Labor and Jobs

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Farm Workers Union Battles With California Grower, Wonderful Nurseries

      by

      Wonderful Nurseries, owned by Stewart and Lynda Resnick, has sued the state to overturn a labor organizing law championed by the United Farm Workers.The allegations ricocheted through the agricultural fields and into a Central Valley courthouse, where one of California’s most powerful companies and an iconic union were trading charges of deception and coercion in a fight over worker representation.Some farmworkers at Wonderful Nurseries — part of the Wonderful Company, the conglomerate behind famous brands of pomegranate juice and pistachios, as well as Fiji Water — said they had been duped into signing cards to join a union. On the other side, the United Farm Workers, the union formed in the 1960s by labor figures including Cesar Chavez, contends that the influential company, owned by the Los Angeles billionaires and powerhouse Democratic donors Stewart and Lynda Resnick, is trying to thwart the will of workers through intimidation and coercion.For months, the back and forth has played out before the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board, which arbitrates labor fights between workers and growers, and in a courthouse not far from Wonderful’s sprawling fields.In May, the company filed a legal challenge against the state that could overturn a 2022 law that made it easier for farmworkers to take part in unionization votes.After vetoing a previous version over procedural concerns, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure following public pressure from President Biden and Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker. The U.F.W. heralded the bill’s enactment as a critical victory, but several big growers said that it would allow union organizers to unfairly influence the process.The law paved the way for farmworkers to vote for union representation by signing union authorization cards, a process known simply as card check. Its passage coincided with an era of greater mobilization to unionize workers during the pandemic and a willingness to press demands for better working conditions and respect from employers, said Victor Narro, project director and labor studies professor at the U.C.L.A. Labor Center.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Added 818,000 Fewer Jobs Than Reported Earlier

      by

      The Labor Department issued revised figures for the 12 months through March that point to greater economic fragility.The U.S. economy added far fewer jobs in 2023 and early 2024 than previously reported, a sign that cracks in the labor market are more severe — and began forming earlier — than initially believed.On Wednesday, the Labor Department said that monthly payroll figures overstated job growth by roughly 818,000 in the 12 months that ended in March. That suggests employers added about 174,000 jobs per month during that period, down from the previously reported pace of about 242,000 jobs — a downward revision of about 28 percent.The revisions, which are preliminary, are part of an annual process in which monthly estimates, based on surveys, are reconciled with more accurate but less timely records from state unemployment offices. The new figures, once finalized, will be incorporated into official government employment statistics early next year.The updated numbers are the latest sign of vulnerability in the job market, which until recently had appeared rock solid despite months of high interest rates and economists’ warnings of an impending recession. More recent data, which wasn’t affected by the revisions, suggest job growth slowed further in the spring and summer, and the unemployment rate, though still relatively low at 4.3 percent, has been gradually rising.Federal Reserve officials are paying close attention to the signs of erosion as they weigh when and how much to begin lowering interest rates. In a speech in Alaska on Tuesday, Michelle W. Bowman, a Fed governor, highlighted “risks that the labor market has not been as strong as the payroll data have been indicating,” although she also said that the increase in the unemployment rate could be overstating the extent of the slowdown.Investors, too, had been watching the revisions closely because of their implications for Fed policy. They were forced to wait longer than expected, however: The data, originally scheduled for a 10 a.m. release, was not published until after 10:30 a.m.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 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Americans Growing Worried About Losing Their Jobs, Labor Survey Shows

      by

      The New York Fed’s labor market survey showed cracks just as Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, prepares for a closely watched Friday speech.Americans are increasingly worried about losing their jobs, a new survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released on Monday showed, a worrying sign at a moment when economists and central bankers are warily monitoring for cracks in the job market.The New York Fed’s July survey of labor market expectations showed that the expected likelihood of becoming unemployed rose to 4.4 percent on average, up from 3.9 percent a year earlier and the highest in data going back to 2014.In fact, the new data showed signs of the labor market cracking across a range of metrics. People reported leaving or losing jobs, marked down their salary expectations and increasingly thought that they would need to work past traditional retirement ages. The share of workers who reported searching for a job in the past four weeks jumped to 28.4 percent — the highest level since the data started — up from 19.4 percent in July 2023.The survey, which quizzes a nationally representative sample of people on their recent economic experience, suggested that meaningful fissures may be forming in the labor market. While it is just one report, it comes at a tense moment, as economists and central bankers watch nervously for signs that the job market is taking a turn for the worse.The unemployment rate has moved up notably over the past year, climbing to 4.3 percent in July. That has put many economy watchers on edge. The jobless rate rarely moves up as sharply as is has recently outside of an economic recession.But the slowdown in the labor market has not been widely backed up by other data. Jobless claims have moved up but remain relatively low. Consumer spending remains robust, with both overall retail sales data and company earnings reports suggesting that shoppers continue to open their wallets.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 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Transfers and Pay Cuts: Pregnant Officers Accuse Border Agency of Discrimination

