InsideSources

Labor unions continued a decades-long trend of membership decline this past year, according to a federal report Thursday.

Labor unions have lost a significant share of wage and salary workers over the decades. Some have argued the decline puts workers at risk while others have countered it shows unions are becoming less relevant. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports the membership rate declined to 10.7 percent in 2016.

“The number of wage and salary workers belonging to unions, at 14.6 million in 2016, declined by 240,000 from 2015,” the BLS report stated. “In 1983, the first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.”

Labor unions have become increasingly reliant on public-sector workers to slow the decline. The union membership rate for public-sector workers remained steady at 34.4 percent. The public-sector rate was more than five times higher than that of private-sector workers which fell to 6.4 percent last year.

“In 2016, 7.1 million employees in the public sector belonged to a union, compared with 7.4 million workers in the private sector,” the report said. “Within the public sector, the union membership rate was highest for local government.”

Those that work in education, training, protective services, and libraries had the highest unionization rates. Some have warned the decline over decades has put workers at risk. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) argues the trend is the result of inadequate labor laws and attacks on workers.

“Workers’ wishes to engage in collective bargaining far exceed their ability to do so because of our inadequate laws,” EPI President Lawrence Mishel wrote. “The resulting erosion of collective bargaining exacerbates our decades-long problems with wage stagnation and inequality, hurts not only union workers but also nonunion workers.”

The BLS report states that nonunion workers get paid about 80 percent of what union workers do. It does add that this doesn’t account for other factors that might explain the difference. Nevertheless, others have argued it’s not laws that are the problem but rather workers deciding unions are no longer useful to have.

“The sad state of private-sector union membership reveals that union bosses are historical artifacts,”  Center for Union Facts Executive Director Richard Berman told InsideSources. “Despite spending millions of dollars on campaigns like ‘$15 and a Union’ while receiving unprecedented help from the pro-union Obama administration, big labor is seeing only dark days ahead. Employees nationwide are rejecting the union agenda and the left-wing politics that come with it.”

Former President Barack Obama argued numerous times during his time in office that unions were critical to protecting workers. His administration implemented regulations to help bolster their membership. Some opposed to his workplace agenda have contested it helped unions at the expense of workers.

President Donald Trump has not been as welcoming to labor unions despite building his platform around workers. The two sides have had a contentious relationship but now look to be finding some common ground. The White House reported that the president met with some top union leaders Monday to discuss construction and trade.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

The economy is expected to grow modestly over the next decade while deficit spending is likely to increase to dangerous levels, according to a federal outlook Tuesday.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) looked at several potential changes as part of its ten-year economic outlook. It expects economic growth to be positive but modest over the next decade. Deficit spending is also expected to increase more rapidly in the years ahead due to spending outpacing revenue.

“After declining for several years, federal budget deficits are on a path to rise during the next decade,” the report said. “Those shortfalls are projected to occur mainly because, under current law, growth in revenues would be outpaced by growth in spending for major benefit programs.”

Deficit spending is different from debt in that it’s the excess of expenditure over a given time. Spending that outpaces revenue adds to the deficit and thus will contribute to the debt. The CBO attributes this excess spending primarily to retirement and health care programs along with federal debt interest payments.

“Such a pattern over the next 10 years would cause debt held by the public to increase from 77 percent of GDP at the end of both 2017 and 2018 to 89 percent at the end of 2027,” the report said. “Such high and rising debt would have significant consequences, both for the economy and for the federal budget.”

The CBO highlights several problems that could occur because of the increased debt. Federal spending on interest payments would increase, capital stocks could become smaller, and lawmakers would have less flexibility to respond to sudden changes. A national fiscal crisis will also become more likely.

The CBO outlook does highlight some good news in that economic growth is also expected to occur. The report foresees an increase in economic output, which is the total value of all goods and services produced in an economy. The growth, however, is expected to be modest relative to the already sluggish growth seen since the last recession.

“The economy will grow, during the coming decade, at roughly the modest rate,” the report said. “CBO expects business investment to strengthen, helping to raise the growth of output to 2.3 percent this year and 1.9 percent in 2018. From 2017 to 2027, CBO estimates that real output will expand at an average rate of 1.9 percent per year.”

