiming that nearly half of the U.S. population lives in the state of Rhode Island,” Mr. Wagener said. More
The fallout would be particularly hard for landlords already struggling with piling debt and companies scaling back their office footprint.For years, landlords around the world clamored to get WeWork into their office buildings, a love affair that made the co-working company the largest corporate tenant in New York and London.Now, WeWork is perhaps days away from a bankruptcy filing — and its demise could not come at a worse time for office landlords.With fewer employees going into the office since the pandemic, companies have slashed the amount of space they lease, causing one of the worst crunches in decades in commercial real estate.Many landlords have accepted lower rents from WeWork in recent years to keep it afloat, but its bankruptcy would be an enormous blow. The pain would be centered on landlords that have leased a large proportion of their space to the company, particularly in New York, and are struggling to make payments on the debt tied to their buildings. Some landlords might quickly accept lower rents from WeWork as part of a bankruptcy reorganization and keep doing business with any new entity that emerges, but others might have to fight in court to get anything.“If you look at a lot of the vacancy in New York City, you will find that a fair amount of that was space that was leased to WeWork — and there will be even more abandoned after a bankruptcy,” said Anthony E. Malkin, the chief executive of the company that owns the Empire State Building and an early skeptic of WeWork.WeWork, despite its efforts to cut costs, still had an empire of 777 locations in 39 countries at the end of June, compared with 764 locations in 38 countries nearly two years earlier. On Friday, its website listed 47 locations in New York, where at the end of March it leased 6.9 million square feet of office space, equivalent to more than 60 percent of all co-working space, according to Savills, a real estate services firm. In London, WeWork listed 38 locations.Speculation of a possible bankruptcy filing intensified in August when WeWork warned that it might not be in business much longer. Its shares have fallen 90 percent since then.Last month, WeWork said it would miss interest payments totaling $95 million. After a 30-day grace period, the company reached a deal with creditors for a seven-day forbearance, which expires Tuesday.A WeWork office space in London. The city has 38 WeWork locations.Tolga Akmen/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesIn New York, where a fifth of office space is unleased or being offered for the sublet, the highest amount in decades, the fallout from a WeWork bankruptcy would be felt most in older office buildings in Midtown and downtown Manhattan. Nearly two-thirds of WeWork’s leases in Manhattan were in these so-called Class B and Class C buildings, according to the real estate advisory firm Avison Young.“We believe the value of Class B and Class C buildings will probably be 55 percent less than they were prior to the pandemic,” said Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh, a real estate professor at Columbia Business School who has been tracking the decline in office building valuations. “These are the buildings that are struggling the most and will have a tough time with a WeWork bankruptcy.”Owners of these older buildings were thrilled a few years ago to lease entire floors — or even entire buildings — to WeWork, but they now find themselves under siege. In cases where WeWork has stopped paying rent on the leases, landlords have been unable to make debt payments on buildings that are being valued sharply lower than they were a few years ago.That’s the quandary facing Walter & Samuels, a real estate firm that has WeWork as a tenant in five of its office buildings in New York. At one, 315 West 36th Street, a small edifice built in 1926 in Manhattan’s garment district, WeWork leased about 90 percent of the space and stopped paying rent earlier this year, according to Morningstar Credit. Walter & Samuels stopped making payments on a $77 million loan on the building, Morningstar said.The loan’s special servicer said the appraised value of the building had fallen to $42 million, down from $127 million when the loan was made five years ago, and the servicer is moving to foreclose, according to Morningstar.Executives at Walter & Samuels did not respond to emails seeking comment.WeWork occupies nearly all of the office space at 980 Avenue of the Americas, a mixed-use development owned by the Vanbarton Group. Joey Chilelli, a managing director at the company, said the firm could consider a range of options for the space if WeWork vacated, including turning it into residences.“We have tried to do everything we could earlier this year when they went to every landlord and asked for rent reductions and concessions,” Mr. Chilelli said. “If they are able to reduce their footprint, it will hurt the office market again.”A WeWork bankruptcy would be felt most in older office buildings in Midtown and downtown Manhattan.Hilary Swift for The New York TimesMichael Emory, the founder of Allied, a real estate investment trust that operates office buildings in Canada’s largest cities, said his company walked away from a potential deal with WeWork in Toronto in 2015 because there were drawbacks for Allied. But he said he had watched other developers, particularly in New York, lease space to the company, believing that co-working providers would occupy a large percentage of office space for years.Also, Mr. Emory said, WeWork focused on landlords that were eager to fill up their office buildings and then sell them based on the new occupancy and rental income.A bankruptcy filing “will be very consequential for the New York market,” he said.WeWork declined to comment for this article.At its peak, when investors were feverishly bullish about the company and the vision of Adam Neumann, its eccentric co-founder, WeWork was valued at $47 billion. Its model was to rent office space, spruce it up and charge its customers — established companies, start-ups and individuals — to use the space for as long as they needed it.The flexibility of using a WeWork space — and its community vibe: “Our mission is to elevate the world’s consciousness,” the company declared — was supposed to attract businesses away from stodgy offices that tied tenants down with yearslong leases.But the economics of WeWork’s business were always upside down: What the company took in from customers was not enough to cover the cost of renting and operating its locations. It kept growing anyway, and from the end of 2017, it lost a staggering $15 billion. After WeWork withdrew an initial public offering in 2019, its largest outside investor — the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank — provided a lifeline with a multibillion-dollar takeover.Before that debacle, WeWork had ardent fans in the commercial real estate world who believed the company was pioneering an exciting new service.