      by

      Under a $45 million settlement, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust its policy around pregnancy. Some women say the agency has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation.When Roberta Gabaldon was ready to share news of her pregnancy with her colleagues at Customs and Border Protection in 2015, she brought in pink and blue doughnuts with a sign that read: “Pink and blue. Pink and blue. Somebody’s pregnant, guess who?”But her palpable excitement, particularly after a miscarriage months earlier, quickly dissipated.“My boss came into my office and he’s like: ‘You have to leave. You have to get a note about your pregnancy, and you have to go on light duty,’” Ms. Gabaldon, an agriculture specialist in the El Paso office, recalled, describing how she was told she needed to be reassigned to a post with fewer responsibilities regardless of whether she or her doctor believed it was necessary.Her experience reflects that of hundreds of female employees at the agency who have filed suit against Customs and Border Protection, saying that since at least 2016, they were denied equal treatment once they disclosed they were expecting. No matter the physical demands of their jobs, many were transferred to another post, typically centered on administrative or secretarial work and usually unrelated to what skills they had developed in their existing roles. The policy, they say, hurt their opportunities for advancement, and others add that they weathered pay cuts because light duty meant no more overtime.But under a $45 million settlement reached on Monday, Customs and Border Protection agreed to adjust a practice that some employees say has instilled a culture of shame and perpetuated a fear of retaliation as women try to hide their pregnancies at work for as long as possible.The agreement, which is not final until the end of September, requires C.B.P. to draft a new policy for pregnant women, and lawyers representing the women will monitor the agency’s compliance for three years. C.B.P. will also be required to train all managers and supervisors about the rights of pregnant employees.C.B.P. declined to answer questions about its policy toward pregnant women as described in the lawsuit and in interviews, citing its practice of not commenting on pending litigation. The terms of the settlement agreement state that the agency does not admit wrongdoing.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 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      X Spaces With Trump and Musk Is Off to a Glitchy Start

      by

      Elon Musk’s live conversation with former president Donald J. Trump on X got off to a glitchy start on Monday, a setback for the social media service as Mr. Musk pushes the company to regain its dominance as an online epicenter of political discourse.Some users who tried to listen to the conversation, which was hosted on the company’s audio livestreaming feature called Spaces, were greeted by silence and an error message that read: “Details not available.” Users said they had trouble accessing the livestream on desktop computers and mobile phones. Those who were able to get the livestream to work were met with hold music. The Spaces event was originally scheduled to start at 8 p.m. Eastern. The number of attendees fluctuated wildly as users struggled to gain access, drifting between 100,000 and more than 700,000 listeners. Mr. Musk blamed a cyberattack known as a distributed denial of service attack, or DDoS, for the glitches. DDoS attacks work by flooding servers with malicious traffic and knocking them offline. “Worst case, we will proceed with a smaller number of live listeners and post the conversation later,” he wrote. The attack could not immediately be verified.Mr. Musk claimed the system had been tested “with 8 million concurrent listeners” earlier that day.He had spent Sunday evening testing the service to make sure it could stay up and running by streaming himself playing a video game. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Why Google, Microsoft and Amazon Shy Away From Buying A.I. Start-Ups