The expected growth is likely to result in other positive economic trends. It could cause employment to rise and is expected to eliminate slack. Slack is a measure which tracks unused productive resources in an economy. Much of the growth stems from an increase in labor productivity.

“The agency projects growth in the productivity of the labor force to accelerate nearly to its average over the past 25 years,” the report said. “Nevertheless, the growth of potential output is projected to be slower than its long-term historical average because the working-age population, and hence the labor force, are expected to grow more slowly than they did in the past.”

The labor force has improved significantly since the last recession. It has even managed to reach close to full employment at 4.7 percent. The slow growth and other market indicators, however, have shown there is plenty of room for improvement.

“The modest increase in economic output during 2016 was enough to ensure that labor markets kept improving,” the report said. “Payrolls grew by 180,000 jobs per month, on average. The labor force participation rate increased slightly in 2016, even though the aging of the population exerted downward pressure on it.”

The labor force participation rate tracks the number of employed and those actively seeking work as a percentage of the total population. It has fallen considerably since the last recession even with the steady job growth in recent years. It was able to rebound some in the last year but not enough to reverse the overall trend.

The CBO expects that participation rate to continue its downwards trend in the decade ahead as more people drop out of the labor force. The decline is primarily due to a large percentage of people retiring. Additionally, more people have been relying on entitlements, like disability insurance, instead of work.

The CBO notes the projections are subject to change because it’s based on current laws and trends. President Donald Trump has pledged to reduce government spending and spur economic growth. He could make things better or worse but at the very least any significant changes are likely to alter the projections.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

President Donald Trump was praised by some of the top unions Monday for changing course on how the country approaches international trade.

Trump has had a highly contentious relationship with unions since he first launched his campaign. His opposition to the national trade agenda was one of the few policy areas they agreed on. Some labor unions applauded the president for his decision to withdraw support from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

“President Trump made good on his campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa said. “With this decision, the president has taken the first step toward fixing 30 years of bad trade policies that have cost working Americans millions of good-paying jobs.”

Congress had delayed holding a final vote on the trade deal prompting some to believe it was already dead. It had drawn fierce criticism and became a main talking point during the campaign. Trump also plans to reopen negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which came into force in 1994.

“Today’s announcement that the U.S. is withdrawing from TPP and seeking a reopening of NAFTA is an important first step toward a trade policy that works for working people,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said. “While these are necessary actions, they aren’t enough. They are just the first in a series of necessary policy changes required to build a fair and just global economy.”

Trump built his campaign on the promise that he would help domestic workers. The president has argued the current approach to trade and immigration has allowed companies to undercut workers with cheap foreign labor. He pledged to withdraw or renegotiate from trade agreements so they better serve American workers.

“Millions of working men and women saw their jobs leave the country as free trade policies undermined our manufacturing industry,” Hoffa said. “We take this development as a positive sign that President Trump will continue to fulfill his campaign promises in regard to trade policy reform.”

The TPP would have been the largest regional trade deal in history with its inclusion of countries that produce roughly 39 percent of global GDP. Former President Barack Obama found himself at odds with many in his own party for negotiating the deal. Labor unions have contested the trade deal is designed to enrich corporations and other special interests at the expense of workers.

“We will continue our relentless campaign to create new trade and economic rules that end special privileges for foreign investors and Big Pharma, protect our planet’s precious natural resources and ensure fair pay, safe conditions and a voice in the workplace for all workers,” Trumka also said.

The deal was designed to unite the partner countries under a uniform set of trade rules. It would have gradually ended thousands of import tariffs and other international trade barriers. It would also establish rules for intellectual property rights, environment protections, and open Internet access.

The Obama White House had argued the trade deal would actually help workers despite what critics claim. It will cover a few countries known for notorious labor and human rights violations, like Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei. The former administration also said it would help fix many problems NAFTA caused.

Labor unions have tried numerous methods to fight the trade deal. They have held rallies and launched several media campaigns. Democratic Rep. Kathleen Rice was even the target of an attack ad in June 2015 for breaking with the rest of her party to support it.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

The likely Republican leader of a top federal regulator said Trump-style dealmaking will influence how she leads the Federal Trade Commission on issues like rolling back regulations and reclaiming net neutrality, privacy, and other authorities from the Federal Communications Commission.