“We know these folks, we know them well,” Steven Roth, the chief executive of Vornado Realty Trust, one of the largest office landlords in New York, said in 2017. “We think what they’re doing is unbelievably impressive.”Mr. Roth declined to comment for this article. Vornado leased space to WeWork in a building in Manhattan and another in Washington, and they teamed up outside Washington to introduce WeLive residences, one of WeWork’s much-hyped but failed subsidiaries, including the for-profit private school WeGrow.Vornado no longer has WeWork as a tenant. In 2019, after questions about WeWork’s financial health mounted in the industry, Vornado’s chief financial officer said the company had limited its exposure to WeWork.The president of BXP, a part owner of an office development in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, said WeWork had stopped paying rent there.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesJLL, a real estate services firm, once predicted that co-working firms would be leasing 30 percent of all office space in the United States by the end of this decade. Such predictions did not seem outlandish just before the pandemic, when WeWork and other co-working providers accounted for 15 percent of both new and renewed leases signed in New York, according to JLL, up from 2 percent in 2010. Co-working providers accounted for less than 1 percent of all leases signed in New York last year, JLL said.And some landlords believed they would be somewhat insulated from problems at WeWork.“WeWork is out there taking on these start-ups en masse, realizing that some will stay, some will go,” Raymond A. Ritchey, an executive at BXP, formerly known as Boston Properties, said in 2014. “But they tend to be taking that risk as opposed to the landlord on a direct basis.”BXP is a part owner of a shiplike office development in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, Dock 72, where WeWork has been a major tenant since it opened in 2019 but was struggling to fill its space. At the end of last year, BXP was leasing nearly 500,000 square feet of space to WeWork across its portfolio.Douglas T. Linde, the president of BXP, said Thursday on an investor call that WeWork had stopped paying rent at two of its locations, including Dock 72. “We don’t expect WeWork to exit all the assets,” he said, “nor do we expect them to remain in place in the current footprint.”Some landlords might be able to get other co-working companies to take over WeWork’s spaces, or operate their own version, avoiding a situation in which their buildings appear desolate. But they are unlikely to take in the revenue they were initially getting from WeWork, which did end up going public, in 2021, by merging with a special-purpose acquisition company.Mr. Malkin, the Empire State Building landlord, said he had always doubted WeWork’s business model. Also, he never wanted WeWork in his company’s buildings because, he said, it packed too many people into its spaces, causing overuse of elevators and toilets.“Why would you want to do business with these people?” Mr. Malkin said. More
For much of the last two decades, including during the pandemic, technology companies were a bright spot in New York’s economy, adding thousands of high-paying jobs and expanding into millions of square feet of office space.Their growth buoyed tax revenue, set up New York as a credible rival to the San Francisco Bay Area — and provided jobs that helped the city absorb layoffs in other sectors during the pandemic and the 2008 financial crisis.Now, the technology industry is pulling back hard, clouding the city’s economic future.Facing many business challenges, large technology companies have laid off more than 386,000 workers nationwide since early 2022, according to layoffs.fyi, which tracks the tech industry. And they have pulled out of millions of square feet of office space because of those job cuts and the shift to working from home.That retrenchment has hurt lots of tech hubs, and San Francisco has been hit the hardest with an office vacancy rate of 25.6 percent, according to Newmark Research.New York is doing better than San Francisco — Manhattan has a vacancy rate of 13.5 percent — but it can no longer count on the technology industry for growth. More than one-third of the roughly 22 million square feet of office space available for sublet in Manhattan comes from technology, advertising and media companies, according to Newmark.Consider Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. It is now unloading a big chunk of the more than 2.2 million square feet of office space it gobbled up in Manhattan in recent years after laying off around 1,700 employees this year, or a quarter of its New York State work force. The company has opted not to renew leases covering 250,000 square feet in Hudson Yards and for 200,000 square feet on Park Avenue South.Spotify is trying to sublet five of the 16 floors it leased six years ago in 4 World Trade Center, and Roku is offering a quarter of the 240,000 square feet it had taken in Times Square just last year. Twitter, Microsoft and other technology companies are also trying to sublease unwanted space.“The tech companies were such a big part of the real estate landscape during the last five years,” said Ruth Colp-Haber, the chief executive of Wharton Property Advisors, a real estate brokerage. “And now that they seem to be cutting back, the question is: Who is going to replace them?”Ms. Colp-Haber said it could take months for bigger spaces or entire floors of buildings to be sublet. The large amount of space available for sublet is also driving down the rents that landlords are able to get on new leases.“They are going to undercut every landlord out there in terms of pricing, and they have really nice spaces that are already all built out,” she said, referring to the tech companies.The tech sector has been a driver of New York’s economy since the late-90s dot-com boom helped to establish “Silicon Alley” south of Midtown. Then, after the financial crisis, the expansion of companies like Google supported the economy when banks, insurers and other financial firms were in retreat.Spotify is trying to sublet five of the 16 floors it leased six years ago in 4 World Trade Center, right.George Etheredge for The New York TimesSmall and large tech companies added 43,430 jobs in New York in the five years through the end of 2021, a 33 percent gain, according to the state comptroller. And those jobs paid very well: The average tech salary in 2021 was $228,620, nearly double the average private-sector salary in the city, according to the comptroller.The growth in jobs fueled demand for commercial space, and tech, advertising and media companies accounted for nearly a quarter of the new office leases signed in Manhattan in recent years, according to Newmark.Microsoft and Spotify declined to comment about their decision to sublet space. Twitter and Roku did not respond to requests for comment. Meta said in a statement that it was “committed to distributed work” and was “continuously refining” its approach.A few big tech companies are still expanding in New York.Google plans to open St. John’s Terminal, a large office near the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan, early next year. Including the terminal, Google will own or lease around seven million square feet of office space in New York, up from roughly six million today, according to a company representative. (Google leases more than one million square feet of that space to other tenants.) The company has more than 12,000 employees in the New York area, up from over 10,000 in 2019.Amazon, which in 2019 canceled plans to build a large campus in Queens after local politicians objected to the incentives offered to the company, has nevertheless added 200,000 square feet of office space in New York, Jersey City and Newark since 2019. The company will have added roughly 550,000 square feet of office space later this summer, when it opens 424 Fifth Avenue, the former Lord & Taylor department store, which it bought in 2020 for $1.15 billion.