House Republican leaders and President Donald Trump have said repeatedly that they are intent on repealing the Affordable Care Act, which has extended coverage to 20 million people. The timeline for the repeal is still up in the air, but a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute argues that repealing the ACA could leave U.S. taxpayers with a hefty check, and in 2019 alone, reduce job growth by 1.2 million and federal spending by about $103 billion.
Next City
February 23, 2017
But the residency matching program isn’t the only way Trump’s policies could hurt the hospital. Fadhil also worries that many of his patients will lose insurance if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. According to estimates from the Economic Policy Institute, the number of people without insurance in the state would increase by 71% if the health care law is repealed.
Fusion
February 23, 2017
The New York Times
February 22, 2017
Ross Eisenbrey, vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, told the committee that 60% of the population was covered under federal law up until 1975 and received overtime after 40 hours of work. He said currently less than 8% of working adults receive overtime pay because of the low salary threshold.
Maryland Reporter
February 22, 2017
Monique Morrissey, of the Economic Policy Institute, makes the point via email that state plans are not just helping low and moderate income people, but anyone who has a plan now that charges huge fees. She cited one that charged 1 percent a year to high-income workers. State-sponsored plans would charge much lower fees—many estimates peg these at around 0.3 percent, a rate that saves people tens of thousands of dollars over their working lives.
American Prospect
February 22, 2017
The measures ultimately affect the entire workforce, union and non-union alike: Workers in right-to-work states earn 3.1 percent less than those in other states, according to the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute. The workplace fatality rate also tends to be higher in states with such laws.
Village Voice
February 22, 2017
Some labor policy analysts and academics have argued that workers who get task assignments from computer platforms represent a new type of worker that fits neither the category of employee nor of independent contractor. For example, Seth Harris and Alan Krueger used the example of Uber drivers to argue that there should be a new category called “independent workers” for platform workers, who would be entitled to some of the rights but not all the protections available to employees. Ross Eisenbrey and Lawrence Mishel of the Economic Policy Institute disagree. They challenge the Harris-Krueger analysis and maintain that Uber drivers fit within the existing categories of employees and should therefore come under existing labor laws. Former NLRB General Counsel Craig Becker argues that adding a new category such as independent worker does not solve any problem, but rather compounds the classification problem. If there were three categories instead of two, he contends, there would be more disputes and litigation about which category an individual working relationship fits.
American Prospect
February 21, 2017
Pennsylvania’s constitution does not allow voter initiatives to raise the minimum wage, and state law also does not allow municipalities to set a higher minimum wage. Meanwhile, the wage elsewhere will keep rising. Eighteen states have indexed their minimum wage to inflation to keep pace with the cost of living, according to the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute.
The Associated Press
February 20, 2017
Ross Eisenbrey is vice president of the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank focused on the needs of middle and low income workers. He said right-to-work laws have never been shown to make a difference in employment growth and he is skeptical of claims that the laws do much to attract new business. “Corporate CEOs who answer surveys about the factors that determine where they locate, don’t even have right-to-work in the top ten factors that influence their decisions,” Eisenbrey said.
WEKU
February 19, 2017
“The most interesting and troubling thing about this is that it may very well be the ultimate block on modernizing workplace standards,” said Celine McNicholas, labor counsel for the Economic Policy Institute. The lack of precedent when it comes to the use of the CRA creates a tricky situation for all branches of government, since the agencies are still required to issue rules on specific issues, but can’t do so in a way that replicates their previous rule. The CRA states that a rule “may not be reissued in substantially the same form,” and that the agencies cannot issue “a new rule that is substantially the same” ― unless Congress passes a new law requiring a rule on that subject. McNicholas noted that because the CRA has been used only once before, there has not been a judicial review, nor is there any case law defining how agencies should proceed. “We’re in uncharted territory here,” she said.
The Huffington Post
February 19, 2017