Tag Archives: NRLPA:OEBEC

US

Trump executive Weisselberg prepares for jail on Rikers Island

Leave a comment

NEW YORK, Jan 10 (Reuters) – A longtime executive for Donald Trump is expected to be sent to New York’s notorious Rikers Island jail after being sentenced on Tuesday for helping engineer a 15-year tax fraud scheme at the former president’s real estate company.

Allen Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s former chief financial officer, pleaded guilty in August, admitting that from 2005 to 2017 he and other executives received bonuses and perks that saved the company and themselves money.

Weisselberg is expected to be sentenced to five months behind bars, after paying nearly $2 million in taxes, penalties and interest and testifying at the criminal trial of the Trump Organization, which was convicted on all counts it faced.

The sentence will be imposed by Justice Juan Merchan, who oversaw the trial in a New York state court in Manhattan. Weisselberg would likely serve 100 days with time off for good behavior.

Those days will probably not be easy for Weisselberg, 75, at a jail known for violence, drugs and corruption. Nineteen inmates there died last year.

“You’re going into a byzantine black hole,” said Craig Rothfeld, a prison consultant helping Weisselberg prepare for lockup.

50-YEAR RELATIONSHIP

Many convicts in New York City facing one year or less behind bars head to Rikers Island, which lies between the New York City boroughs of Queens and the Bronx and houses more than 5,900 inmates.

Rothfeld spent more than five weeks at Rikers in 2015 and 2016 as part of an 18-month sentence for defrauding investors and tax authorities when he was chief executive of the now-defunct WJB Capital Group Inc.

He now runs Inside Outside Ltd, which advises people facing incarceration. Another client is Harvey Weinstein, the former Hollywood movie producer convicted twice of rape.

After being sentenced, Weisselberg will likely be driven to Rikers and trade his street clothes for a uniform and sneakers with velcro straps.

Rothfeld said he hopes Weisselberg will be segregated from the general population, and not placed in a dorm with inmates who may not know him but will know his boss, who is seeking the presidency in 2024.

“Certainly Mr. Weisselberg’s 50-year relationship with the former president is on all our minds,” Rothfeld said.

A spokesman for the city’s Department of Correction said the agency’s mission is “to create a safe and supportive environment for everyone who enters our custody.”

Rikers is scheduled to close in 2027.

STAR WITNESS

Weisselberg was the star government witness against his employer.

He told jurors that Trump signed bonus and tuition checks, and other documents at the heart of prosecutors’ case, but was not in on the tax fraud scheme.

Though no longer CFO, Weisselberg remains on paid leave from the Trump Organization. He testified in November that he hoped to get a $500,000 bonus this month.

Weisselberg testified that the company is paying his lawyers. It is paying Rothfeld as well, a person familiar with the matter said. Rothfeld declined to comment.

Trump was not charged and has denied wrongdoing. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office is still investigating his business practices.

Merchan will also sentence the Trump Organization on Friday. Penalties are limited to $1.6 million.

Weisselberg remains a defendant in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ $250 million civil lawsuit alleging that Trump and his company inflated asset values and Trump’s net worth.

Rothfeld said he advised Weisselberg not to go outside at Rikers because of the risk of violence in courtyards, and not to interject himself into conversations between other inmates.

“The goal is to keep to yourself,” Rothfeld said.

Reporting by Karen Freifeld; Editing by Richard Chang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

US

Trump Organization found guilty of tax fraud scheme

Leave a comment

NEW YORK, Dec 6 (Reuters) – Donald Trump’s real estate company was convicted on Tuesday of carrying out a 15-year-long criminal scheme to defraud tax authorities, adding to the legal woes facing the former U.S. president as he campaigns for the office again in 2024.

The Trump Organization – which operates hotels, golf courses, and other real estate around the world – was found guilty of paying personal expenses for top executives including former chief financial officer Allen Weisselberg, and issuing bonus checks to them as if they were independent contractors.

The company faces up to $1.6 million in fines after being convicted on all charges, including scheming to defraud tax authorities, conspiracy and falsifying business records. Trump was not charged in the case.

Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial in state court in New York, set a sentencing date for Jan. 13.

While the fine is not expected to be material for a company of the Trump Organization’s size, the conviction could complicate its ability to do business.

Weisselberg, 75, testified as the government’s star witness as part of a plea deal that calls for a sentence of five months in jail.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose office prosecuted the case, called the verdict “very just.”

