Latest news with #DepartmentofLabor
Washington Post
13 minutes ago
- Health
- Washington Post
Trump's Labor Department proposes more than 60 rule changes in a push to deregulate workplaces
NEW YORK — The U.S. Department of Labor is aiming to rewrite or repeal more than 60 'obsolete' workplace regulations, ranging from minimum wage requirements for home health care workers and people with disabilities to standards governing exposure to harmful substances. If approved, the wide-ranging changes unveiled this month also would affect working conditions at constructions sites and in mines , and limit the government's ability to penalize employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently risky activities such as movie stunts or animal training. The Labor Department says the goal is to reduce costly, burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations, and to deliver on President Donald Trump's commitment to restore American prosperity through deregulation. 'The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity,' Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, which boasted the 'most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government.' Critics say the proposals would put workers at greater risk of harm , with women and members of minority groups bearing a disproportionate impact. 'People are at very great risk of dying on the job already,' Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO union's occupational safety and health director, said. 'This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.' The proposed changes have several stages to get through before they can take effect, including a public comment period for each one. Here's a look at some of the rollbacks under consideration: Home health care workers help elderly or medically fragile people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting with toilet use, accompanying clients to doctor appointments and performing other tasks. Under one of the Labor Department's proposals, an estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 per hour — and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren't covered by corresponding state laws . The proposed rule would reverse changes made in 2013 under former President Barack Obama and revert to a regulatory framework from 1975. The Labor Department says that by lowering labor and compliance costs, its revisions might expand the home care market and help keep frail individuals in their homes for longer. Judy Conti, director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project, said her organization plans to work hard to defeat the proposal. Home health workers are subject to injuries from lifting clients, and 'before those (2013) regulations, it was very common for home care workers to work 50, 60 and maybe even more hours a week, without getting any overtime pay,' Conti said. Others endorse the proposal, including the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative nonprofit based in Virginia. Women often bear the brunt of family caregiving responsibilities , so making home care more affordable would help women balance work and personal responsibilities, the group's president, Carrie Lukas, said. 'We're pleased to see the Trump administration moving forward on rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanaging of relationships that were making it hard for people to get the care they need,' Lukas said. Samantha Sanders, director of government affairs and advocacy at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, said the repeal would not constitute a win for women. 'Saying we actually don't think they need those protections would be pretty devastating to a workforce that performs really essential work and is very heavily dominated by women, and women of color in particular,' Sanders said. Last year, the Labor Department finalized rules that provided protections to migrant farmworkers who held H-2A visas . The current administration says most of those rules placed unnecessary and costly requirements on employers. Under the new proposal, the Labor Department would rescind a requirement for most employer-provided transportation to have seat belts for those agriculture workers. The department is also proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, hearing or proceeding. 'There's a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work. And with H-2A it's even worse because the employer can just not renew your visa,' said Lori Johnson, senior attorney at Farmworker Justice. Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, applauded the deregulation efforts, saying farmers were hit with thousands of pages of regulations pertaining to migrant farmworkers in recent years. 'Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months and then be liable for every one of them?' he asked. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration , part of the Labor Department, wants to rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, saying the regulation doesn't substantially reduce a significant risk. OSHA said if employers fail to correct lighting deficiencies at construction worksites, the agency can issue citations under its 'general duty clause.' The clause requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards which are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Worker advocates think getting rid of a specific construction site requirement is a bad idea. 'There have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there's not adequate lighting,' Reindel said. 'It's a very obvious thing that employers should address, but unfortunately it's one of those things where we need a standard, and it's violated all the time.' Several proposals could impact safety procedures for mines. For example, employers have to submit plans for ventilation and preventing roof collapses in coal mines for review by the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration . Currently, MSHA district managers can require mine operators to take additional steps to improve those plans. The Labor Department wants to end that authority, saying the current regulations give the district manager the ability to draft and create laws without soliciting comments or action by Congress. Similarly, the department is proposing to strip district managers of their ability to require changes to mine health and safety training programs. The general duty clause allows OSHA to punish employers for unsafe working conditions when there's no specific standard in place to cover a situation. An OSHA proposal would exclude the agency from applying the clause to prohibit, restrict or penalize employers for 'inherently risky professional activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.' A preliminary analysis identified athletes, actors, dancers, musicians, other entertainers and journalists as among the types of workers the limitation would apply to. 'It is simply not plausible to assert that Congress, when passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, silently intended to authorize the Department of Labor to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale show at SeaWorld ,' the proposed rule reads. Debbie Berkowitz, who served as OSHA chief of staff during the Obama administration, said she thinks limiting the agency's enforcement authority would be a mistake. 'Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they'll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have,' Berkowitz said.