“New York provides a fantastic, diverse talent pool, and we’re proud of the thousands of jobs we’ve created in the city and state over the past 10 years across both our corporate and operations functions,” Holly Sullivan, vice president of worldwide economic development at Amazon, said in a statement.And though many tech companies continue to let employees work from home for much of the week, they are also trying to woo workers back to the office, which could help reduce the need to sublet space.Salesforce, a software company that has offices in a tower next to Bryant Park, said it was not considering subletting its New York space.“Currently I’m facing the opposite problem in the tower in New York,” said Relina Bulchandani, head of real estate for Salesforce. “There has been a concerted effort to continue to grow the right roles in New York because we have a very high customer base in New York.”New York is and will remain a vibrant home for technology companies, industry representatives said.“I have not heard of a single tech company leaving, and that matters,” said Julie Samuels, the president of TECH:NYC, an industry association. “If anything, we are seeing less of a contraction in New York among tech leases than they are seeing in other large cities.”Google plans to open St. John’s Terminal, right, a new campus near the Hudson River in Lower Manhattan, early next year.Tony Cenicola/The New York TimesFred Wilson, a partner at Union Square Ventures, said tech executives now felt less of a need to be in Silicon Valley, a shift that he said had benefited New York. “We have more company C.E.O.s and more company founders in New York today than we did before the pandemic,” Mr. Wilson said, referring to the companies his firm has invested in.David Falk, the president of the New York tristate region for Newmark, said, “We are right now working on several transactions with smaller, young tech firms that are looking to take sublet space.”Many firms are still pulling back, however.In 2017 and 2019, Spotify, which is based in Stockholm, signed leases totaling more than 564,000 square feet of space at 4 World Trade Center, becoming one of the largest tenants there. It soon had a space with all the accouterments you would expect at a tech firm — brightly colored flexible work areas, eye-popping views and Ping-Pong tables.But in January, Spotify said it was laying off 600 people, or about 6 percent of its global work force. The company, which allows employees to choose between working fully remotely or on a hybrid schedule, is also reducing its office space, putting five floors up for sublet.“On days when I’m by myself, I end up sitting in a meeting room all day for focus time,” said Dayna Tran, a Spotify employee who regularly works at the downtown office, adding that the employees who come in motivate themselves and create community by collaborating on an office playlist. More
European lawmakers are finishing work on an A.I. act. The Biden administration and leaders in Congress have their plans for reining in artificial intelligence. Sam Altman, the chief executive of OpenAI, maker of the A.I. sensation ChatGPT, recommended the creation of a federal agency with oversight and licensing authority in Senate testimony last week. And the topic came up at the Group of 7 summit in Japan.Amid the sweeping plans and pledges, New York City has emerged as a modest pioneer in A.I. regulation.The city government passed a law in 2021 and adopted specific rules last month for one high-stakes application of the technology: hiring and promotion decisions. Enforcement begins in July.The city’s law requires companies using A.I. software in hiring to notify candidates that an automated system is being used. It also requires companies to have independent auditors check the technology annually for bias. Candidates can request and be told what data is being collected and analyzed. Companies will be fined for violations.New York City’s focused approach represents an important front in A.I. regulation. At some point, the broad-stroke principles developed by governments and international organizations, experts say, must be translated into details and definitions. Who is being affected by the technology? What are the benefits and harms? Who can intervene, and how?“Without a concrete use case, you are not in a position to answer those questions,” said Julia Stoyanovich, an associate professor at New York University and director of its Center for Responsible A.I.But even before it takes effect, the New York City law has been a magnet for criticism. Public interest advocates say it doesn’t go far enough, while business groups say it is impractical.The complaints from both camps point to the challenge of regulating A.I., which is advancing at a torrid pace with unknown consequences, stirring enthusiasm and anxiety.Uneasy compromises are inevitable.Ms. Stoyanovich is concerned that the city law has loopholes that may weaken it. “But it’s much better than not having a law,” she said. “And until you try to regulate, you won’t learn how.”The law applies to companies with workers in New York City, but labor experts expect it to influence practices nationally. At least four states — California, New Jersey, New York and Vermont — and the District of Columbia are also working on laws to regulate A.I. in hiring. And Illinois and Maryland have enacted laws limiting the use of specific A.I. technologies, often for workplace surveillance and the screening of job candidates.The New York City law emerged from a clash of sharply conflicting viewpoints. The City Council passed it during the final days of the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio. Rounds of hearings and public comments, more than 100,000 words, came later — overseen by the city’s Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, the rule-making agency.The result, some critics say, is overly sympathetic to business interests.“What could have been a landmark law was watered down to lose effectiveness,” said Alexandra Givens, president of the Center for Democracy & Technology, a policy and civil rights organization.That’s because the law defines an “automated employment decision tool” as technology used “to substantially assist or replace discretionary decision making,” she said. The rules adopted by the city appear to interpret that phrasing narrowly so that A.I. software will require an audit only if it is the lone or primary factor in a hiring decision or is used to overrule a human, Ms. Givens said.That leaves out the main way the automated software is used, she said, with a hiring manager invariably making the final choice. The potential for A.I.