“The former president’s companies now stand convicted of crimes,” Bragg said in the New York courthouse after the verdict, speaking of the Trump Corporation and Trump Payroll Corporation, the two units of the Trump Organization which were convicted.

Asked if he regretted not charging Trump in the case, Bragg did not respond.

He has said that the office’s investigation into Trump is continuing.

APPEAL

Alan Futerfas, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said the company would appeal and that the criminal law governing corporate liability was vague.

“It was central to the case,” he told reporters after the verdict.

The jury deliberated for about 12 hours over two days.

[1/6] Former U.S. President Donald Trump attends a rally to support Republican candidates ahead of midterm elections, in Dayton, Ohio, U.S. November 7, 2022. REUTERS/Gaelen Morse/File Photo

The case centered on charges that the company paid personal expenses like free rent and car leases for executives including Weisselberg without reporting the income, and gave them bonuses as non-employee compensation from other Trump entities like the Mar-a-lago Club, without deducting taxes.

According to testimony during the four-week trial, Trump himself signed the bonus checks annually, paid private school tuition for Weisselberg’s grandchildren, authorized the lease for his luxury Manhattan apartment and approved a salary deduction for another executive.

“The whole narrative that Donald Trump was blissfully ignorant is just not real, prosecutor Joshua Steinglass told jurors during his closing argument on Friday.

He said the “smorgasbord of benefits” was designed to keep top executives “happy and loyal.”

Republican Trump, who on Nov. 15 announced his third campaign for the presidency, said in a statement he was “disappointed” by the verdict but called the case a “Manhattan witch hunt.” Both Bragg and his predecessor who brought the charges, Cyrus Vance, are Democrats.

SEPARATE LAWSUIT

The Trump Organization separately faces a fraud lawsuit brought by New York state Attorney General Letitia James.

Trump himself is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice over his handling of sensitive government documents after he left office in January 2021 and attempts to overturn the November 2020 election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden.

Lawyers for the Trump Organization argued that Weisselberg carried out the scheme to benefit himself, not the company. They tried to paint him as a rogue employee. Weisselberg is currently on paid leave and testified that he hopes to get another $500,000 bonus in January

Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform on Nov. 19. that his family got “no economic gain from the acts done by the executive.”

Weisselberg, who pleaded guilty in August to concealing $1.76 million in income from tax authorities, testified that although Trump signed checks involved, he did not conspire with him.

He said that the company saved money by paying for his rent, utilities, Mercedes-Benz car leases for him and his wife and other personal expenses rather than raising his salary, because a wage hike would have had to account for taxes.

He said Trump’s two sons – who took over the company’s operations in 2017 – gave him a raise after they knew about his tax dodge scheme.

By then, Trump was president, and the company was preparing for greater scrutiny.

“We were going through an entire cleanup process of the company to make sure that since Mr. Trump is now president everything was being done properly,” Weisselberg testified.

Reporting by Luc Cohen and Karen Freifeld in New York; additional reporting by Andrew Hofstetter in New York; Editing by Noeleen Walder and Grant McCool

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Luc Cohen

Thomson Reuters

Reports on the New York federal courts. Previously worked as a correspondent in Venezuela and Argentina.

Read original article here

US

U.S. House to vote to block rail strike despite labor objections

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON/LOS ANGELES, Nov 29 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives was set to vote Wednesday to block a rail strike that could potentially happen as early as Dec. 9, after President Joe Biden warned of dire economic consequences and massive job losses.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers will vote Wednesday to impose a tentative contract deal struck in September on a dozen unions representing 115,000 workers.

Pelosi said the House would vote separately on Wednesday on a proposal to give seven days of paid sick leave to railroad employees.

“I don’t like going against the ability of unions to strike but weighing the equities, we must avoid a strike,” she said Tuesday after a meeting with Biden.

Biden had warned Monday of a catastrophic economic impact if railroad service ground to a halt, saying up to 765,000 Americans could lose their jobs in the first two weeks of a strike.

“Congress, I think, has to act to prevent it. It’s not an easy call, but I think we have to do it. The economy is at risk,” Biden said.

Despite the close ties between unions and the Democratic Party, several labor leaders criticized Biden asking Congress to impose a contract that workers in four out of 12 unions rejected over its lack of paid sick leave.

The Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes, one of four unions that voted against the contract, objected to Biden’s call to Congress to intervene, saying “the railroad is not a place to work while you’re sick. It’s dangerous…. it is unreasonable and unjust to insist a person perform critical work when they are unwell.”

There are no paid sick days under the tentative deal after unions asked for 15 and railroads settled on one personal day.