an hour ago
- Health
Trump's Labor Department in push to deregulate workplaces
NEW YORK -- The U.S. Department of Labor is aiming to rewrite or repeal more than 60 'obsolete' workplace regulations, ranging from minimum wage requirements for home health care workers and people with disabilities to standards governing exposure to harmful substances. If approved, the wide-ranging changes unveiled this month also would affect working conditions at constructions sites and in mines, and limit the government's ability to penalize employers if workers are injured or killed while engaging in inherently risky activities such as movie stunts or animal training. The Labor Department says the goal is to reduce costly, burdensome rules imposed under previous administrations, and to deliver on President Donald Trump's commitment to restore American prosperity through deregulation. 'The Department of Labor is proud to lead the way by eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle growth and limit opportunity,' Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer said in a statement, which boasted the 'most ambitious proposal to slash red tape of any department across the federal government.' Critics say the proposals would put workers at greater risk of harm, with women and members of minority groups bearing a disproportionate impact. "People are at very great risk of dying on the job already,' Rebecca Reindel, the AFL-CIO union's occupational safety and health director, said. 'This is something that is only going to make the problem worse.' The proposed changes have several stages to get through before they can take effect, including a public comment period for each one. Here's a look at some of the rollbacks under consideration: Home health care workers help elderly or medically fragile people by preparing meals, administering medications, assisting with toilet use, accompanying clients to doctor appointments and performing other tasks. Under one of the Labor Department's proposals, an estimated 3.7 million workers employed by home care agencies could be paid below the federal minimum wage — currently $7.25 per hour — and made ineligible for overtime pay if they aren't covered by corresponding state laws. The proposed rule would reverse changes made in 2013 under former President Barack Obama and revert to a regulatory framework from 1975. The Labor Department says that by lowering labor and compliance costs, its revisions might expand the home care market and help keep frail individuals in their homes for longer. Judy Conti, director of government affairs at the National Employment Law Project, said her organization plans to work hard to defeat the proposal. Home health workers are subject to injuries from lifting clients, and "before those (2013) regulations, it was very common for home care workers to work 50, 60 and maybe even more hours a week, without getting any overtime pay,' Conti said. Others endorse the proposal, including the Independent Women's Forum, a conservative nonprofit based in Virginia. Women often bear the brunt of family caregiving responsibilities, so making home care more affordable would help women balance work and personal responsibilities, the group's president, Carrie Lukas, said. 'We're pleased to see the Trump administration moving forward on rolling back some of what we saw as counterproductive micromanaging of relationships that were making it hard for people to get the care they need,' Lukas said. Samantha Sanders, director of government affairs and advocacy at the nonprofit Economic Policy Institute, said the repeal would not constitute a win for women. 'Saying we actually don't think they need those protections would be pretty devastating to a workforce that performs really essential work and is very heavily dominated by women, and women of color in particular,' Sanders said. Last year, the Labor Department finalized rules that provided protections to migrant farmworkers who held H-2A visas. The current administration says most of those rules placed unnecessary and costly requirements on employers. Under the new proposal, the Labor Department would rescind a requirement for most employer-provided transportation to have seat belts for those agriculture workers. The department is also proposing to reverse a 2024 rule that protected migrant farmworkers from retaliation for activities such as filing a complaint, testifying or participating in an investigation, hearing or proceeding. 'There's a long history of retaliation against workers who speak up against abuses in farm work. And with H-2A it's even worse because the employer can just not renew your visa,' said Lori Johnson, senior attorney at Farmworker Justice. Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, applauded the deregulation efforts, saying farmers were hit with thousands of pages of regulations pertaining to migrant farmworkers in recent years. 'Can you imagine a farmer and his or her spouse trying to navigate 3,000 new pages of regulation in 18 months and then be liable for every one of them?" he asked. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, part of the Labor Department, wants to rescind a requirement for employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites, saying the regulation doesn't substantially reduce a significant risk. OSHA said if employers fail to correct lighting deficiencies at construction worksites, the agency can issue citations under its 'general duty clause.' The clause requires employers to provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards which are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. Worker advocates think getting rid of a specific construction site requirement is a bad idea. 'There have been many fatalities where workers fall through a hole in the floor, where there's not adequate lighting,' Reindel said. 'It's a very obvious thing that employers should address, but unfortunately it's one of those things where we need a standard, and it's violated all the time.' Several proposals could impact safety procedures for mines. For example, employers have to submit plans for ventilation and preventing roof collapses in coal mines for review by the Labor Department's Mine Safety and Health Administration. Currently, MSHA district managers can require mine operators to take additional steps to improve those plans. The Labor Department wants to end that authority, saying the current regulations give the district manager the ability to draft and create laws without soliciting comments or action by Congress. Similarly, the department is proposing to strip district managers of their ability to require changes to mine health and safety training programs. The general duty clause allows OSHA to punish employers for unsafe working conditions when there's no specific standard in place to cover a situation. An OSHA proposal would exclude the agency from applying the clause to prohibit, restrict or penalize employers for 'inherently risky professional activities that are intrinsic to professional, athletic, or entertainment occupations.' A preliminary analysis identified athletes, actors, dancers, musicians, other entertainers and journalists as among the types of workers the limitation would apply to. 'It is simply not plausible to assert that Congress, when passing the Occupational Safety and Health Act, silently intended to authorize the Department of Labor to eliminate familiar sports and entertainment practices, such as punt returns in the NFL, speeding in NASCAR, or the whale show at SeaWorld,' the proposed rule reads. Debbie Berkowitz, who served as OSHA chief of staff during the Obama administration, said she thinks limiting the agency's enforcement authority would be a mistake. 'Once you start taking that threat away, you could return to where they'll throw safety to the wind, because there are other production pressures they have," Berkowitz said.
CNBC
a day ago
- Business
- CNBC
CNBC Excerpts: SEC Chair Paul Atkins Speaks with CNBC's 'Squawk Box' Today
WHEN: Today, Monday, July 21, 2025 WHERE: CNBC's "Squawk Box" Following are excerpts from the unofficial transcript of a CNBC interview with SEC Chair Paul Atkins on CNBC's "Squawk Box" (M-F, 6AM – 9AM ET) today, Monday, July 21. Following is a link to video on All references must be sourced to CNBC. ATKINS ON DIGITAL ASSETS PAUL ATKINS: The one great thing about this is that for the first time now, the United States government has put its stamp of approval on a very key and important, potentially very important digital asset that will, I think, help to lower costs, lower risks in the market, because we can now move towards instantaneous, almost settlements of payment versus delivery for securities thanks to on chain stablecoins. And that will help, I think, innovation and to really get our markets, you know, to be the best in the world. ATKINS ON 401K PRIVATE MARKETS ATKINS: There's a big demand from investors, individual investors to be allowed into those marketplaces. There are a few ways for them to do it now, but the SEC has made it difficult in the past. So what we want to do is work with the Department of Labor and obviously at the president's direction, if, if and when an executive order comes for that. But regardless, we can work with the Department of Labor to help to have good guardrails for people to offer through various products that are registered for individual investors to put into their retirement plans for long term investment. We have to remember that these private funds are, we have issues regarding valuation, issues regarding liquidity, issues regarding fees and that sort of thing. So, we need to make it so that individual investors are relying on fiduciaries. ATKINS ON ETH TREASURIES ATKINS: Similar to Bitcoin, I mean the SEC has stated informally more than formally that Ether is not a security. And so but it's obviously the ETH blockchain is a very key component for a lot of other digital currencies. So you know it's up to companies to decide where they want to put their money and what sort of strategy they have. Obviously not for me to tell them, but I think it's encouraging that these sorts of digital assets are being embraced by the marketplace. And I think that provides a good future for development.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
More men are returning to the office. Here's why that matters for women.