Republican FTC Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen quoted from President Donald Trump’s “The Art of the Deal” while addressing the 2017 State of the Net conference in Washington Monday, saying deals between Republicans and Democrats will be necessary on the evenly split commission until Trump appoints more commissioners.

“I thought maybe I should take a look at Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’ to get some ideas, and one of them is basically ‘maximize your options and use your leverage,'” Ohlhausen said. “So as an acting chair, if I were to be named that, there are definitely things I could do.”

Ohlhausen and Democratic Commissioner Terrell McSweeny will be the only commissioners left at the FTC after Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, former President Barack Obama’s pick to lead the agency, steps down in February. Ohlhausen said she would direct the agency, primarily charged with enforcing consumer protection law, to look for “substantial harm” in cases, rather than practices by companies that only show the potential for harm.

Too much of the former defined the previous administration and thereby hurt innovation, according to Ohlhausen.

“I would hope my remaining colleague Commissioner McSweeny would of course want to act on those kinds of cases,” the Republican said. “Starting a dialogue about substantial harm, that doesn’t require a commission vote.”

The FTC would need a majority vote to wind back charges its already filed in cases where Ohlhausen dissented, including recent enforcement actions against Uber for exaggerating driver wages and smartphone chip maker Qualcomm for violating antitrust law.

While the commissioner wouldn’t confirm reports she’s been tapped by Trump to lead the FTC at least temporarily, she expressed support for his regulatory agenda including transferring consumer protection and competition authority like net neutrality from the FCC to the FTC.

The FTC oversaw internet service providers (ISP) and their privacy practices before the FCC adopted its net neutrality and ISP privacy rules in 2015 and 2016. Ohlhausen wants them back under FTC jurisdiction, as do the Republican commissioners now in charge of the FCC.

Further complicating the jurisdiction issue is a recent ruling out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which bars the FTC from taking action against any company acting as a common carrier — the public utility designation the FCC used to reclassify ISPs to justify net neutrality.

“Should the FCC rescind the Open Internet Order and put the lines back where they were previously, because of the Ninth Circuit decision that’s still a problem for the FTC and for consumers because this would impact not just the telecommunications space,” Ohlhausen said.

“Say for example you have a common carrier who decided to sell dietary supplements,” she explained. “The FCC isn’t going to be there policing over dietary supplements, but this could divest the FTC of oversight over them as well.”

The FTC can’t oversee common carriers according to federal law — a statute Ohlhausen, her predecessor, and many others have advocated repealing. Failing to do so could leave companies like Google, the web’s targeted advertising giant, free from privacy regulation because it also acts as a service provider via Google Fiber.

“It was put in place at a time when common carriers were pervasively regulated monopolies,” she said. “Obviously our telecommunications space is vastly different than it was when these rules were put in place.”

The FTC could better police net neutrality concerns like web traffic throttling and user privacy with its antitrust and consumer protection authority, according to Ohlhausen, but said it’s up to the FCC whether to repeal or merely not enforce net neutrality.

“I look forward to working with my FCC colleagues on those topics,” she said.

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning 

Who has final say over New Hampshire’s abundance of regulations put forward by state agencies? That’s the latest battle at the State House, where a legislative committee says it is in charge, not Gov. Chris Sununu, of the process to decide on the need for administrative rules.

The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules unanimously sent a letter to Sununu on Friday saying the committee and the process that already exists “accomplishes many of the goals of your letter seeking a reduction in governmental rules and regulations.”

During his inaugural address, Sununu called for a 90-day moratorium on new regulations.

“There are a lot of regulations in this state, for such a small state,” he said. “It is unbelievable. Let’s take a pause. Let’s take a step back and figure out what we are doing and why we are doing it.”

The next day, Sununu sent a memo to agency heads and department commissioners asking them to “immediately establish a pause on any proposed adoption, amendment, re-adoption or re-adoption with amendment of administrative rules until March 31, 2017.”

The request did not apply to any proposed rule mandated by law or that was “immediately essential to the public health, safety and welfare.” By March 31, he asked the agency heads to review “each and every regulation under the agency’s jurisdiction that is currently being proposed” or is already in effect.

The bipartisan joint committee includes five state senators and five House members and is authorized, according to state law, to have final say over rules proposed by state agencies, following a detailed approval process.