[1/2] U.S. President Joe Biden meets with congressional leaders including House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell at the White House in Washington, U.S., November 29, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

The union push for paid sick time won support on Capitol Hill, where Senator Bernie Sanders threatened to delay the railroad bill unless he got a vote on the sick time issue.

“Guaranteeing 7 paid sick days to rail workers would cost the rail industry a grand total of $321 million a year – less than 2% of its profits,” Sanders said. “Please don’t tell me the rail industry can’t afford it. Rail companies spent $25.5 billion on stock buybacks and dividends this year.”

Regulators and shippers have accused railroads of cutting staff to improve profitability. The railroads oppose giving their workers paid sick time because they would have to hire more staff. The carriers involved include Union Pacific Corp (UNP.N), Berkshire Hathaway Inc’s (BRKa.N) BNSF, CSX Corp (CSX.O), Norfolk Southern Corp (NSC.N) and Kansas City Southern.

The measure needs a simple majority to pass the House. The bill would require a supermajority of 60 out of 100 votes to pass the Senate.

“I can’t in good conscience vote for a bill that doesn’t give rail workers the paid leave they deserve,” Representative Jamaal Bowman, a Democrat, said on Twitter.

Biden on Monday praised the proposed contract for including a 24% wage increase over five years and five annual $1,000 lump-sum payments.

House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy also criticized the effort but said “I think it will pass, but it’s unfortunate that this is how we’re running our economy today.”

A rail traffic stoppage could freeze almost 30% of U.S. cargo shipments by weight, stoke already surging inflation and cost the American economy as much as $2 billion per day.

Brian Dodge, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), said the idea of a rail shutdown “is just absolutely catastrophic” after companies spent the last year and a half trying to untangle gridlock in the supply chain. “We’d be setting ourselves back down that same path and it would take just as long to untangle the next time,” he said.

The U.S. Congress has passed laws to delay or prohibit railway and airline strikes multiple times in recent decades.

Reporting by David Shepardson in Washington and Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles Steve Holland and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Kanishka Singh in Washington; Editing by Jonathan Oatis, Heather Timmons, Lisa Shumaker and Simon Cameron-Moore

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Tesla board member says Elon Musk identified potential successor as CEO

Leave a comment

SAN FRANCISCO, Nov 16 (Reuters) – James Murdoch, a Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) director, testified in court on Wednesday that CEO Elon Musk has in the last few months identified someone as a potential successor to head the electric carmaker.

Murdoch, who did not name the potential successor, was testifying in a trial over Musk’s 2018 Tesla pay package.

When a plaintiff’s lawyer asked him to confirm that Musk has never identified someone as a potential successor CEO, Murdoch said, “He actually has,” adding that happened in the “last few months.”

Some Tesla investors are worried about whether Musk can focus adequately on his role as CEO of the world’s most valuable carmaker now that he has been running Twitter Inc after a protracted buyout that at one point he tried to scrap. Murdoch testified that Musk has had some Tesla engineers work at Twitter, a situation the board is monitoring.

Murdoch’s testimony did not make it clear how specific the conversation about the successor was. Antonio Gracias, a longtime friend of Musk who was also a Tesla board member from 2007 to 2021, testified that there were conversations of finding an “administrative CEO” who oversees sales, finance and human resources “so Musk can focus his time as chief product officer which is his most vital function.” But he added they could not find one, without elaborating on the timing of the discussions.

Musk, who is CEO of Twitter and rocket company Space X, among others said, “Frankly I don’t want to be CEO of any company.”

Musk testified that he expected to reduce his time at Twitter and eventually find a new leader to run the social media company.

On Monday, Musk said he had worked through the night at Twitter’s San Francisco headquarters and would keep “working & sleeping here” until the social media platform – which he recently acquired for $44 billion – was fixed.

“AS LONG AS I CAN BE USEFUL”

“It’s worth noting there’s a light year gap between identifying someone and having that someone take the job,” Tesla investor Gene Muster tweeted after the news.

At Tesla’s shareholders meeting in August, Musk was asked about succession plan and replied: “I intend to stay with Tesla as long as I can be useful.”

At the time, Musk also said, “We do have a very talented team here. So I think Tesla would continue to do very well even if I was kidnapped by aliens or went back to my home planet maybe.”

Murdoch testified that Tesla’s audit committee is monitoring the Twitter situation, saying that the committee had discussions about having some Tesla engineers do work at Twitter.

“Most of the work my understanding is has been done. It was a short-term deployment,” he said, adding the work is “paid for.”

