Regulation and Deregulation of Industry

Latest story

150 Shares62 Views

Fed Chair Jerome Powell Says No Need to ‘Hurry’ to Cut Rates

by

A strong economy is giving Federal Reserve officials room to move “carefully” as they lower interest rates, the central bank chair said.Jerome H. Powell, the chair of the Federal Reserve, said that a solid economy with low unemployment, robust consumer spending and strengthening business investment gave the central bank room to take its time in cutting interest rates.“The economy is not sending any signals that we need to be in a hurry to lower rates,” Mr. Powell said during a speech in Dallas on Thursday. “The strength we are currently seeing in the economy gives us the ability to approach our decisions carefully.”The Fed is trying to navigate a complicated moment. The economy remains healthy overall, but the job market has slowed over the past year. Inflation has also been cooling steadily. Between the two developments, central bankers have decided that they no longer need to tap the brakes on the economy quite so hard.After lifting interest rates sharply in 2022 and 2023 in a bid to cool the economy and wrestle rapid inflation back under control, they have begun to lower borrowing costs in recent months.But officials still want to make sure that they fully stamp out rapid inflation. Price increases have cooled substantially from their 2022 peak, but they have not completely returned to the central bank’s 2 percent goal. Prices climbed 2.1 percent in the year through September, and are on track to come in a bit above that in October, based on other recent data reports.Mr. Powell made it clear that Fed officials expected to see limited progress on inflation in the next few months.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

More stories

  • 125 Shares75 Views

    in Economy

    Ford Fined by Safety Agency Over Defective Rearview Camera Recalls

    by

    The regulator faulted the automaker for not recalling cars with defective rearview cameras quickly enough and for providing incomplete and inaccurate information.Ford Motor will pay a fine of up to $165 million for not recalling cars with defective rearview cameras in a timely manner, the federal government’s main auto safety agency said on Thursday.The agency, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said Ford also had failed to provide accurate and complete information about the defect and recall. If Ford is required to pay the full sum, it will be the second-largest fine ever issued by the regulator. The largest fine, a $200 million penalty in 2015, was levied against Takata, a Japanese company that made defective airbag inflaters that resulted in a huge, global recall.The safety agency said a defective rearview camera could increase the risk of a crash.“Timely and accurate recalls are critical to keeping everyone safe on our roads,” the agency’s deputy administrator, Sophie Shulman, said in a statement. “When manufacturers fail to prioritize the safety of the American public and meet their obligations under federal law, NHTSA will hold them accountable.”Under a consent decree between the agency and Ford, the automaker is required to pay $65 million. A second sum of $55 million will be deferred and can be partly or completely reversed if Ford makes changes to improve its ability to identify defects and alert the safety agency quickly.Ford also agreed to spend $45 million to improve its ability to analyze data, create a new means of sharing information and documents with the safety agency, and set up a base to test rearview camera components.“We appreciate the opportunity to resolve this matter with NHTSA and remain committed to continuously improving safety and compliance at Ford,” the automaker said in a statement. “Wide-ranging enhancements are already underway with more to come, including advanced data analytics, a new in-house testing facility, among other capabilities.”According to a summary of the safety agency’s investigation, the defect was related to a faulty circuit board that caused rearview cameras in certain models to stop working. The agency received 15 complaints about the defect but did not identify any injuries or fatalities caused by it.Ford first identified the defect in 2020 and issued a recall for more than 620,000 vehicles, largely from the 2020 model year, including F-Series pickups, Mustangs and several sport utility vehicles. A year later, the safety agency opened an investigation to determine if Ford had accurately identified and reported all of the vehicles that could have been affected by the camera defect.Ford expanded the recall in 2023 and again this year. Separately, Ford recalled a different set of rearview cameras in 2023 at a cost of $270 million. More

  • 113 Shares84 Views

    in Economy

    NLRB Bars Mandatory Anti-Union Meetings After Amazon Draws Complaint

    by

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

  • 125 Shares117 Views

    in Economy

    Trump Is Expected to Upend Biden Labor Policies Favoring Unions

    by

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

  • 138 Shares125 Views

    in Economy

    What Trump’s Win Means for the Federal Reserve and Jerome Powell

    by

    Donald J. Trump spent his first presidency on a collision course with America’s central bank. Will it intensify?Donald J. Trump spent his first presidency attacking the Federal Reserve, pushing policymakers to cut interest rates and calling Fed officials names that ranged from “boneheads” to “enemy.”That rhetoric is likely to make a return to the White House with Mr. Trump. The Republican has been promising that interest rates will come down on his watch — even though rates are set by the politically independent Fed and the president has no direct control over them.The question looming over markets and the Fed itself is whether Mr. Trump will do more than just talk this time as he tries to get his way. The Fed is in the process of cutting rates, but it is unclear whether it will do so fast enough to please Mr. Trump.Congress granted the Fed independence from the White House so that central bankers would have the freedom to make policy decisions that brought near-term pain but long-term benefits. Higher rates are unpopular with consumers and with incumbent politicians, for instance, though they can leave the economy on a more sustainable path over time.But some in Wall Street and in political circles worry that the Fed’s insulation from politics could come under pressure in the years ahead. Here’s what that might look like.Trump Could Shake Up Fed PersonnelMr. Trump first elevated Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, to his current role in early 2018. He then quickly soured on Mr. Powell, who resisted his calls to sharply lower interest rates.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