In their letter to Sununu, the committee members say they’re who oversees the rulemaking process.

“The majority of rulemaking is mandated by statute, and agencies cannot choose not to adopt rules when a statute says that they shall,” the letter states.

Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield, who chairs the committee, told WMUR that no rule or regulation can “exceed the authority of the legislation.”

“There seems to be a lack of understanding in the corner office about what the process is to create rules,” he said. “It seems that he was trying to do what everyone promises to do in Washington, stop passing laws that proliferate bureaucratic rules.”

In fact, President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, issued a very similar memo to Sununu’s on Friday telling federal agencies to not issue any more regulations.

He told the federal agencies not to send any regulation to the Federal Register until the rule is reviewed and approved by the new head of that respective agency, who is appointed under Trump.

But Reagan said New Hampshire is different than the federal government. Rules in the Granite State expire every 10 years and must be reauthorized. This year alone, 250 rules and 41 interim rules will expire, he told WMUR.

The agencies must hold public hearings on proposed rules, which are then submitted to the committee, and the committee’s attorneys determine if a proposed rule exceeds its legislative authority.

“What we’re saying to the governor in the letter is, let the process go on because we’re already doing what you want done,” Reagan said. “As chairman, I felt it was incumbent on me to state for the sake of the committee’s reputation to say that we already do this. This is what we have been doing for all these years. We’re not challenging anybody. I just had to make a statement for the sake of the committee.”

Emily Corcoran, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire, said the committee is “reasserting their belief that they have jurisdiction [over rulemaking] and then the courts would be the arbitrator” if the moratorium were to be challenged.

“You also see some changes in power here,” she told NH Journal. “It’s the change we have when a new person with a different political view is trying to separate themselves from what their predecessor did. You also have renewed power struggles among the different branches of government vying for power.”

Corcoran also clarified that Sununu announced the moratorium through a memo instead of an executive order. While both methods essentially produce the same result and are legally binding, the memo method could send a non-confrontational message, she said.

“Executive orders are a way to reverse existing policies,” she said. “If you want to reverse a position from a previous administration, you have to do that through an executive order. To put a policy on hold or not do anything right now to reassess, it signals that there is a new sheriff in town who wants to see where things are and where things are going. It doesn’t send the signal that we are ending anything quickly or completely switching gears.”

“He’s exercising his power to give agencies guidance,” she added. “It could be that he wants to appear measured and also signal to people that voted for him that it will be different under his term than [former] Gov. [Maggie] Hassan.”

Sununu has not issued his first executive order yet.

And Sununu is not alone for calling a halt in new regulations. Missouri Republican Gov. Eric Gretiens issued a similar action this month, except through an executive order, to freeze new rules and regulations.

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey issued a continuing moratorium through an executive order on Monday. Arizona has had a moratorium on new regulations since 2009.

Even Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker issued a similar executive order halting new regulations in 2015.

While it seems like Republicans are the only ones who halt new regulations, it’s actually not partisan. Former President Barack Obama issued a moratorium, through a memo when he took office on Jan. 20, 2009, telling federal agencies to refrain from sending any new or proposed rules.

“You do tend to see that happen with new administrations,” Corcoran said. “He [Sununu] made campaign promises and he’s acting out on them.”

Sununu’s office responded to the committee’s letter on Monday, saying, “New Hampshire is an over-regulated state with too many rules stifling opportunities for economic growth.”

“As the state’s chief executive, he is leading a collaborative effort with department heads and commissioners to foster an environment in which businesses can more easily grow jobs,” said David Abrams, Sununu spokesman, in a statement to WMUR. “His carefully thought-out request has been met with enthusiasm and cooperation and we are confident that the information we have gathered will lead to meaningful reform.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Protesters rallied, marched, blocked highway traffic and occasionally became violent Friday to protest the inauguration of President Donald Trump.

There were several protests and marches organized throughout the city. Demonstrators primarily gathered at Union Station, near the Capitol Building and downtown near the White House. Some demonstrators blocked highway traffic around midday. There were also reports of violence.

Protesters supported issues like worker rights, immigration, reproductive rights, and healthcare. There was a range of political ideologies present including communism and anarchism. Many were opposed to capitalism, international trade, and the current political system.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“I want Donald Trump to know that his bigotry, his fascism, the racism, I’m not in support of that,” Kenneth Clark, a protester, told InsideSources. “He wants to build walls, we don’t need to build walls, we need to build bridges. And he is the definition of the snare, the racism and the bigotry that exists here in this country.”

