America's workers are under siege on many fronts; they need the protection of our labor laws more than ever, but the Trump admin is pushing through an 11th hour rule that will make things worse not better. I urged them to stop. ftc.gov/public-stateme…
My objections to the Rule and the deficiencies of the record are in my comment, but the tl;dr version is that the rule is not only bad for labor, it's also bad for competition; it's built on a record that doesn't adequately consider those issue; and it should go. Specifically:
Among the challenges facing workers today is the practice of companies classifying them as "independent contractors" and depriving them of many protections of our labor laws. The rule the Trump admin is considering will make it even easier for companies to do that.
Misclassification is a problem frequently discussed in terms of the “gig economy,” but in fact there is similar workplace fissuring in home care, janitorial work, trucking, construction, hospitality, and restaurants, to name a few.
The industries where fissuring is happening disproportionately employ people of color, so the harm of misclassification falls disproprotionately on them. s27147.pcdn.co/wp-content/upl…
Misclassification deprives employees of labor law protections, including minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor laws. This makes it harder for workers to compete, and it provides unfair competitive advantage to misclassifying firms.
Misclassification is bad for labor and bad for competition. The Proposed Rule would exacerbate these problems.
Today the @FTC announced its settlement with @facebook. I voted no, as did @chopraftc. The majority explained its decision in a statement, and we both wrote dissents - all long, but worth reading (as is the order itself). Links below. First, a more concise version of my views.
I voted no b/c I do not believe either the money or the injunctive relief will ensure accountability or that @facebook changes how it treats user data. And the release of liability is not justified.
We shouldn't analyze the settlement terms against prior settlements; we should analyze them against the specific facts in this case. On that metric, the settlement falls short.
It was a good day for consumers and for antitrust law in the Supreme Court (a sentence I can say all too rarely). Below is a brief thread of some of my favorite lines from the decision in Apple v. Pepper. supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf…
(but first, a reminder that I wrote about how this outcome was the correct and logical way to resolve this case back in December.) nytimes.com/2018/12/12/opi…
"The broad text of §4 [of the Clayton Act]—“any person” who has been “injured” by an antitrust violator may sue—readily covers consumers who purchase goods or services at higher-than-competitive prices from an allegedly monopolistic retailer."
First - our enforcement does not happen in a vacuum, nor do we have a universe of perfect choices. There was no dispute that Speedway screwed up its compliance with the original order, and that was unacceptable. 2/
I certainly don’t think, and the majority opinion does not suggest, that Speedway’s behavior was “fine.” The question was how bad was it and what do we do about it. 3/