“The audit committee has said that, if it is taking away from Tesla work, that’s something we also have to be very aware of and that we don’t want it to be that way.”

He also said Musk asked a few team heads to see if they were people interested in helping Twitter.

Musk acknowledged in his testimony that some Tesla engineers were assisting in evaluating Twitter’s engineering teams, but he said it was on a “voluntary basis” and done “after hours.”

Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin, Paresh Dave and Tom Hals; editing by Jonathan Oatis, Deepa Babington and David Gregorio

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Paresh Dave

Thomson Reuters

San Francisco Bay Area-based tech reporter covering Google and the rest of Alphabet Inc. Joined Reuters in 2017 after four years at the Los Angeles Times focused on the local tech industry.

Read original article here

Business

Elon Musk says he will find a new leader for Twitter

Leave a comment

Nov 16 (Reuters) – Elon Musk said on Wednesday he expected to reduce his time at Twitter and eventually find a new leader to run the social media company, adding that he hoped to complete an organizational restructuring this week.

Musk made the remarks while testifying in a Delaware court to defend against claims that his $56 billion pay package at Tesla Inc (TSLA.O) was based on easy to achieve performance targets and was approved by a compliant board of directors. read more

Tesla investors have been increasingly concerned about the time that Musk is devoting to turning around Twitter.

Shares of Tesla fell 3% at midday.

“There’s an initial burst of activity needed post-acquisition to reorganize the company,” Musk said in his testimony. “But then I expect to reduce my time at Twitter.”

Musk also admitted that some Tesla engineers were assisting in evaluating Twitter’s engineering teams, but he said it was on a “voluntary basis” and “after hours.”

The billionaire’ s first two weeks as Twitter’s owner has been marked by rapid change and chaos. He quickly fired Twitter’s previous chief executive and other senior leaders and then laid off half of Twitter’s staff earlier this month.

Musk sent an email to Twitter employees early Wednesday, telling them they needed to decide by Thursday whether they wanted to stay on at the company to work “long hours at high intensity” or take a severance package of three months of pay.

Reporting by Hyunjoo Jin and Tom Hals; Writing by Sheila Dang; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Richard Chang

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Tom Hals

Thomson Reuters

Award-winning reporter with more than two decades of experience in international news, focusing on high-stakes legal battles over everything from government policy to corporate dealmaking.

Read original article here

Business

Elon Musk trial opens to decide fate of his $56 billion Tesla pay

Leave a comment

WILMINGTON, Del, Nov 14 (Reuters) – A trial opened Monday over shareholder allegations that Tesla Inc Chief Executive Elon Musk’s $56 billion pay package was rigged with easy performance targets and that investors were duped into approving it, with Musk slated to take the stand later this week.

A Tesla (TSLA.O) shareholder hopes to prove during the five-day trial that Musk used his dominance over the electric vehicle maker’s board to dictate terms of the 2018 package, which did not even require him to work at Tesla full-time.

Musk, the world’s richest person, will testify Wednesday, Greg Varallo, an attorney for shareholder Richard Tornetta, told a court in Wilmington, Delaware, on Monday.

The trial began with Ira Ehrenpreis, a Tesla board member since 2007, taking the stand to describe the early years of the company and Musk’s role.

“I was very impressed with his vision for this endeavor,” said Ehrenpreis.

Tornetta has asked the court to rescind the pay package, which is six times larger than the top 200 CEO salaries combined in 2021, according to Amit Batish of research firm Equilar.

Musk and Tesla’s directors, who are also defendants, have denied the allegations. They argued the pay package did what it aimed to do — ensure that the entrepreneur successfully guided Tesla through a critical period, which helped drive the stock tenfold higher.

The case will be decided by Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick of Delaware’s Court of Chancery. She oversaw the legal dispute between Twitter Inc (TWTR.MX) and Musk that ended with his purchase of the social media platform for $44 billion last month.

The Tesla shareholder lawsuit argues that the pay package should have required Musk to work full-time at Tesla. The company’s shareholders have become concerned that Musk is distracted by Twitter, which he has warned might not survive an economic downturn.

Musk told a business conference on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia, on Monday that he had too much on his plate at the moment.

Legal experts said Musk is in a better legal position in the pay case than he was in Twitter’s lawsuit, which prevented him from walking away from the takeover.

Boards have wide latitude to set executive compensation, according to legal experts.

However, directors must meet more stringent legal tests if the pay package involves a controlling shareholder, and part of this trial is likely to focus on whether that description fits Musk. While he owned only 21.9% of Tesla in 2018, plaintiffs are likely to cite what is seen as his domineering personality and ties to directors.

