Today’s News & Commentary — March 20, 2017

While President Trump has launched a campaign against undocumented immigrants, his administration has not spoken out about the employers who hire them, notes the New York Times in an editorial today. Faulty enforcement and high evidentiary hurdles make holding employers accountable difficult. The Times faults the administration’s one-sided focus on demonizing immigrants while not providing a path to citizenship and putting money into (controversial) solutions to verify employment eligibility, like E-Verify.

Trump’s push to bring back coal jobs (“a delusion,” according to the New York Times in a separate editorial) is prompting Republican legislatures in coal country to reenact looser mine safety laws. Some lawmakers claim that the “federal government can do the inspections just as well as the states”—a seemingly out-of-character stance, until one looks at the current federal government, which has no interest in regulating coal companies and plans to cut the Department of Labor budget by 21%. Other legislatures are passing laws that cut down on annual safety checks (in exchange for a “‘safety analysis’ based on conversations with miners”) and proposing bills that lower standards.

A former law student of Neil Gorsuch claims that the Supreme Court nominee implied that women manipulate companies during interviews to gain maternity benefits, according to NPR. The former student wrote a letter detailing her class experience to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders, which was posted by the National Employment Lawyers Association and the National Women’s Law Center last night.

Labor secretary nominee Alex Acosta will be heard before the Senate HELP Committee this Wednesday, reports The Hill. Acosta, whose hearing was delayed once already, hasn’t faced the same level of criticism as former nominee Andy Puzder. Many are eager to learn more about the Labor tap, who has managed to avoid the spotlight and is a “blank page on policy,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

Weekend News & Commentary — March 18-19, 2017

On the campaign trail, President Trump pledged that he would create 25 million jobs over the next decade.  Will he keep his promise?  The New York Times thinks not.  The Editorial Board takes aim at the President’s “wheezing jobs effort,” pointing to his recently released budget proposal — which would cut the Department of Labor’s budget by 21% and eliminate several important jobs programs — and his neglect of important job markets, such as the clean energy sector.

President Trump’s labor policies have also attracted the ire of unions and labor leaders.  The SEIU and Food Chain Workers Alliance have announced a general strike on May 1 (#May1Strike), coinciding with International Workers’ Day.  More than 300,000 food chain employees and 40,000 service workers are expected to turn out, The Hill reports, to protest the Trump administration and in particular its hardline stance on immigration.

Meanwhile, the administration’s immigration crackdown has worsened the farm labor shortage in California, The Los Angeles Times reports.  Although farm wages have shot up, few Americans have been willing to accept those jobs — casting doubt on President Trump’s claim that tougher borders will help American-born workers.

Disney will be paying $3.8 million in back wages to 16,339 of its “cast members” as part of a settlement with the Department of Labor.  The DOL’s investigation revealed that Disney resorts in Florida deducted a “costume” expense that caused some employees’ hourly rates to fall below the federal minimum wage.  The Christian Science Monitor has more.

Continue reading

Today’s News & Commentary — March 16, 2017

Federal judges in Hawaii and Maryland dealt a blow to President Trump’s revised travel ban yesterday.  In Honolulu, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson granted a nationwide temporary restraining order preventing the Trump Administration’s executive order from taking effect.  Hours later, U.S. District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang in Maryland issued an order preventing the key provision, which would have stopped the U.S. from issuing visas from six countries for 90 days, from being implemented.  Read more here.

The Federal Reserve raised the benchmark interest rate yesterday for the third time following the financial crisis.  It opted to raise the benchmark by a quarter of a percentage point and continues to predict two additional rate increases this year.  In a press conference regarding the decision, Janet Yellen, chairwoman of the Federal Reserve, showed confidence in the economy stating “[w]e’re closing in, I think, on our employment objective; we’re coming closer on our inflation objective. … It looks to us to be appropriate to gradually raise the federal funds rate to neutral.”   A historical examination of the Federal Reserve’s involvement in rate increases can be found here.

Yesterday, the Senate voted 51-48 to repeal an Obama Administration regulation restricting the sectors in which states could require a drug test for unemployment benefits.  President Trump is expected to sign the repeal into law.  Because the regulation was repealed under the special procedures outlined in the Congressional Review Act, Congress only requires majorities in both chambers to undo recently finalized regulations.  This regulation is the eighth Obama regulation to be repealed under the Congressional Review Act.

At the New Yorker, Jonathan Blitzer suggests that the case of Daniel Ramirez, a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, demonstrates how the Trump Administration could undermine the program without formally abolishing it.  Ramirez and his legal team have alleged that Ramirez’s due process rights were violated when he was arrested.  The government has responded that DACA status can be revoked at any time if a DACA beneficiary is convicted of a crime or considered to be a threat to public safety.  Ramirez has not been convicted of a crime, and he and his legal team maintain that the government has no evidence that he is a threat to public safety.  The article questions whether DACA’s protections and the emphasis on high-priority immigration enforcement will prove illusory in the face of such broad discretion delegated to immigration enforcement officials.  Blitzer states that “[w]hile the Trump Administration may preserve DACA on paper, honoring the policy in practice would require being clear about who is and isn’t a priority for detention by immigration agents.”

Weekend News & Commentary — February 4-5, 2017

The weekend started with some good news, with an above-expectations jobs report released Friday.  January saw 227,000 new jobs and modest wage growth; average hourly wages were up 3 cents at $26.  President Trump has already claimed credit for the strong numbers, predicting that job growth will “continue, big league,” under his administration.
 
Meanwhile, federal workers who want to express dissent against that same administration are turning to incognito forms of communication to do so, POLITICO reports.  In order to avoid rules covering workplace communications, EPA employees — fearing that the President’s incoming appointees will undermine existing policies — are now using an encrypted messaging app to talk strategy.  Similarly, Labor Department employees are using their private email accounts to circulate a letter asking senators to oppose Andrew Puzder’s nomination for Labor Secretary.
 
Speaking of which, the nominee — still facing delays in his confirmation process — continues to attract criticism.  The New York Times investigates Puzder’s early career as a lawyer, when he represented business owners and battled labor regulators in the courtroom.  In one of his biggest cases, Puzder defended his boss (a famous mob lawyer and casino owner) against allegations of squandering $25 million from union workers’ pension funds.
 
Puzder’s opposition to raising the minimum wage has also drawn fire, as the “Fight for $15” and related movements continue to build momentum.  Without a doubt, the importance of a “living wage” has become a central tenet of workers’ activism.  But where does it come from?  JSTOR Daily takes a step back from the debate, pointing out that workers’ acceptance of wage labor — a system that was still decried in the nineteenth century as “wage slavery” — is of relatively recent vintage.  Meanwhile, some commentators are of the view that minimum-wage hikes won’t be enough, in an age of automation, to secure the livelihoods of workers.  Writing for Jacobin, Mark Paul, William Darity Jr., and Darrick Hamilton argue instead for a federal job guarantee that would ensure employment for all.