Many protesters opposed the president directly while others argued he was a symptom of a much larger problem. They were primarily concerned with his rhetoric, policy proposals, and cabinet appointments. Demonstrators also argued he was racist and sexist.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“Ultimately it’s the way Trump’s words have emboldened the rise of fascism again here in the U.S.,” Jen Marley, a protester, told InsideSources. “White supremacists are feeling safe and feeling protected, spouting bigotry.”

Most of the demonstrations were relatively nonviolent, but that wasn’t always the case. Reuters reports that anti-establishment activists smashed windows, damaged property, lit fires and clashed with the police. Police officers were hospitalized.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“He’s going to lead us to environmental catastrophe, towards racial catastrophe, towards mass murder and deportations, and that’s just the beginning,” Ben Bruno, a protester, told InsideSources. “People should know that the people attending the inauguration in support of Donald Trump are either racists or they have been duped mightily by the media and by the system. Wise working people do not support anything in his agenda.”

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Protesters who decided to march down the highway got mixed reviews from the motorists they were blocking. Some people got out of their cars to cheer the protesters on while others were visibly annoyed. Police cars ensured the marchers kept going until they eventually left the highway.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“I’m upset, I’m very disappointed but the fight is not over at this point for me,” Lisa Rodriguez, a student protesting, told InsideSources. “If anything, as a black woman, I’m more motivated to do my due diligence to my country and make sure everyone knows that, who I am as a woman, I am not an inconvenience to society. I belong here.”

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Many protesters argued Trump isn’t a legitimate president. They believe the electoral college system isn’t democratic and therefore his victory shouldn’t count. Some also noted concern over allegations that Russian President Vladimir Putin manipulated the election to help Trump win.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“We have a tyrant now, put up by a foreign power into an office of the United States government,” Don Cartier, a protester, told InsideSources. “Trump attacks every single person except for Putin, who he praises endlessly. Is that not the slightest bit suspicious to anyone but me. Come on.”

Trump was seen by many supporters as a genuine person who wasn’t part of the political establishment. His brash tone was deemed offensive to some but honest to others. Nevertheless, some critics believe he isn’t genuine and he’ll play the same old political game as everyone else.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“His promises aren’t worth shit because he’s not a genuine person.” Richard Kossally, a protest organizer, told InsideSources. “He stands for nothing real except to enrich himself, and I think he’s going to use his presidency to enrich himself in some ways by changing laws.”

“He doesn’t care, he really doesn’t, he’s going to sign whatever the GOP puts on his desk and that’s going to mean a wide variety of things for the people that voted for him,” J.J. Biel, a protester, told InsideSources. “He’s a racist, he’s a bigot, he ran a very horrible campaign and now he’s in charge of our country.”

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Some Trump supporters ventured near the protests to get a better look. A few verbal arguments ensued but mostly the two sides left each other alone. James Pritchard supports the new president but added the demonstrators have every right to express their opposition.

“It’s freedom of speech. I don’t have any problem with them protesting,” Pritchard told InsideSources. “There’s like a million people over a mile supporting Trump and you got maybe, what, a hundred thousand walking the streets that are not supporting him. I don’t have a problem with that. Freedom of speech is American.”

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

Some believe the new president reflects a bigger problem facing the country and the world. They argued his victory was a sign the system is broken. Kossally added the system was controlled by a corporate class and that capitalism was to blame.

Inauguration Day Protests (Connor D. Wolf/InsideSources)

“I believe we need a revolution,” Kossally said. “We need to overturn the system. It is not reformable. This capitalist system is actually destroying the world. That’s the larger part, it’s already been destroying the lives of people and destroying people.”

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

Republican Federal Communications Commissioner Ajit Pai will be named permanent chairman of the agency according to multiple reports Friday, confirming speculation he’ll take the reigns from former Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler as he departs with the Obama administration.

Pai is the senior Republican at the agency and was tapped by former President Barack Obama to join the FCC in 2012. Much of his tenure since has focused on opposing Wheeler’s agenda, including net neutrality, expansions to FCC privacy authority and the agency’s Lifeline phone and internet subsidies for poor Americans. All were passed along partisan lines.