In all, 19 witnesses are scheduled to testify, including directors and executives from 2018, compensation experts, and advisors who helped craft the pay package.

The disputed package allows Musk to buy 1% of Tesla’s stock at a deep discount each time escalating performance and financial targets are met. Otherwise, Musk gets nothing.

Tesla has hit 11 of the 12 targets as its value ballooned briefly to more than $1 trillion from $50 billion, according to court papers.

A decision will likely take around three months after the trial and could be appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.

Reporting by Tom Hals in Wilmington, Delaware; Editing by David Gregorio and Jonathan Oatis

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Tom Hals

Thomson Reuters

Award-winning reporter with more than two decades of experience in international news, focusing on high-stakes legal battles over everything from government policy to corporate dealmaking.

Read original article here

Business

More U.S. companies charging employees for job training if they quit

Leave a comment

WASHINGTON, Oct 17 (Reuters) – When a Washington state beauty salon charged Simran Bal $1,900 for training after she quit, she was shocked.

Not only was Bal a licensed esthetician with no need for instruction, she argued that the trainings were specific to the shop and low quality.

Bal’s story mirrors that of dozens of people and advocates in healthcare, trucking, retail and other industries who complained recently to U.S. regulators that some companies charge employees who quit large sums of money for training.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Nearly 10% of American workers surveyed in 2020 were covered by a training repayment agreement, said the Cornell Survey Research Institute.

The practice, which critics call Training Repayment Agreement Provisions, or TRAPs, is drawing scrutiny from U.S. regulators and lawmakers.

On Capitol Hill, Senator Sherrod Brown is studying legislative options with an eye toward introducing a bill next year to rein in the practice, a Senate Democratic aide said.

At the state level, attorneys general like Minnesota’s Keith Ellison are assessing how prevalent the practice is and could update guidance.

Ellison told Reuters he would be inclined to oppose reimbursement demands for job-specific instruction while it “could be different” if an employer wanted reimbursement for training for a certification like a commercial driving license that is widely recognized as valuable.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has begun reviewing the practice, while the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission have received complaints about it.

The use of training agreements is growing even though unemployment is low, which presumably gives workers more power, said Jonathan Harris who teaches at the Loyola Law School Los Angeles.

“Employers are looking for ways to keep their workers from quitting without raising wages or improving working conditions,” said Harris.

The CFPB, which announced in June it was looking into the agreements, has begun to focus on how they may prevent even skilled employees with years of schooling, like nurses, from finding new, better jobs, according to a CFPB official who was not authorized to speak on the record.

“We have heard from workers and worker organizations that the products may be restricting worker mobility,” the official said.

TRAPs have been around in a small way since the late 1980s primarily in high-wage positions where workers received valuable training. But in recent years the agreements have become more widespread, said Loyola’s Harris.

Licensed esthetician Simran Bal, who was taken to court by her former employer to repay $1900 in trainings they required her to attend, poses for a portrait outside the King County District Court in Shoreline, Washington, U.S., October 13, 2022. Bal, whose case was dismissed, says she was already licensed for services the trainings covered. REUTERS/Lindsey Wasson

One critic of the CFPB effort was the National Federation of Independent Business, or NFIB, which said the issue was outside the agency’s authority because it was unrelated to consumer financial products and services.

“(Some state governments) have authority to regulate employer-driven debt. CFPB should defer to those governments, which are closer to the people of the states than the CFPB,” it added.

NURSING AND TRUCKING

Bal said she was happy when she was hired by the Oh Sweet salon near Seattle in August 2021.

But she soon found that before she could provide services for clients, and earn more, she was required to attend trainings on such things as sugaring to remove unwanted hair and lash and brow maintenance.

But, she said, the salon owner was slow to schedule the trainings, which would sometimes be postponed or cancelled. They were also not informative; Bal described them as “introductory level.” While waiting to complete the training, Bal worked at the front desk, which paid less.

When she quit in October 2021, Bal received a bill for $1,900 for the instruction she did receive. “She was charging me for training for services that I was already licensed in,” said Bal.

Karina Villalta, who runs Oh Sweet LLC, filed a lawsuit in small claims court to recover the money. Court records provided by Bal show the case was dismissed in September by a judge who ruled that Bal did not complete the promised training and owed nothing. Villalta declined requests for comment.

In comments to the CFPB, National Nurses United said they did a survey that found that the agreements are “increasingly ubiquitous in the health care sector,” with new nurses often affected.