-driven discrimination, she said, typically comes in screening hundreds or thousands of candidates down to a handful or in targeted online recruiting to generate a pool of candidates.Ms. Givens also criticized the law for limiting the kinds of groups measured for unfair treatment. It covers bias by sex, race and ethnicity, but not discrimination against older workers or those with disabilities.“My biggest concern is that this becomes the template nationally when we should be asking much more of our policymakers,” Ms. Givens said.“This is a significant regulatory success,” said Robert Holden, center, a member of the City Council who formerly led its committee on technology.Johnny Milano for The New York TimesThe law was narrowed to sharpen it and make sure it was focused and enforceable, city officials said. The Council and the worker protection agency heard from many voices, including public-interest activists and software companies. Its goal was to weigh trade-offs between innovation and potential harm, officials said.“This is a significant regulatory success toward ensuring that A.I. technology is used ethically and responsibly,” said Robert Holden, who was the chair of the Council committee on technology when the law was passed and remains a committee member.New York City is trying to address new technology in the context of federal workplace laws with guidelines on hiring that date to the 1970s. The main Equal Employment Opportunity Commission rule states that no practice or method of selection used by employers should have a “disparate impact” on a legally protected group like women or minorities.Businesses have criticized the law. In a filing this year, the Software Alliance, a trade group that includes Microsoft, SAP and Workday, said the requirement for independent audits of A.I. was “not feasible” because “the auditing landscape is nascent,” lacking standards and professional oversight bodies.But a nascent field is a market opportunity. The A.I. audit business, experts say, is only going to grow. It is already attracting law firms, consultants and start-ups.Companies that sell A.I. software to assist in hiring and promotion decisions have generally come to embrace regulation. Some have already undergone outside audits. They see the requirement as a potential competitive advantage, providing proof that their technology expands the pool of job candidates for companies and increases opportunity for workers.“We believe we can meet the law and show what good A.I. looks like,” said Roy Wang, general counsel of Eightfold AI, a Silicon Valley start-up that produces software used to assist hiring managers.The New York City law also takes an approach to regulating A.I. that may become the norm. The law’s key measurement is an “impact ratio,” or a calculation of the effect of using the software on a protected group of job candidates. It does not delve into how an algorithm makes decisions, a concept known as “explainability.”In life-affecting applications like hiring, critics say, people have a right to an explanation of how a decision was made. But A.I. like ChatGPT-style software is becoming more complex, perhaps putting the goal of explainable A.I. out of reach, some experts say.“The focus becomes the output of the algorithm, not the working of the algorithm,” said Ashley Casovan, executive director of the Responsible AI Institute, which is developing certifications for the safe use of A.I. applications in the workplace, health care and finance. More
A new city law going into effect on Tuesday will require companies with at least four employees to post salary ranges for openings, even if the jobs involve remote or hybrid work.For years, companies of all sizes have closely guarded the potential pay for their job openings, keeping applicants in the dark about possible compensation and preventing employees from discovering that their colleagues make more than they do.But that dynamic, which has long benefited corporations in salary negotiations and has been blamed for exacerbating gender and racial pay gaps, will soon end in New York City, one of the largest job markets in the world.Under a new city law that goes into effect on Tuesday, nearly every company will be required to include salary ranges for job postings, both those shared on public sites and on internal bulletin boards, and even for those jobs that offer a hybrid schedule or can be performed fully remote.Here’s what the law will mean for employers and workers in New York City.What information will companies have to divulge?The sweeping New York City rules will apply to almost all companies except for the smallest firms. Any business with at least four workers, assuming at least one of them is based in the city, must include the lowest and highest salaries for any job it posts — a requirement that will force some of the biggest companies in the world with offices in New York City, from Google to Pfizer to Verizon, to divulge pay information.The salary ranges must be provided in “good faith,” the city says, which means that they must accurately reflect what the company would be ready to give a new employee. The ranges are for base salary, excluding the cost of other benefits like overtime, paid vacation and health insurance.Is this new salary transparency a requirement in other parts of the country?The new requirements put New York City among a growing number of places in the United States that require salary transparency from private employers. The trend has taken hold during the pandemic as leverage in the American workplace has increasingly shifted toward workers.Colorado implemented salary requirements for job openings earlier this year, and California and Washington State will mandate similar rules in 2023. The New York State Senate passed a salary transparency law in June that is similar to the one in New York City, but it has yet to be signed into law by Gov. Kathy Hochul.Some of the biggest employers in New York City are complying with the new pay disclosure requirements for all of their jobs openings nationwide, not just their postings in the city.Karsten Moran for The New York TimesIn the city, the salary requirements were passed nearly a year ago by the City Council during the last days of the administration of then-Mayor Bill de Blasio. Company executives and business groups were caught off guard, complaining that they were not consulted on the legislation and were unaware of it until just before it was approved.That criticism led the city to delay the start date to November from May and to make some tweaks, including removing the fine for a first-time offense; subsequent offenses, however, can cost up to $250,000. The new law will be enforced by the city’s Commission on Human Rights.Will companies comply?Several large companies in the financial and tech industries have already updated their job postings to be in compliance. Some corporations have gone further, such as Citigroup, which added salary information this month to all of its openings in the United States, not just those in New York City, where the bank is one of the city’s largest private employers.The changes have been reflected in active job openings. At Citigroup, a senior associate at the bank’s New York City offices can earn more than $125,000 annually. A director at American Express will make at least $130,000. And a software engineer at Amazon can earn a salary as high as $213,800.Earlier this year, the real estate company Zillow, as well as its New York City listings site StreetEasy, started to include salary information on openings in the city, the company said. One recent listing, for a strategic communications manager at StreetEasy, offered a salary of at least $99,300.A spokeswoman at Citigroup said that the bank added salary ranges not just for jobs in New York City but throughout the country as part of a company initiative focused on pay fairness and employee retention.