      by

      Google, Microsoft and Amazon have made deals with A.I. start-ups for their technology and top employees, but have shied from owning the firms. Here’s why.In 2022, Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas left their jobs developing artificial intelligence at Google. They said the tech giant moved too slowly. So they created Character.AI, a chatbot start-up, and raised nearly $200 million.Last week, Mr. Shazeer and Mr. De Freitas announced that they were returning to Google. They had struck a deal to rejoin its A.I. research arm, along with roughly 20 percent of Character.AI’s employees, and provide their start-up’s technology, they said.But even though Google was getting all that, it was not buying Character.AI.Instead, Google agreed to pay $3 billion to license the technology, two people with knowledge of the deal said. About $2.5 billion of that sum will then be used to buy out Character.AI’s shareholders, including Mr. Shazeer, who owns 30 percent to 40 percent of the company and stands to net $750 million to $1 billion, the people said. What remains of Character.AI will continue operating without its founders and investors.The deal was one of several unusual transactions that have recently emerged in Silicon Valley. While big tech companies typically buy start-ups outright, they have turned to a more complicated deal structure for young A.I. companies. It involves licensing the technology and hiring the top employees — effectively swallowing the start-up and its main assets — without becoming the owner of the firm.These transactions are being driven by the big tech companies’ desire to sidestep regulatory scrutiny while trying to get ahead in A.I., said three people who have been involved in such agreements. Google, Amazon, Meta, Apple and Microsoft are under a magnifying glass from agencies like the Federal Trade Commission over whether they are squashing competition, including by buying start-ups.“Large tech firms may clearly be trying to avoid regulatory scrutiny by not directly acquiring the targeted firms,” said Justin Johnson, a business economist who focuses on antitrust at Cornell University. But “these deals do indeed start to look a lot like regular acquisitions.”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

    • 88 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Stocks Drop as Jobs Report Shakes Market

      by

      Stocks skidded on Friday, capping off a turbulent week for Wall Street, as investors were jolted by data showing that hiring slowed and unemployment rose in July.The spiking uncertainty about the economic outlook, and the question of whether the Federal Reserve has been too slow to raise interest rates, was evident across financial markets.The S&P 500 fell 2.4 percent within the hour after the jobs report was released, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped 3 percent. Yields on government bonds, which are sensitive to expectations for the economy, dropped sharply, and oil prices were lower too.The U.S. economy added 114,000 jobs on a seasonally adjusted basis, much fewer than economists had expected and a significant drop from the average of 215,000 jobs added over the previous 12 months. The unemployment rate rose to 4.3 percent, the highest level since October 2021.“That all-important macro data we have been hammering for months is finally starting to turn in an ominous direction,” said Alex McGrath, chief investment officer at NorthEnd Private Wealth.Markets are now predicting a half a percent cut in interest rates at the Fed’s next meeting in September, up from the quarter-point cut investors had been anticipating as of Thursday, according to CME FedWatch. The two-year Treasury yield, which is also reflective of short-term interest rate expectations, fell 20 basis points, to 3.96 percent.This week had already been a rocky one for Wall Street. The Federal Reserve’s indication on Wednesday that it was moving closer to cutting interest rates in September prompted an accelerated market rally, and the S&P 500 rose 2 percent on comments by Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair.But the market sold off on Thursday, with the S&P 500 falling 1.4 percent, led lower by a drop in chip stocks and economic data suggesting the economy is cooling. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield — which underpins many other borrowing costs — also dropped below 4 percent on Thursday.All this comes as investors started reconsidering their appetite for big technology stocks last month and bought up shares of smaller companies, which are particularly sensitive to borrowing costs and stand to benefit from interest rate cuts. Also driving this shift is a rethink among investors about the potential for artificial intelligence to continue to drive gains at big companies like Microsoft, Nvidia and Alphabet, after shares of those businesses surged in the past year. More

    • 63 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Productivity Surges 2.3%, Beating Forecasts

      by

      The NewsProductivity grew at a 2.3 percent annual rate in the second quarter, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on Thursday, surpassing economists’ expectations. The pickup was a major improvement upon the sluggish 0.4 percent rate in the first quarter. And on a yearly basis, productivity increased 2.7 percent. That far exceeds prepandemic averages.An assembly line at a car plant in Michigan in April.Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesWhy It Matters: A key to prosperity.A highly productive economy generally means businesses and workers are operating efficiently, making more money in fewer hours. In the second quarter, production was up 3.3 percent, while hours worked rose 1 percent.On a less technical level, productivity is best explained by the old axiom of “doing more with less” or the folksy virtue of “getting the biggest bang for your buck.”Economists tend to sigh with relief when they see productivity gains because it offers a potential “win-win” for workers, customers and business owners: If businesses can make more money in fewer work hours, then — according to basic economic logic — they can presumably make more dollars per hour, while also reinvesting and giving workers raises, without sacrificing profits.Being able to make more with less (or with the same amount of labor and machinery) also means businesses may not feel as much pressure to set higher prices to push profits. That, too, is welcome news after a yearslong bout of inflation.Facts to Keep in Mind: A volatile indicator.Productivity, at a basic level, is calculated as a simple ratio: the total amount of output an economy produces per hour worked by its labor force. But the output side of the equation is adjusted for inflation on a quarterly basis. That can cause volatility, in both directions.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