The survey found that 589 of the 1,698 nurses surveyed were required to take training programs and 326 of them were required to pay employers if they left before a certain time.

Many nurses said they were not told about the training repayment requirement before beginning work, and that classroom instruction often repeated what they learned in school.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters said in comments that training repayment demands were “particularly egregious” in commercial trucking. They said firms like CRST and C.R. England train people for a commercial drivers license but charge more than $6,000 if they leave the company before a certain time. Neither company responded to a request for comment.

The American Trucking Associations argues that the license is portable from one employer to another and required by the government. It urged the CFPB to not characterize it as employer-driven debt.

Steve Viscelli, a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania who spent six months training and then driving truck, said the issue deserved scrutiny.

“Anytime we have training contracts for low-skilled workers, we should be asking why,” he said. “If you have a good job, you don’t need a training contract. People are going to want to stay.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Chris Sanders and Lisa Shumaker

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Diane Bartz

Thomson Reuters

Focused on U.S. antitrust as well as corporate regulation and legislation, with experience involving covering war in Bosnia, elections in Mexico and Nicaragua, as well as stories from Brazil, Chile, Cuba, El Salvador, Nigeria and Peru.

Read original article here

Business

Biden, unions, rail executives struggle for deal as shutdown looms

Leave a comment

DETROIT/LOS ANGELES, Sept 14 (Reuters) – Biden administration officials hosted labor contract talks late on Wednesday to avert a potential rail shutdown that could disrupt cargo shipments and impede food and fuel supplies, but one small union rejected a deal and Amtrak canceled all long-distance passenger trips.

Railroads including Union Pacific (UNP.N), Berkshire Hathaway’s (BRKa.N) BNSF and Norfolk Southern (NSC.N) have until a minute after midnight on Friday to reach deals with three holdout unions representing about 60,000 workers before a work stoppage affecting freight and Amtrak could begin.

Talks between labor unions and railroads, which started at 9 a.m, were still underway more than 12 hours later after 9 p.m. ET on Wednesday at the U.S. Labor Department’s headquarters in Washington.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

The talks are being overseen by Labor Secretary Marty Walsh, with input from other U.S. officials. The parties ordered in Italian food for dinner Wednesday in order to continue discussions.

“Everybody is going to have to move a little in order to get a deal done,” Buttigieg told reporters on the sidelines of the Detroit auto show.

A union representing about 4,900 machinists, mechanics and maintenance personnel said on Wednesday its members voted to reject a tentative deal.

Rail workers have gone three years without a raise amid a contract dispute, while rail companies have recorded robust profits.

In the current talks, the industry has offered annual wage increases from 2020 to 2024, equal to a 24% compounded hike. Three of 12 unions, representing about half of the 115,000 workers affected by the negotiations, are asking for better working conditions.

Two of those 12 unions, representing more than 11,000 workers, have ratified deals, the National Carriers’ Conference Committee (NCCC), which is bargaining on behalf of railroads, said on Wednesday.

Unions are enjoying a surge of public and worker support in the wake of the pandemic, when “essential” employees risked COVID-19 exposure to keep goods moving and employers reaped hefty profits, labor and corporate experts say.

A shutdown could freeze almost 30% of U.S. cargo shipments by weight, stoke inflation, cost the U.S. economy as much as $2 billion per day and unleash a cascade of transportation woes affecting the U.S. energy, agriculture, manufacturing and retail sectors.

A cargo train is seen near the border between the U.S. and Mexico, in Laredo, Texas U.S. June 3, 2019. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso

White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters aboard Air Force One that a shutdown of the freight rail system would be an “unacceptable outcome for our economy and the American people and all parties must work to avoid just that.”

HIGH STAKES FOR BIDEN

President Joe Biden’s administration has begun making contingency plans to ensure deliveries of critical goods in the event of a shutdown.

The stakes are high for Biden, who has vowed to rein in soaring consumer costs ahead of November elections that will determine whether his fellow Democrats maintain control of Congress.

“Unless they reach a breakthrough soon, rail workers will go on strike this Friday. If you don’t think that will have a negative impact on our economy … think again,” said U.S. Senator John Cornyn, a Republican and Biden critic.

Senator Bernie Sanders late on Wednesday objected to a Republican bid to unanimously approve legislation to prevent a rail strike, noting the profits the rail industry has made.