“This initiative supports our pay equity goals and reinforces many key principles such as being more transparent as an organization and simplifying our processes,” the spokeswoman said.Glenn Grindlinger, an employment lawyer at the firm Fox Rothschild, said that many large corporations may follow the path of Citigroup and add salary ranges on all jobs in the country. Doing so would ensure compliance with New York City law, which also covers remote jobs that could be performed in the city, he said.But Mr. Grindlinger said he was concerned about small- and medium-size companies in the city, especially those outside Manhattan, that may be unaware of the new law, as well as firms in other parts of the country that do not know that their remote jobs, if they can be performed in New York City, will also have to comply.“It’s a pretty big deal,” Mr. Grindlinger said. “And the outreach, it has not been where it is needed, which is in the other boroughs.”How could this change affect job seekers?Stephanie Lewin, 39, works as a sales associate at a clothing and home goods store in Lower Manhattan and has been looking for a new job. She has noticed an increase in compensation disclosures on Indeed’s online job listings, but some of the salary bands are too far apart to be helpful, she said, like listings that propose a range of $17 to $50 an hour.But overall, she said the disclosures have been helpful in weeding out jobs for which the upper salary range falls below her expectation of earning at least $25 an hour. “It definitely at least takes away one element of surprise or decision-making upfront,” said Ms. Lewin, who has worked in the retail industry for 16 years.Mr. Grindlinger said he believed the new salary ranges would lead applicants to negotiate for a salary at the higher end of the scale. “The economy and inflation has swung the pendulum toward the employee,” he said.A spokeswoman at Indeed said that an increasing number of openings on its site across the country now included possible salaries provided by employers. (The company did not have data for New York City-based jobs.) About 37 percent of jobs posted in the third quarter of 2022 included pay information from the employer, the spokeswoman said.New York’s new pay transparency law will force some of the biggest companies in the world with offices in the city, from Google to Pfizer to Verizon, to divulge salary information. John Smith/VIEWpress, via Getty ImagesJoe Stando said if the salary transparency law had been in effect earlier in the pandemic, it would have saved him time and disappointment during his job search. Mr. Stando said he had at least three job opportunities over the past year that fell apart over salary negotiations. Each time, the companies’ offers were below what he had requested.“I would much rather have it coming out early on so that I can know before applying or early on in the conversation that we are maybe not aligned,” said Mr. Stando, 33, who lives in Queens and has worked in office administrative roles. “You can’t really negotiate unless they have all their cards on the table.”Instead of disclosing salaries for New York City jobs, some companies might exclude workers in the city from applying for positions. When Colorado’s salary transparency law went into effect in January, some major employers, including the real estate firm CBRE and the drug distributor McKeeson, stated that Colorado residents would not be considered for remote jobs. (McKeeson now posts salary ranges for remote openings in Colorado.)Mr. Grindlinger said he had talked to company executives outside New York City who might avoid having to comply with the city’s law by barring new employees from working there.“Clients that are not based in New York, they just don’t know what they are going to do, or some say if that’s the requirements, we are not going to consider anyone working in New York City,” he said.How could this help address long-lingering inequities in compensation such as the gender pay gap?Tae-Youn Park, an associate professor of human resource studies at Cornell University, said that research into salary disclosure laws that have been implemented elsewhere, including in Denmark, has shown that they help narrow the pay gap between men and women.In the United States, women made about 82 cents for every $1 men earned in 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which said that pay inequity is constant across almost all occupations. The gap is larger for women of color.Mr. Park said that the salary disclosures in New York City would likely force managers to compare their salaries to those offered at other companies and make adjustments. Also, employees might feel empowered to confront their bosses if the ranges showed they were underpaid.“It will give them an opportunity to raise their voice with objective data,” Mr. Park said.Nicole Hong More
The battle to win a New York City casino license has heated up in Manhattan, with real estate and gambling giants offering competing proposals for Times Square and Hudson Yards.Times Square, New York City’s famed Crossroads of the World, could hardly be considered lacking. It has dozens of Broadway theaters, swarms of tourists, costumed characters and noisy traffic, all jostling for space with office workers who toil in the area.Now one of the city’s biggest commercial developers is pitching something that Times Square does not have: a glittering Caesars Palace casino at its core.The developer, SL Green Realty Corporation, and the gambling giant Caesars Entertainment are actively trying to enlist local restaurants, retailers and construction workers in joining a pro-casino coalition, as the companies aim to secure one of three new casino licenses in the New York City area approved by state legislators earlier this year.The proposal has enormous implications for Times Square, the symbolical and economic heart of the American theater industry, and a key part of the city’s office-driven economy. Although foot traffic in Times Square was almost back at 2019 levels during recent weekends, theatergoers and office workers have been slower to re-embrace a neighborhood where violent crime has risen.Overall attendance and box office grosses on Broadway are lagging well behind prepandemic levels, and there is considerable anxiety within the industry about how changes in commuting patterns, entertainment consumption and the global economy will affect its long-term health.A casino in Times Square faces substantial obstacles. There is already a competing bid for a casino in nearby Hudson Yards from another pair of real estate and gambling giants, Related Companies and Wynn Resorts.And with casino bids also taking shape in Queens and Brooklyn, there is