“It is time to bring more openness and transparency to the FCC,” Pai said after the election last year. “From publicly releasing the text of documents we vote on at public meetings to establishing an FCC Dashboard with key performance metrics, we can better enable the public to know what and how we are doing.”

The agency’s new chief also opposed plans to let third parties enter the cable set-top box marketplace, regulate rates for high-capacity business broadband services, and limit free data offerings for certain video providers by wireless carriers, none of which came to a vote.

Aside from opposing what he and fellow Republican Commissioner Michael O’Rielly described as a partisan agenda that frequently left them in the dark, Pai championed efforts to expand broadband into rural areas like his home state of Kansas. He’s also laid out suggestions for the agency and Congress to work together on bringing startups and entrepreneurs to those traditionally underserved areas.

Pai supported Wheeler in efforts to break ground on new technologies like opening up airwaves for future 5G networks, and has led an independent investigation into Lifeline fraud and abuse by wireless carriers.

As chairman, Pai will likely seek to roll back many aspects of Wheeler’s agenda especially with regard to net neutrality, rules he and O’Rielly have already stated they plan to “revisit … as soon as possible” with their new majority.

“We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation,” he said in December, adding Republicans would shift to “going on offense” in the Trump administration.

President Trump has reportedly signed off on a plan from his FCC transition team to transfer competition and consumer protection to the Federal Trade Commission, a move consistent with opinions and policies Pai has expressed. His chairmanship will likely give greater deference to Congress over taking the agency into uncharted territory.

Wheeler spent his last days at the agency laying out a defense of any Republican walk-back of his legacy, and net neutrality advocates on Capitol Hill echoed those positions after learning of Pai’s promotion Friday.

“We need an FCC that protects consumers, promotes competition, and spurs innovation,” Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said Friday. “I will vigorously oppose any efforts by leadership at the FCC to undo net neutrality and broadband privacy rules, undermine E-Rate, or roll back any fundamental consumer protections.”

As a sitting commissioner, Pai will not undergo a confirmation hearing in the Senate. He will however face reconfirmation next year, a process that unseated his Democratic colleague Jessica Rosenworcel in December. Trump has yet to appoint her Democratic replacement or another Republican to serve on the five-member commission.

The FCC’s only remaining Democrat and net neutrality supporter, Mignon Clyburn, gave a defense of the rules at CES 2017 in earlier January.

While the rules aren’t perfect, she said, they do “provide the type of opportunities that edge providers, those on the floor, people in the hamlets of the country that do not currently have opportunities that may have opportunities now, with a more streamlined infrastructure framework.”

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning 

President-elect Donald Trump won considerable working class support but his incoming presidency poses a huge setback for unions.

Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton won overwhelming support from the labor movement during the election. Labor unions campaigned for her and donated heavily to her campaign. Her loss likely means the rollback of regulations unions support and a further decline in their membership.

President Barack Obama argued numerous times during his time in office that unions were critical to protecting workers. His administration implemented numerous regulations to help bolster their membership. Trump has already signaled that he will scrap those regulations with critics contesting they actually helped unions at the expense of workers.

“They pushed for regulations that didn’t help workers,” Workforce Fairness Institute spokeswoman Heather Greenaway told InsideSources. “It did nothing to help their paychecks or help their work balances within their workplaces. All these regulations did over the last eight years was tilt the scale towards labor unions to unionize more.”

Labor unions over the decades have faced a declining membership rate. Their membership went from 20.1 percent in 1983 down to just 11.1 percent by 2015. The regulations sought to reverse the trend by changing workplace elections and allowing unions to organize workers in new ways.

“Most of the decline is due to a variety of causes, largely beyond the union’s control,” Peter Schaumber, a labor agency appointee under President George W. Bush, told InsideSources. “To stem their decline, unions decided on the political process and selected the Democratic party for their largess to get laws passed and regulations passed that make unionization easier.”

Greenaway notes there will likely always be a labor movement despite the decline. But she believes unions will never get back to where they once were. The union model doesn’t fit many modern workplaces, and the benefits they used to fight for are now provided by the government, she says.

The government mandates everything from workplace safety standards, employment benefits and a minimum wage. Federal law also encourages employers to provide health insurance. Many employees, at one time, had to rely on labor unions to help guarantee such employment rights.