The return to office is in full swing, but you might notice more men around the water cooler. According to the Department of Labor, men are returning to the office in greater numbers than women. In 2024, 29% of employed men reported working from home, down from 34% the previous year. Approximately 36% of women worked from home last year, unchanged from 2023. What's behind these numbers? It's likely a result of return-to-office initiatives in male-dominated industries like tech, Cory Stahle, senior economist at Indeed, told Yahoo Finance. Women accounted for only about a quarter of computer and mathematical jobs in 2024, according to the data. For some roles, like computer programmers and computer hardware engineers, the share is even lower — 17.8% and 14.3% — respectively. 'Many of these return-to-office efforts are coming at a time when demand for workers in male-dominated industries has weakened, giving employers the upper hand,' Stahle said. As for the unbudging number of women working remotely over that two-year period, there could be an explanation for that finding as well, according to Stahle. Female-dominated fields such as private education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and state and local government have been less affected by return-to-work mandates, he said. 'Many of the jobs in these industries are already in-person roles.' Obstacle for gender equity Whether women are trying to move up or break into fields where office time is required, the trend away from remote arrangements could have far-reaching repercussions for gender equity. Here's why: Nearly 9 in 10 CEOs said in a 2024 survey that they 'will reward employees who make an effort to come into the office with favorable assignments, raises, or promotions.' That could also play out in the gender wage gap that has persisted across industries for decades. Last year, women earned an average of 85% of what men earned, according to Pew Research Center. Will the pay gap get worse if in-office attendance is a prerequisite for pay bumps? "In theory, remote work can be viewed as either a positive or negative amenity: It may offer greater scheduling flexibility, enhancing work-life balance, but it may also limit access to face-to-face mentoring and raise concerns about potential career growth penalties,' said Zoë Cullen, a lead researcher for a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study on remote work. We do know that roughly 8 in 10 CEOs envision a full return to the office in the next three years, and many of those making it mandatory have threatened employees with termination if they fail to follow the company's return-to-office mandate. So far, the types of jobs being hit by these mandates have been well-paying, white-collar roles, Stahle said. 'If a worker can't or chooses not to return to the office and loses their higher-paying job as a result, that will have clear implications for the pay gap and the economy,' he said. The arc of remote work Remote work has been facing into the wind all year. Organizations that describe their workplace environment as remote shrank dramatically between 2024 and 2025, according to a study by Payscale. Despite the pressure, plenty of workers, not just women, are standing their ground on full-blown return-to-office attendance and are willing to take a pay cut to hold on to some flexibility. A majority of job candidates would accept a pay cut to work remotely, according to a new survey by Criteria Corp. On average, employees are willing to accept a 25% pay cut for partly or fully remote roles, according to the NBER study. All that said, the balance of power has shifted. In 2023, when workers had the upper hand in a tight labor market, the odds of being penalized for not coming into the office were low, or in many cases, not realistic for employers, who were well aware that workplace flexibility was one way that they could hang on to and lure skilled workers. Return-to-office demands by many tech-oriented employers, including Amazon, Google, and Meta, hit a fever pitch earlier this year. 'In a softening labor market, employers have more leverage to demand in-office work,' Marc Cenedella, founder of Ladders Inc., a career site for jobs that pay $100,000 or more, told Yahoo Finance. 'The great resignation is over. The great return is upon us.' Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Hybrid to the rescue Compromise, however, has inched in. And that playbook can work for many women, who still shoulder a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities for children and aging parents, and need and value flexibility more than men. Flexible work benefits have stabilized enough to suggest a permanent place in employers' benefits, according to a new SHRM Employee Benefits Survey. Overall, hybrid office environments — where attendance is generally three days a week for so-called knowledge workers (not front-line ones) — are the norm now at more than half of companies, followed by traditional office environments at 27%, with remote-first environments making up only 16% of office types, per Payscale data. In fact, while 4 in 10 organizations deployed a return-to-office mandate in recent years, an increasing number have done a bit of soft shoe around the specific requirements and have loosened the rules depending on job type and for those who are top aging population factor Long-term trends in the workforce could ultimately help women gain ground. 'As the baby boomer generation ages and companies grapple with fewer younger workers and our labor market tightens, companies can't afford to overlook any segment of the workforce, especially women,' said Gwenn Rosener, co-founder of recruiting firm FlexProfessionals. Because fewer people are born each year, our workforce is going to start to shrink, and we need workers to make products, provide services, and pay taxes, Bradley Schurman, a demographic strategist, told Yahoo Finance. 'So, as we enter this period of the Super Age, with more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 18, this is going to create market conditions that are going to increase the demand for workers of all ages because the supply is so low,' he said. 'Women will be able to negotiate for greater benefits and for greater salaries and more flexibility. And it's not just women, disabled and other marginalized groups will likely benefit too." Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work," and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
More men are returning to the office. Here's why that matters for women.