no assurance that the New York State Gaming Commission will place a casino in Manhattan, let alone Times Square, one of the world’s more complex logistical and economic regions.Few things change in Times Square without notice or protest. When the city installed pedestrian plazas in the area more than a decade ago, the move was widely condemned and even lampooned by late-night talk show hosts, before being eventually embraced as an innovative foray in urban design. When the neighborhood’s army of costumed characters gained a reputation for aggressive solicitation, the city restricted them to designated “activity zones,” raising free speech concerns.Now critics worry that putting a casino at 1515 Broadway, the SL Green skyscraper near West 44th Street, would alter the character of a neighborhood that can ill afford to backslide toward its seedier past, and further overwhelm an already crowded area.In a copy of a letter soliciting support for the casino, which was obtained by The New York Times, the companies promised to use a portion of the casino’s gambling revenues to fund safety and sanitation improvements in Times Square, including by deploying surveillance drones.Yet the idea of a casino has already found an influential opponent: the Broadway League, a trade association representing theater owners and producers. On Tuesday, the league sent an email to its members saying it would not welcome a casino to the neighborhood.“The addition of a casino will overwhelm the already densely congested area and would jeopardize the entire neighborhood whose existence is dependent on the success of Broadway,” the league said in a statement. “Broadway is the key driver of tourism and risking its stability would be detrimental to the city.”The congestion in Times Square is both a closely watched sign of vibrancy and a potential irritant, particularly for commuters and theatergoers who sometimes cite the crowds and the cacophony as reasons to stay away.For New York, Times Square is an important financial engine — the city relies heavily on tourists to spend money at the neighborhood’s hotels, restaurants, stores and entertainment venues.There are ample indicators that Broadway is still struggling: Several productions, including “The Phantom of the Opera,” which is the longest-running Broadway show in history, and “A Strange Loop,” which won this year’s Tony Award for best musical, have announced plans to close.Last week, there were 27 shows running on Broadway, seen by 225,731 people and grossing $29 million; in the comparable week in October 2019, before the pandemic, there were 34 shows running that were seen by 286,802 people and grossed $35 million.Still, the Actors’ Equity Association, the labor union representing actors and stage managers, is among those supporting the casino bid, suggesting a contentious road ahead for a proposal that will face a lengthy approval process.“The proposal from the developer for a Times Square casino would be a game changer that boosts security and safety in the Times Square neighborhood with increased security staff, more sanitation equipment and new cameras,” Actors’ Equity said in a statement. “We applaud the developer’s commitment to make the neighborhood safer for arts workers and audience members alike.”The simmering tensions between local power brokers, months before the formal bidding process has even begun, foreshadow the fight ahead for developers hoping to cash in on what could become the most lucrative gambling market in the country, at a time when traditional office-using tenants have become more scarce.A state committee formed this month to review casino applications said the process would open by Jan. 6, and that no determinations on locations would be made “until sometime later in 2023 at the earliest.”In their letter seeking support for the casino, SL Green and Caesars said that gambling revenues could be used to more than double the number of “public safety officers” in Times Square and to deploy surveillance drones.The letter said a new casino would result in more than 50 new artificial intelligence camera systems “strategically placed throughout Times Square, each capable of monitoring 85,000+ people per day.” The safety plans were developed by former New York Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, according to SL Green.Mr. Bratton did not respond to a request for comment.“As New Yorkers, it’s incumbent on us to keep making sure Times Square is keeping up with the times, and doesn’t go back to what I’ll call the bad old days of the ’70s or the early ’90s,” said Marc Holliday, the chief executive of SL Green. “And we all remember what that was like, when it comes to crime, and, you know, open drug use.”The casino is expected to include a hotel, a wellness center and restaurants, right above the Broadway theater that is home to “The Lion King” musical and a stone’s throw from the site of the ball drop on New Year’s Eve.Earlier this year, the state authorized up to three casino licenses for the New York City region. Legislators have touted the union jobs, tourists and tax revenue that a casino would attract, citing the fact that the bidding for each license will start at $500 million.Two existing “racinos” — horse racetracks with video slot machines but no human dealers — are considered front-runners for two of the three licenses: Genting Group’s Resorts World New York City in Queens and MGM Resorts International’s Empire City Casino in Yonkers, N.Y.The competition for the third license features many of the country’s major casino companies. Steven Cohen, the owner of the New York Mets, has been talking with Hard Rock about a casino near the baseball team’s stadium in Queens. Las Vegas Sands has been finalizing plans for its preferred casino location in the area, and Bally’s Corporation has been scouting for a development partner.The Wynn-Related proposed casino would be on the undeveloped western portion of the Hudson Yards, which was supposed to be completed by 2025 and include residential units and parks. Related, the developer of Hudson Yards, said it plans to fulfill all of its prior housing and public space commitments for the area.In a private pitch deck obtained by The Times, Wynn and Related wrote that Hudson Yards, near the Javits Center, was the ideal location to target “diverse upscale” guests for a casino resort complex.“Because it attracts the upper tier of gaming consumers, Wynn is able to dedicate less than 10 percent of its resort space to gaming, yet still generate significant gaming revenue and tax benefits for municipalities,” reads a slide in the deck.The deck also features photos of an outdoor man-made waterfall — and of a couple enjoying cocktails while watching a cigarette-holding animatronic frog, apparently from Wynn’s “Lake of Dreams” show.In their pitch letter, SL Green and Caesars said the casino was a “once in a lifetime opportunity to once again solidify Times Square as the world’s greatest entertainment area.”Community support is an integral ingredient to winning state approval for a casino license.The Broadway League’s “influence and clout and understanding of what theatergoers want is crucial to the future of Times Square, and if they’re opposing this proposal, I don’t see how it proceeds,” said Brad Hoylman, the state senator representing the district that encompasses Times Square.But Andrew Rigie, president of the New York City Hospitality Alliance, which represents the city’s restaurants and bars, said the group would support a casino in Manhattan if it used local restaurant operators or provided vouchers to nearby eateries. A major question surrounding the economic impact of casinos is whether they incentivize guests to stay and eat inside the building, which could hurt surrounding businesses.Alan Rosen, the owner of Junior’s Cheesecake, a restaurant chain with locations in Times Square and at the Foxwoods Resort Casino in Connecticut, said he was unconcerned.“I can’t see it hurting my business,” he said. “Look at Las Vegas. What do people do? They eat. They go to shows. It’s a lot more than gambling these days.” More