If agreements are not reached, employers could also lock out workers. Railroads and unions may agree to stay at the bargaining table, or the Democratic-led U.S. Congress could intervene by extending talks or establishing settlement terms. read more

House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi said it was not clear whether Congress would step in, noting that the main issue is a lack of sick leave for workers.

Amtrak, which uses tracks maintained by freight railways, said it would cancel all long-distance trips on Thursday and some additional state-supported trains. read more

Rail hubs in Chicago and Dallas were already clogged and suffering from equipment shortages before the contract showdown. Those bottlenecks are backing up cargo at U.S. seaports by as much as a month. And, once cargo gets to rail hubs in locations such as Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and Memphis, Tennessee, it can sit another month or longer.

Package delivery company United Parcel Service (UPS.N), one of the largest U.S. rail customers, and U.S. seaports said they are working on contingency plans.

Meanwhile, factory owners are fretting about idling machinery while automakers worry that a shutdown could extend vehicle buyer wait times. Elsewhere, food and energy companies warn that additional service disruptions could create even sharper price hikes.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Reporting by David Shepardson and Lisa Baertlein; Additional reporting by Jeff Mason aboard Air Force One; Joe White in Detroit; Chris Walljasper in Chicago and Abhijith Ganapavaram in Bengaluru; Editing by Will Dunham, Jonathan Oatis, Bill Berkrot and Michael Perry

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Business

Large U.S. law firms mostly quiet on abortion ruling, are walking a ‘tightrope’

Leave a comment

June 26 (Reuters) – The largest U.S. law firms did not take a public stance following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade on Friday, diverging from the approach of some major companies that have made statements on the closely watched abortion case.

The high court’s 6-3 Dobbs decision upheld a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Many states are expected to further restrict or ban abortions following the ruling.

Reuters on Friday asked more than 30 U.S. law firms, including the 20 largest by total number of lawyers, for comments on the Dobbs ruling and whether they would cover travel costs for employees seeking an abortion.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The vast majority did not respond by Saturday afternoon, and only two, Ropes & Gray and Morrison & Foerster, said they would implement such a travel policy.

Morrison & Foerster, with nearly 1,000 attorneys, was the only large firm to issue a public statement by Saturday afternoon.

The firm’s chair, Larren Nashelsky, said Morrison & Foerster would “redouble our efforts to protect abortion and other reproductive rights.”

The Dobbs decision has been expected since a draft opinion was leaked in May.

Several major U.S. corporations, including The Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Meta Platforms (META.O) said on Friday they will cover travel costs for employees seeking abortions. read more

Industry experts say law firms could speak out on Dobbs in the future if employees and clients push them to take a public stance. For now, firm leaders appear to be carefully weighing the advantages and disadvantages of commenting, including the possibility of alienating clients, experts said.

“This is a tightrope to walk for firms,” said Kent Zimmermann, a law firm consultant with the Zeughauser Group. “They have a diversity of views among their talent and clients.”

Some firms have issued internal communications to employees about the decision. Ropes & Gray Chair Julie Jones said in an internal memo viewed by Reuters that the firm will hold several community gatherings to discuss the ruling and offer “comfort.”

“As a leader of Ropes & Gray, I am concerned about the effect of this decision on our community,” Jones wrote, while acknowledging that her memo may cause “offense to portions of our community.”

A Ropes & Gray spokesperson told Reuters Friday that employees enrolled in its medical plan are eligible for financial assistance to travel out of state for an abortion.

Another large U.S. law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, offered its U.S. workforce the day off on Friday, a spokesperson confirmed. The spokesperson did not immediately respond to further requests for comment.

Despite a dearth of public statements, a number of law firms publicly signaled ahead of the ruling that they planned to provide free legal support to women seeking abortions if Roe was overturned.

Both the New York Attorney General Leticia James and the San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, with the Bar Association of San Francisco, have convened pro bono initiatives that rely on law firm volunteers. Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and O’Melveny & Myers are among the participants.

Paul Weiss Chair Brad Karp called the Dobbs decision a “crushing loss” in an internal message to the firm on Friday provided to Reuters. Paul Weiss and O’Melveny, which both represented Jackson Women’s Health Organization, respondents in the Dobbs case, deferred comment on the ruling to their co-counsel, the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The center said in a statement that the court had “hit a new low by taking away – for the first time ever – a constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty.”

Gibson Dunn did not respond to request for comment.

Robert Kamins, a consultant with Vertex Advisors who works with law firms, said firms will be “very cautious” about taking early positions on the ruling.

“They have to make sure that they are being thoughtful about it,” he said. “What is the business impact? What is the client impact? What is the recruiting impact? There are lots of things to think about.”