“There are a lot of other programs out there that are there for workers that aren’t necessarily union,” Greenaway said. “I just don’t see what they can give workers that isn’t already provided by the government.”

The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board became the driving force behind many of the new regulations. Union membership over the last eight years, however, continued to decline. Nevertheless, Trump could cause the decline to accelerate if he scraps those recent regulations.

“I think the Trump candidacy has accelerated the estrangement of workers from the union movement,” Schaumber said. “If he is successful and the unions continue their self-destructive focus on buying a seat at the Democrat table, we are likely to see union membership decline at an accelerated rate.”

Trump winning the presidency may also underscore a bigger problem facing the labor movement. Labor unions almost always side with the left when it comes to politics. Their membership, however, tends to be more diverse politically.

“These unions are doing things that are inconsistent with the views of their members and the Trump election is just proof of that,” Regent University Prof. Bruce Cameron told InsideSources. “He supports right-to-work laws, these unions obviously do not, and the members of these unions voted for Trump.”

Labor unions sometimes even go as far as to demonize those on the right. Labor unions throughout the campaign claimed Trump and other Republicans were trying to hurt workers. Nevertheless, Trump was even able to secure many working class districts that have previously gone left.

“Limiting their support for Democrat candidates and vilifying Republican ones, has estranged unions from a large percentage of their membership that vote Republican,” Schaumber said. “In addition, organized labor is controlled at the top by secular progressives who have pushed much of the union movement into support social causes, many workers disagree with.”

Schaumber points to abortion, same-sex marriage and transgender bathrooms as just a few of the social issues unions tend to be very progressive about. The political divide likely includes workplace issues as well such as right-to-work laws. The policy outlaws mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment.

“I think this represents a perennial problem for unions,” Cameron said. “Donald Trump endorses right-to-work and there are many unions members that support right-to-work and support more conservative politics.”

Labor unions began preparing for the incoming administration following the election. The AFL-CIO offered to work with the president-elect the day after his victory. The same union previously denounced him as a bigot who was going to hurt workers.

“The President-elect made promises in this campaign—on trade, on restoring manufacturing, on reviving our communities,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said at the time. “We will work to make many of those promises a reality.  If he is willing to work with us, consistent with our values, we are ready to work with him.”

Some labor unions are preparing for the incoming administration by curtailing spending. Bloomberg reported last month that the Service Employees International Union plans to cut its budget by 30 percent over the next year.

“I think that was a necessary measure, they have to save their money,” Greenaway said. “I think honestly it’s a budget decision, and its treading water for the next four years or eight years. It’s literally looking into the coffers and figuring out how they weather the storm.”

Greenaway adds that unions are likely to focus their attention on local campaigns until they can gain a foothold on the federal level again. The Fight for $15 movement, for instance, is one model that has helped unions achieve policy victories locally.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

“Will Steve Mnuchin Bomb His Confirmation Hearing?,” asked one of the latest headlines in Vanity Fair.  Clearly, many Democrats are eager to see the spectacle of Mnuchin’s confirmation hearing for Treasury secretary.

On Thursday, the former Goldman Sachs partner will testify before the Senate Finance Committee, and although, Republicans are expected to confirm President-elect Trump’s nominee, Democrats aren’t going down without a fight. They will most likely bring up sore points in Mnuchin’s career, especially the numerous reports of misconduct when he was in charge of OneWest.

This makes sense though, especially since the Democratic Party needs to win over working-class voters, who were attracted to Trump’s populist appeal, and rebuild their economic message before the 2018 midterm elections. And, of course, these confirmation hearings are always interesting to see if there are any early 2020 presidential possibilities.

It will be intriguing to learn whether any more information will come out about Mnuchin’s policy ideas for the Treasury Department, or whether it will largely resemble a carnival sideshow?

“They [confirmation hearings] too often become…game shows,” said Pete Sepp, president of the National Taxpayers Union, in a Wednesday press call.

“They don’t always get to the very important issues that could be amplified in the hearing process, to better understand how members of Congress and the executive branch will cooperate,” he said.

For him and David Williams, president of the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, one of those important issues is tax policy.