Even as the country as a whole has recovered all of the jobs it lost during the pandemic, the city is still missing 176,000 — the slowest recovery of any major metropolitan area.The darkest days of the pandemic are far behind New York City. Masks are coming off, Times Square is packed with tourists and Midtown Manhattan lunch spots have growing lines of workers in business suits. Walking around the city, it often feels like 2019 again.But the bustling surface obscures a lingering wound from the pandemic. While the country as a whole has recently regained all of the jobs it lost early in the health crisis, New York City is still missing 176,000, representing the slowest recovery of any major metropolitan area, according to the latest employment data.New York relies more than other cities on international tourists, business travelers and commuters, whose halting return has weighed on the workers who cater to them — from bartenders and baggage handlers, to office cleaners and theater ushers. A majority of the lost private sector jobs have been concentrated in the hospitality and retail industries, traditional pipelines into the work force for younger adults, immigrants and residents without a college degree.By contrast, overall employment in industries that allow for remote work, such as the technology sector, is back at prepandemic levels.The lopsided recovery threatens to deepen inequality in a city where apartment rents are soaring, while the number of residents receiving temporary government assistance has jumped by almost a third since February 2020. As New York emerges from the pandemic, city leaders face the risk of an economic rebound that leaves thousands of blue-collar workers behind.“The real damage here is that many of the industries with the most accessible jobs are the ones that are still struggling to fully recover,” said Jonathan Bowles, the executive director of the Center for an Urban Future, a public policy think tank.New York City was hit particularly hard by the first wave of the virus, prompting business closures and employer vaccine mandates that were among the longest and strictest in the country. Part of the reason for New York’s lagging recovery is that it lost one million jobs in the first two months of the pandemic, the most of any city. More recently, New York City has regained jobs at a rapid clip. The technology sector actually added jobs in the first 18 months of the pandemic, a period when almost every other industry shrank.But job growth slowed this summer in sectors like hotels and restaurants compared with a year ago, while businesses in technology, health care and finance increased employment at a faster pace over the same period, according to an analysis by James Parrott, an economist at the Center for New York City Affairs at the New School.After being laid off from her restaurant job early in the pandemic, Desiree Obando, 35, chose not to return, enrolling instead in community college.Andrew Seng for The New York TimesIn July, the city’s unemployment rate was 6.1 percent, compared with 3.5 percent in the country overall that month.At the height of the pandemic, Ronald Nibbs, 47, was laid off as a cleaner at an office building in Midtown Manhattan, where he had worked for seven years. Mr. Nibbs, his girlfriend and his two children struggled on unemployment benefits and food stamps.He secured temporary positions, but the work was spotty with few people back in offices. He did not want to switch careers, hoping to win his old position back. He began to drink heavily to deal with the anxiety of unemployment.In May, his building finally called him back to work. “When I got that phone call, I wanted to cry,” Mr. Nibbs said.There are 1,250 fewer office cleaners in the city now than there were before the pandemic, according to Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union.Last month, New York officials cut their jobs growth forecast for 2022 to 4.3 percent, from 4.9 percent, saying the state was not expected to reach prepandemic levels of employment until 2026. Officials cited the persistence of remote work and the migration of city residents away from the state as a long-term risk to employment levels.The number of tourists visiting New York City this year is expected to rebound to 85 percent of the level in 2019, a year in which a record 66.6 million travelers arrived, according to forecasts from NYC & Company, the city’s official tourism agency.However, according to the agency, visitors to the city are spending less money overall because those who have historically stayed longer — business and international travelers — have not returned at the same rates. This has hurt department stores that depend on high-spending foreign visitors, as well as hotels that rely on business travelers to book conferences and banquets.Ilialy Santos, 47, returned to her job as a room attendant this month at the Paramount Hotel in Times Square, which is reopening for the first time since March 2020. The hotel had been a candidate to be converted into affordable housing, but the plan was opposed by a local union, the New York Hotel and Gaming Trades Council, in order to save jobs.Ms. Santos said she could not find any employment for two years, falling behind every month on her bills. The hotel union provided a $1,000 payment to her landlord to help cover her rent.“I’m excited to be going back to work, getting back to my normal life and becoming more stable,” Ms. Santos said.Despite the city’s elevated unemployment rate, many employers say they are still struggling to find workers, especially in roles that cannot be done remotely. The size of the work force has also dropped, declining by about 300,000 people since February 2020.The number of tourists visiting New York City in 2022 is expected to rebound to 85 percent of the level in 2019, a year in which a record 66.6 million travelers came to the city.Christopher Lee for The New York TimesSome blue-collar employees who lost their jobs early in the pandemic are now holding out for positions that would allow them to work from home.Jade Campbell, 34, has been out of work since March 2020, when the pandemic temporarily shuttered the Old Navy store where she had worked as a sales associate. When the store called her back in the fall, she was in the middle of a difficult pregnancy, with a first-grade son who was struggling to focus during online classes. She decided to stay home, applying for different types of government assistance.Ms. Campbell now lives on her own in Queens without child care support; her children are 1 and 8 years old. She has refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19, a prerequisite in New York City for many in-person jobs. Still, she said she felt optimistic about applying for remote customer service roles after she reached out to Goodwill NYNJ, a nonprofit, for help with her résumé.