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Karen Sloan in Sacramento, California, and Jacqueline Thomsen in Swampscott, Massachusetts; Additional reporting by Mike Scarcella in Silver Spring, Maryland; Editing by Rebekah Mintzer, Noeleen Walder and Leslie Adler

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

US

Legal clashes await U.S. companies covering workers’ abortion costs

Leave a comment

June 26 (Reuters) – A growing number of large U.S. companies have said they will cover travel costs for employees who must leave their home states to get abortions, but these new policies could expose businesses to lawsuits and even potential criminal liability, legal experts said.

Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Lyft Inc (LYFT.O), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) were among companies that announced plans to provide those benefits through their health insurance plans in anticipation of Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. read more

Within an hour of the decision being released, Conde Nast chief executive Roger Lynch sent a memo to staff announcing a travel reimbursement policy and calling the court’s ruling “a crushing blow to reproductive rights.” Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) unveiled a similar policy on Friday, telling employees that it recognizes the impact of the abortion ruling but remains committed to providing comprehensive access to quality healthcare, according to a spokesman. read more

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Companies including health insurer Cigna Corp (CI.N), Paypal Holdings Inc (PYPL.O), Alaska Airlines Inc [RIC:RIC:ALKAIR.UL] and Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc (DKS.N) also announced reimbursement policies on Friday.

Abortion restrictions that were already on the books in 13 states went into effect as a result of Friday’s ruling and at least a dozen other Republican-led states are expected to ban abortion.

The court’s decision, driven by its conservative majority, upheld a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Meanwhile, some Democratic-led states are moving to bolster access to abortion.

Companies will have to navigate that patchwork of state laws and are likely to draw the ire of anti-abortion groups and Republican-led states if they adopt policies supportive of employees having abortions.

State lawmakers in Texas have already threatened Citigroup Inc (C.N) and Lyft, which had earlier announced travel reimbursement policies, with legal repercussions. A group of Republican lawmakers in a letter last month to Lyft chief executive Logan Green said Texas “will take swift and decisive action” if the ride-hailing company implements the policy.

The legislators also outlined a series of abortion-related proposals, including a bill that would bar companies from doing business in Texas if they pay for residents of the state to receive abortions elsewhere.

LAWSUITS LOOMING

It is likely only a matter of time before companies face lawsuits from states or anti-abortion campaigners claiming that abortion-related payments violate state bans on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions, according to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and expert on healthcare law.

“If you can sue me as a person for carrying your daughter across state lines, you can sue Amazon for paying for it,” Wilson said.

Amazon, Citigroup, Lyft, Conde Nast and several other companies that have announced reimbursement policies did not respond to requests for comment.

For many large companies that fund their own health plans, the federal law regulating employee benefits will provide crucial cover in civil lawsuits over their reimbursement policies, several lawyers and other legal experts said.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits states from adopting requirements that “relate to” employer-sponsored health plans. Courts have for decades interpreted that language to bar state laws that dictate what health plans can and cannot cover.

ERISA regulates benefit plans that are funded directly by employers, known as self-insured plans. In 2021, 64% of U.S. workers with employer-sponsored health insurance were covered by self-insured plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Any company sued over an abortion travel reimbursement requirement will likely cite ERISA as a defense, according to Katy Johnson, senior counsel for health policy at the American Benefits Council, a trade group. And that will be a strong argument, she said, particularly for businesses with general reimbursement policies for necessary medical-related travel rather than those that single out abortion.

Johnson said reimbursements for other kinds of medical-related travel, such as visits to hospitals designated “centers of excellence,” are already common even though policies related to abortion are still relatively rare.

“While this may seem new, it’s not in the general sense and the law already tells us how to handle it,” Johnson said.

LIMITS

The argument has its limits. Fully-insured health plans, in which employers purchase coverage through a commercial insurer, cover about one-third of workers with insurance and are regulated by state law and not ERISA.

Most small and medium-sized U.S. businesses have fully-insured plans and could not argue that ERISA prevents states from limiting abortion coverage.

And, ERISA cannot prevent states from enforcing criminal laws, such as those in several states that make it a crime to aid and abet abortion, so employers who adopt reimbursement policies are vulnerable to criminal charges from state and local prosecutors.

But since most criminal abortion laws have not been enforced in decades, since Roe was decided, it is unclear whether officials would attempt to prosecute companies, according to Danita Merlau, a Chicago-based lawyer who advises companies on benefits issues.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Grant McCool

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here