The return to office is in full swing, but you might notice more men around the water cooler. According to the Department of Labor, men are returning to the office in greater numbers than women. In 2024, 29% of employed men reported working from home, down from 34% the previous year. Approximately 36% of women worked from home last year, unchanged from 2023. What's behind these numbers? It's likely a result of return-to-office initiatives in male-dominated industries like tech, Cory Stahle, senior economist at Indeed, told Yahoo Finance. Women accounted for only about a quarter of computer and mathematical jobs in 2024, according to the data. For some roles, like computer programmers and computer hardware engineers, the share is even lower — 17.8% and 14.3% — respectively. 'Many of these return-to-office efforts are coming at a time when demand for workers in male-dominated industries has weakened, giving employers the upper hand,' Stahle said. As for the unbudging number of women working remotely over that two-year period, there could be an explanation for that finding as well, according to Stahle. Female-dominated fields such as private education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and state and local government have been less affected by return-to-work mandates, he said. 'Many of the jobs in these industries are already in-person roles.' Obstacle for gender equity Whether women are trying to move up or break into fields where office time is required, the trend away from remote arrangements could have far-reaching repercussions for gender equity. Here's why: Nearly 9 in 10 CEOs said in a 2024 survey that they 'will reward employees who make an effort to come into the office with favorable assignments, raises, or promotions.' That could also play out in the gender wage gap that has persisted across industries for decades. Last year, women earned an average of 85% of what men earned, according to Pew Research Center. Will the pay gap get worse if in-office attendance is a prerequisite for pay bumps? "In theory, remote work can be viewed as either a positive or negative amenity: It may offer greater scheduling flexibility, enhancing work-life balance, but it may also limit access to face-to-face mentoring and raise concerns about potential career growth penalties,' said Zoë Cullen, a lead researcher for a National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) study on remote work. We do know that roughly 8 in 10 CEOs envision a full return to the office in the next three years, and many of those making it mandatory have threatened employees with termination if they fail to follow the company's return-to-office mandate. So far, the types of jobs being hit by these mandates have been well-paying, white-collar roles, Stahle said. 'If a worker can't or chooses not to return to the office and loses their higher-paying job as a result, that will have clear implications for the pay gap and the economy,' he said. The arc of remote work Remote work has been facing into the wind all year. Organizations that describe their workplace environment as remote shrank dramatically between 2024 and 2025, according to a study by Payscale. Despite the pressure, plenty of workers, not just women, are standing their ground on full-blown return-to-office attendance and are willing to take a pay cut to hold on to some flexibility. A majority of job candidates would accept a pay cut to work remotely, according to a new survey by Criteria Corp. On average, employees are willing to accept a 25% pay cut for partly or fully remote roles, according to the NBER study. All that said, the balance of power has shifted. In 2023, when workers had the upper hand in a tight labor market, the odds of being penalized for not coming into the office were low, or in many cases, not realistic for employers, who were well aware that workplace flexibility was one way that they could hang on to and lure skilled workers. Return-to-office demands by many tech-oriented employers, including Amazon, Google, and Meta, hit a fever pitch earlier this year. 'In a softening labor market, employers have more leverage to demand in-office work,' Marc Cenedella, founder of Ladders Inc., a career site for jobs that pay $100,000 or more, told Yahoo Finance. 'The great resignation is over. The great return is upon us.' Sign up for the Mind Your Money weekly newsletter By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Hybrid to the rescue Compromise, however, has inched in. And that playbook can work for many women, who still shoulder a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities for children and aging parents, and need and value flexibility more than men. Flexible work benefits have stabilized enough to suggest a permanent place in employers' benefits, according to a new SHRM Employee Benefits Survey. Overall, hybrid office environments — where attendance is generally three days a week for so-called knowledge workers (not front-line ones) — are the norm now at more than half of companies, followed by traditional office environments at 27%, with remote-first environments making up only 16% of office types, per Payscale data. In fact, while 4 in 10 organizations deployed a return-to-office mandate in recent years, an increasing number have done a bit of soft shoe around the specific requirements and have loosened the rules depending on job type and for those who are top aging population factor Long-term trends in the workforce could ultimately help women gain ground. 'As the baby boomer generation ages and companies grapple with fewer younger workers and our labor market tightens, companies can't afford to overlook any segment of the workforce, especially women,' said Gwenn Rosener, co-founder of recruiting firm FlexProfessionals. Because fewer people are born each year, our workforce is going to start to shrink, and we need workers to make products, provide services, and pay taxes, Bradley Schurman, a demographic strategist, told Yahoo Finance. 'So, as we enter this period of the Super Age, with more people over the age of 65 than under the age of 18, this is going to create market conditions that are going to increase the demand for workers of all ages because the supply is so low,' he said. 'Women will be able to negotiate for greater benefits and for greater salaries and more flexibility. And it's not just women, disabled and other marginalized groups will likely benefit too." Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work," and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