“I got two kids I know I have to support,” she said. “I can’t really depend on the government to help me out.”At Petri Plumbing & Heating in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, several workers quit over the city’s policy that employees of private businesses be fully vaccinated. The restriction was the most stringent in the country when it was announced in December 2021 at the end of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s term.After Mayor Eric Adams signaled earlier this year that his administration would not enforce the mandate, Michael Petri, the company’s owner, offered to rehire three former workers. One returned, another had found another job and the third had moved to another state, he said.Thanks to a $50 hourly wage and monthly bonuses, current job openings at Petri Plumbing have attracted a flood of applicants. In a shift from before the pandemic, Mr. Petri said he now has to wade through more applicants with no plumbing experience.The strongest candidates often have too many driving infractions to be put on the company’s insurance policy, he said. But recently, Mr. Petri was so desperate to hire a mechanic with too many infractions that he recruited a young worker just to drive him.“This is without a doubt one of the more difficult times we have faced,” said Mr. Petri, whose family started the company in 1906.The disruptions have set the city’s youngest workers back the most. The unemployment rate for workers ages 16 to 24 is 20.7 percent.After graduating from high school in 2020, Simone Ward enrolled in community college but dropped out after a few months, feeling disengaged from online classes.Ms. Ward, 20, signed up for a cooking program with Queens Community House, a nonprofit organization, which allowed her to get a part-time job preparing steak sandwiches at Citi Field during baseball games. But the scheduling was inconsistent, and the job required a 90-minute commute on three subway lines from her home in Brooklyn’s Canarsie neighborhood.She applied for data entry jobs that would allow her to work remotely, but never heard back. She remembered interviewing for a job at an Olive Garden restaurant and recognizing in the moment that she was flailing, her social skills diminished by the isolation of lockdown.“The pandemic feels like it set my life back five steps,” she said. New York officials have cited the persistence of remote work and the migration of workers to other states as long-term risks to employment levels.Hiroko Masuike/The New York TimesFor Desiree Obando, 35, losing her job at a restaurant in Manhattan’s West Village early in the pandemic nudged her to leave the hospitality industry after 12 years. When the restaurant group she used to work for asked her to come back a few months later, she had already enrolled at LaGuardia Community College, returning to school after dropping out twice before, with the goal of becoming a high school counselor.She is now working a part-time job at an education nonprofit that pays $20 an hour, less than her hospitality job. But the work is close to her home in East Harlem, giving her the flexibility to pick up her daughter whenever the school has virus exposures.Ms. Obando is hopeful that she will eventually get an income boost after she completes her master’s degree.“There’s nothing like the pandemic to put things in perspective,” Ms. Obando said. “I made the right choice for me and my family. More
New York City said Tuesday that it had reached a settlement potentially worth more than $20 million with the fast-food chain Chipotle Mexican Grill over violations of worker protection laws, the largest settlement of its kind in the city’s history.The action, affecting about 13,000 workers, sends a message “that we won’t stand by when workers’ rights are violated,” Mayor Eric Adams said in a statement.The city said the settlement covered violations of scheduling and sick leave laws from late November 2017 to late April of this year. Under the settlement, hourly employees of Chipotle in New York City will receive $50 for each week that they worked during that period. Employees who left the company before April 30 will have to file a claim to receive their compensation.The Fair Workweek Law enacted by the city in 2017 requires fast-food employers to provide workers with their schedules at least two weeks in advance or pay a bonus for the shifts.The employers must also give workers at least 11 hours off between shifts on consecutive days or get written consent and pay them an extra $100. And the employers must offer workers more shifts before hiring additional employees, to make it easier for them to earn a sustainable income.Under a separate city law, large employers like Chipotle must provide up to 56 hours of paid sick leave per year.The city accused Chipotle of violating all these policies.“We’re pleased to be able to resolve these issues,” Scott Boatwright, the company’s chief restaurant officer, said in a statement. Mr. Boatwright added that the company had carried out a number of changes to ensure compliance with the law, such as new time-keeping technology, and that Chipotle looked forward to “continuing to promote the goals of predictable scheduling and access to work hours for those who want them.”The city filed an initial legal complaint in the case, involving a handful of Chipotle stores, in September 2019, then expanded the case last year to include locations across the city. At the time, the city said the company owed workers over $150 million for the scheduling violations alone. Advocates for the workers said civil penalties could far exceed that amount.In addition to as much as $20 million in compensation, Chipotle will pay $1 million in civil penalties. A city spokeswoman said the settlement was the fastest way to win relief for workers.The city said in its statement that it had closed more than 220 investigations and obtained nearly $3.4 million in fines and restitution under the scheduling law, and that it had closed more than 2,300 investigations and obtained nearly $17 million in fines and restitution under the sick leave law. Neither figure includes the settlement announced Tuesday.The city spokeswoman said the city had filed more than 135 formal complaints under the two laws, and that many employers settle before the city can file a case.Chipotle faces pressure over its labor practice on other fronts. Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, which helped prompt the investigation at Chipotle by filing initial complaints in the case, is seeking to unionize Chipotle workers in the city.Chipotle employees at stores in Maine and Michigan have filed petitions for union elections. The Maine store has been closed, a move that the employees assert was retaliation for the organizing effort. Chipotle has said the closing was a result of staffing issues and had “nothing to do with union activity.” More