“The good news is Mnuchin is on record saying tax reform is one of his top priorities,” Williams said. “If people aren’t going to read all of War and Peace [by Leo Tolstoy], they aren’t going to read the whole tax code. This is a breath of fresh air for frustrated taxpayers.”

Republicans are also eager for tax reform, and while Mnuchin has said he would like to see it done, Congress will ultimately have to make it happen. Mnuchin was involved in writing Trump’s tax plan during the campaign, so it’s likely he will be involved in drafting legislation.

If confirmed for the position, he would have power over some regulations within the tax code. For example, he could roll back inversions, a controversial regulation enacted under President Barack Obama’s administration that sought to stop companies from avoiding U.S. taxes by moving their legal domicile to a low-tax country. Even that would be difficult to do because it was a rule issued by the Treasury and Internal Revenue Services (IRS), and the IRS is pretty independent even though it is technically housed within the department.

Trump and Mnuchin could seek more influence over the IRS since the president-elect will choose the next head of the federal agency. And they could end the limited oversight of regulations issued by the IRS that makes it so independent.  

Although Mnuchin can’t exercise power over specific parts of the tax code, he has indicated he supports several measures in the House GOP’s plan for tax reform. The Trump administration, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady want to cut the corporate tax rate, but they disagree by how much. The House GOP plan has it at a 20 percent tax rate, while Trump and Mnuchin want a 15 percent rate.

Will Senate Democrats ask about Mnuchin’s tax reform plans? It remains to be seen.

DODD-FRANK

Another possible policy area that could come up during the hearing is Mnuchin’s plan to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank, the financial regulatory law passed after the financial crisis.

It’s unknown what specific parts he wants to do away with, so it can be expected that a senator might ask him.

Although he can’t repeal Dodd-Frank (only Congress can), the law does give the Treasury secretary some authority over the financial system, as head of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). This council contains all the heads of the top financial regulators and is meant to deal with systemic financial risks. So Mnuchin could have a lot of influence over the agenda of the FSOC.

For example, the council is responsible for identifying and designating systemically important financial institutions — the ones who could trigger a financial crisis, or the ones that are “too big to fail.” Mnuchin could have the FSOC staff look at non-bank threats that would upend the system. The Obama administration has been aggressive in naming such threats and has faced significant criticism for pointing to companies like MetLife as systemically important. But he can’t really tell the other FSOC members what to do in their own respective agencies. The Federal Reserve, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, among the other members, are independent, and he can’t dictate their policy. But he sure can tell Trump who to put in charge of those agencies and influence them that way.

FREDDIE AND FANNIE

Soon after Mnuchin was announced as Trump’s Treasury pick, he said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should leave government control and the president-elect’s administration “will get it done reasonably fast.”

“We will make sure that when they are restructured, they are absolutely safe and don’t get taken over again,” he told Fox Business. “But we’ve got to get them out of government control.”

This idea isn’t anything new. The battle over the future of mortgage companies has been discussed in Congress since they were bailed out in 2008 for $187.5 billion. Since then, Fannie and Freddie have been in conservatorship, controlled by the federal government. Fannie and Freddie have fully paid back all money owed to taxpayers, but the Treasury has continued to seize all profits, not allowing the mortgage giants to accumulate capital. 

Mnuchin appears set on a path to end the seizure of profits. More will likely be learned during the hearings.

STRONG-DOLLAR POLICY

Expect to also hear Mnuchin’s comments about the strong-dollar policy. It’s been a mantra of Treasury secretaries since the mid-1990s. Usually, Republican and Democratic administrations have maintained a policy of backing a strong U.S. currency, speaking neutrally about it, for fear of upsetting the financial markets. But Trump went and changed that.

“Our dollar is too strong,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal last week. “And our companies can’t compete with [China] now because our currency is too strong. And it’s killing us.”

Will Mnuchin echo Trump’s sentiments or will he maintain a strong-dollar policy tradition? The markets await his answer.

These are some of the policy issues conservative and liberal researchers are waiting to hear about to see how it could impact the economy.

“It’s incredibly troubling that someone who ran on draining the swamp and fighting for everyday Americans is putting someone, who has not demonstrated any interest or ability to fight for Americans, in charge of the U.S. economy,” said Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal policy institute.

Mnuchin’s confirmation hearing begins at 10 a.m.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.