  • 150 Shares93 Views

    in Economy

    How Elon Musk Might Use His Pull With Trump to Help Tesla

    by

    Although Donald Trump has opposed policies that favor electric cars, if he becomes president he could ease regulatory scrutiny of Tesla or protect lucrative credits and subsidies.Former President Donald J. Trump has promised, if he is re-elected, to do away with Biden administration policies that encourage the use and production of electric cars. Yet one of his biggest supporters is Elon Musk, the chief executive of Tesla, which makes nearly half the electric vehicles sold in the United States.Whether or not Mr. Trump would carry out his threats against battery-powered cars and trucks, a second Trump administration could still be good for Tesla and Mr. Musk, auto and political experts say.Mr. Musk has spent more than $75 million to support the Trump campaign and is running a get-out-the-vote effort on the former president’s behalf in Pennsylvania. That will almost surely earn Mr. Musk the kind of access he would need to promote Tesla.But Mr. Musk would also have to confront a big gap between his Washington wish list and Mr. Trump’s agenda.While Mr. Musk rarely acknowledges it, Tesla has collected billions of dollars from programs championed by Democrats like President Biden that Mr. Trump and other Republicans have vowed to dismantle.In Michigan, a battleground state and home to many auto factories, the Trump campaign has run ads that claim that Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, wants to “end all gas-powered cars” — a position that she does not hold.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 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    California Tribal Casinos May Sue to Curb City Card Rooms

    by

    In the sprawl of Los Angeles County, a handful of casinos have operated for decades.There’s the crescent-shaped casino in Commerce, an industrial city off Interstate 5. A warehouse-like gambling parlor in Hawaiian Gardens, a short drive south. Two card rooms in Gardena, a nearby suburb.Beyond being places to gamble and unwind, they have two things in common. They generate a large portion of their cities’ revenue. And their existence may soon be challenged in court by California’s tribal nations.After a multimillion-dollar lobbying battle, state legislation signed into law last month allows Native American tribes, which own some of California’s largest and most lucrative casinos, to dispute the legality of certain games played inside these small, privately owned gambling halls.Tribes have argued that such casinos — also known as card rooms because they have only table games and not slot machines — have siphoned millions of dollars away from them.The new law opened a window until April 1 for tribes to take their case to state courts, where they had lacked legal standing. At particular issue is whether the card rooms offer games considered Las Vegas-style gambling, to which the tribes have exclusive rights in California.A group called the California Cardroom Alliance has said the law puts jobs at risk.Recent legislation allows Native American tribes to challenge the legality of certain games played in card rooms.Stella Kalinina for 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

  • 138 Shares169 Views

    in Economy

    How Kamala Harris’s Economic Plan Has Been Shaped by Business Leaders

    by

    The vice president has repeatedly incorporated suggestions from business executives into her economic agenda.When two of Vice President Kamala Harris’s closest advisers arrived in New York last month, they were seeking advice. The Democratic nominee was preparing to give her most far-reaching economic speech, and Tony West, Ms. Harris’s brother-in-law, and Brian Nelson, a longtime confidant, wanted to know how the city’s powerful financiers thought she should approach it.Over two days, the pair held meetings across Wall Street, including at the offices of Lazard, an investment bank, and the elite law firm Paul, Weiss. Among the ideas the attendees pitched was to provide more lucrative tax breaks for companies that allowed their workers to become part owners, according to two people at the meetings. The campaign had already been discussing such an idea with an executive at KKR, the private equity firm.A few days later, Ms. Harris endorsed the idea during her speech in Pittsburgh. “We will reform our tax laws to make it easier for businesses to let workers share in their company’s success,” she said.The line, while just a piece of a much broader speech, was emblematic of Ms. Harris’s approach to economic policy since she took the helm of the Democratic Party in July. As part of a bid to cut into former President Donald J. Trump’s polling lead on the economy, her campaign has carefully courted business leaders, organizing a steady stream of meetings and calls in which corporate executives and donors offer their thoughts on tax policy, financial regulation and other issues.The private feedback has, in sometimes subtle ways, shaped Ms. Harris’s economic agenda over the course of her accelerated campaign. At several points, she has sprinkled language into broader speeches that business executives say reflects their views. And, in at least one instance, Ms. Harris made a specific policy commitment — to pare back a tax increase on capital gains — after extended talks with her corporate allies.This article is based on interviews with more than two dozen campaign officials, policy experts, donors, lobbyists and business leaders.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 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    Amazon Could Be Forced to Treat Drivers as Employees

    by

    Amazon’s delivery system depends on third-party companies. But labor regulators have challenged that model, possibly opening the way for unionization.Vans marked with Amazon’s arrow logo have become ubiquitous on residential streets, a symbol of the nearly instantaneous delivery that has transformed online shopping.But behind the wheel, that image of high-tech efficiency is being overshadowed by drivers’ complaints about working conditions. Recent federal labor rulings could pave the way for unionization in the company’s last-mile delivery network and change how it does business.Hundreds of thousands of drivers who deliver Amazon packages don’t work directly for the e-commerce giant; instead, they’re employed by third-party logistics companies, called delivery service partners. Last year, Amazon ended a contract with a delivery company in Palmdale, Calif., after drivers started organizing with the Teamsters union.A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board in Los Angeles issued the first formal complaint last week targeting the company’s delivery model, arguing in the Palmdale case that Amazon is a joint employer of the drivers and, as such, must bargain with the union.Last month, another N.L.R.B. regional director issued a preliminary finding that Amazon is a joint employer of drivers in Atlanta seeking to unionize with the Teamsters, and that it must be held liable for unlawfully discouraging unionization.Amazon contracts over 3,000 delivery service partners, which determine pay, schedules and work conditions for drivers, the company said.By Christopher Smith For 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