Media clips
-
Heidi Shierholz, a senior economist and director of policy at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute who also served as a chief economist at the Labor Department during President Barack Obama’s tenure, described the revelations during a conference call last week as “an outrageous process violation.” The Economic Policy Institute on Monday announced Shierholz had submitted to the Labor Department her own analysis that showed changing the tip rule would cut off tipped employees from $5.8 billion in earnings each year. She described that finding as conservative and indicated she believes Department of Labor officials came to a similar conclusion in their own unpublished analysis.
U.S. News and World Report February 6, 2018 -
Según un análisis del Instituto de Política Económica (EPI, por su sigla en inglés), el cambio permitiría que las empresas se embolsen anualmente hasta $5,800 millones por las propinas que obtienen sus empleados, de los cuales el 80% proviene de mujeres. (Tweet with graphic included)
La Opinion February 6, 2018 -
According to the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-oriented think tank based in Washington, the rule change could result in employers taking up to $5.8 billion of workers’ earned tips, Stein said – adding that more than 91,000 people in North Carolina work as waiters or bartenders.
The News & Observer February 6, 2018 -
News broke this week that the Trump administration has been hiding evidence that’s of great importance to the public. No, we’re not talking about collusion with the Russians. We’re talking about the fact that we have now learned that the Trump administration lied to the public about evidence that a new policy the administration is pushing will cost low-wage and tipped workers billions of dollars in lost wages — which their employers will likely pocket. To get the scoop, Rebecca talks with Heidi Shierholz, senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute and former chief economist at the Dept. of Labor under President Obama.
Off Kilter Podcast February 6, 2018 -
A study by the Economic Policy Institute finds that counties home to an Amazon warehouse do not show broad-based employment gains in the two years after their opening. Amazon said the report undervalues its economic impact. (whole story)
The Seattle Times February 6, 2018 -
It’s hard to predict whether the sweeteners will pay off, but if the past is any guide, cities should perhaps be wary. A new report looking at the employment outcomes of Amazon fulfillment centers finds little or no net improvement in jobs over time. While a new center does produce, on average, a 30% increase in storage and warehousing jobs within two years, according to a report from the Economic Policy Institute, there is little evidence of an overall uptick in employment. The researchers say the gains are either offset by losses in other industries or that they don’t register enough to make a dent in the data. “Our findings..suggest that some sort of employment displacement is taking place, or that the growth in warehousing jobs is too limited to spill over into broad-based employment gains for the overall local economy,” the report, by Janelle Jones and Ben Zipperer, says. (whole story)
Fast Company February 6, 2018 -
Nationwide in 2017, nearly 860,000 workers under age 35 got hired, and nearly a quarter of those were union jobs. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, “Historically, younger workers have been less likely than older workers to be a member of union,” so in that sense there’s a lot of room to grow among younger workers, whose union membership lags behind other age groups. Millennials are responsible for a huge portion of the recent gains in union representation across the workforce, which has managed to remain fairly steady (yep, young people are keeping labor alive). Growing by some 198,000 workers, youth in union jobs are offsetting loss of union jobs in older age brackets; union jobs for workers age 45 to 54 dropped by some 75,000 over the same period.
The Nation February 6, 2018 -
Amazon.com (AMZN) has likely received $1 billion in incentives from state and local governments in 25 states where the online retailing giant operates 95 fulfillment centers, according to a new study by the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. Yet those incentives may not have paid off, the study suggests. The massive Amazon distribution centers failed to boost overall employment in their markets within two years of opening even as they boosted distribution employment by 30 percent, the study notes. The authors, Ben Zipperer and Janelle Jones, suspect that’s because workers are either shifting industries or the Amazon facilities are creating too few new jobs to make a dent in overall employment. (whole story)
CBS Moneywatch February 5, 2018 -
Nonetheless, an Economic Policy Institute report issued last week questioned where such incentives are worth the investment. Based on data for counties in 25 states containing Amazon fulfillment centers, the report concluded the warehouses do not boost overall employment and in some cases might even cause it to drop. The report did find that within two years of opening, a fulfillment center can boost warehouse and storage employment by 30 percent. The report’s authors speculated that the warehouse and storage jobs created could be offset by job losses in other industries, or that the employment growth generated by Amazon is too small to detect. “As cities and counties compete to host new Amazon facilities and its new headquarters, policymakers should be cautious about giving away the store,” stated Janelle Jones, one of the authors.
Pittsburgh Post Gazette February 5, 2018 -
A study by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, estimated that the change would cost current tipped workers $5.8 billion a year in pay. It cast doubt on the idea that employers would use the money to compensate other workers better. Heidi Shierholz, a former chief economist at the Labor Department who oversaw the study, said that under standard economic theory, employers were unlikely to pay workers more than needed to attract and retain them, which they are by definition already doing in most cases. She predicted that if the regulation took effect and employers decided to share tips with these workers, “their base pay would be reduced and there would be no more take-home pay. (Heidi quoted throughout)
The New York Times February 5, 2018