InsideSources

A D.C.-based tech lobby representing Google, Facebook, Twitter and other Silicon Valley giants reached out to Donald Trump’s transition team this week to press the president-elect on pro-tech positions like defending strong encryption — one of the numerous issues valued in the valley the 45th president scrutinized during his campaign.

“Laws that require companies to engineer vulnerabilities into products and services harm personal privacy and endanger national security,” the Internet Association wrote, referring to the push by the FBI and others in national security to make companies build surveillance back doors into consumer encryption products. “Support for strong encryption makes America more secure.”

Trump took a decidely anti-encryption stance after the ISIS-inspired shooting in San Bernardino last year, calling for a boycott of Apple products in Februrary after the company refused to unlock an iPhone belonging to one of the shooters for the FBI.

“Apple ought to give the security for that phone, okay,” the business mogul said. “What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such a time as they give that security number. How do you like that? I just thought of it. Boycott Apple.”

The letter came on the heels of a report showing the sixth straight global decline in internet freedom wordwide according to the civil rights group Freedom House. The report notes a crackdown on encrypted communications platforms like WhatsApp and Telegram.

“In an effort to boost their national security and law enforcement powers, a number of governments have passed new laws that limit privacy and authorize broad surveillance,” the report reads. “This trend was present in both democratic and nondemocratic countries, and often led to political debates about the extent to which governments should have backdoor access to encrypted communications. The most worrisome examples, however, were observed in authoritarian countries, where governments used antiterrorism laws to prosecute users for simply writing about democracy, religion, or human rights.”

The report marks a warning for the U.S. if Trump pursues the hardline policy stances he took on tech during the campaign, including a call to shut down portions of the internet in an effort to tackle Islamic extremist radicalization on social media and “open up our libel laws” as a threat to media outlets publishing news critical of the president-elect.

“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” Trump said last year. “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

During “times of protests or due to national security concerns,” 12 out of 65 countries blocked WhatsApp entirely in 2016, disabling the service for millions. Other services including Telegram, Viber, Facebook Messenger, LINE, IMO, and Google Hangouts were “regularly blocked,” and 10 countries restricted access to internet voice and video platforms like Skype and FaceTime, in part to protect the business models of traditional telecommunications companies.

In its letter the Internet Association urged Trump and the 115th Congress to update the Electronic Communications Privacy Act to require a warrant for Americans emails even after they’re 180 days old — the subject of a contentious court battle Microsoft won over the Justice Department in July — and reform surveillance authorites used to justify some of the National Security Agency’s most aggressive programs.

“Passage of the USA Freedom Act is a positive step, but it addressed only a limited subset of surveillance concerns,” the letter reads. “Congress should consider reforms to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and Executive Order 12333, which have been used in ways that are inconsistent with the important privacy values reflected in the Constitution and lack due consideration for the privacy interests of non-U.S. persons.”

Executive Order 12333 lets NSA execute “back door” warrantless searches on Americans’ email and telephone communications by surveilling data incidentally swept up during the targeting of foreign communications, and Section 702 authorizes “upstream” surveillance programs — when the signals intelligence agency taps the physical infrastructure of the internet, such as undersea fiber cables, to surveil the content of foreigners’ communications, including emails, instant messages, etc., as they exit and enter the U.S.

Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act will face congressional renewal in December 2017.

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to reverse many policies pushed during the Obama administration, and workplace rules may be a first place the new administration looks.

President Barack Obama and his administration made labor policy a major focus over the past eight years. Trump could upend many of the new workplace rules easily while others will likely face a lengthy process to roll them back.

“There are three areas her. One is the executive order area,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President Randel Johnson told InsideSources. “The others are issues that went through traditional rule making that are independent of executive orders. And then there’s policies being set by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) through case law.”

Trump could end a previous executive order simply by issuing one of his own. But policies that went through a regulatory or legislative process face more steps. These policy changes could focus on rules for overtime, worker benefits, paid sick leave, federal contracting, and union elections.

“Executive orders and guidance can be rescinded fairly immediately,” Competitive Enterprise Institute labor policy expert Trey Kovacs told InsideSources. “Regulations like the overtime rule will take a little bit more time. You either need to defund it, pass legislation, or issue a new rule that would modify the Obama administration’s.”

The current administration achieved many of its policy goals through executive orders. The Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order, also called the blacklisting rule, is one that has faced a lot of opposition from business groups and some lawmakers. A federal contractor could be blocked from receiving a new contract if they are accused of labor violations.

“With the stroke of a pen, president-elect Donald Trump could withdraw that executive order or other  misguided executive orders,” said Kovacs.

Federal contractors face being blacklisted even if the labor violation is just an accusation. A labor union could potentially force a contractor to settle any issue by accusing them of multiple labor violations. They often don’t need to prove allegations because the contractors are put at risk of being blacklisted on that alone.

“They define violations as including very preliminary indications of an investigation,” Johnson said. “That’s probably a top priority and that’s the one that has an injunction now in one of the district courts in Texas.”

The Obama administration also did a lot to push new benefits for the employees of federal contractors. The Department of Labor issued a new rule Sept. 30 that increases paid sick leave to seven days for those workers. Trump would have to issue a new regulation or seek congressional action to scrap the rule, which will take time.

“The issue there is not the fact that it requires federal contractors to provide seven days of paid leave,” Johnson said. “Most of these contractors already do that. It requires them to do it a certain way that doesn’t necessarily fit their HR systems that they already established.”

New regulations must be formally proposed and go through a review process before they can overturn the previous regulation. The process could take months or even years. Congressional action would also take time.

Another major change from the current administration came when the NLRB issued a regulation that shortens the amount of time union elections are conducted. The agency argued it was to streamline the process, while critics contest it allows unions to organize a workplace before employees really have the chance to understand everything.

“That’s an administrative regulation that determines how quickly union elections are run and that we opposed,” Johnson said. “[It] prevents employers from being able to educate their employees about the downsides of unionization.”

The new policies impact a significant portion of the national workforce. Many of the new policies were designed to extend new rights and privileges to employees, but now those might be taken away. Johnson contests the bulk of the new policies have had more of an impact on employers.

“Virtually all of them relate to the relationship between employers and government more than they relate to the relationship between employers and employees,” Johnson said. “I think the left is going to have a hard time arguing that repealing the vast majority of these is going to reverberate badly for employees.”

Johnson adds that the overtime rule is really the only significant example where employees could be impacted. The rule will expand overtime privileges to an additional 4.2 million workers by raising the salary exemption threshold of exempt positions like managers. It is scheduled to go into effect Dec. 1.

“One of the obvious one’s is the change in overtime standards,” said Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It was highly controversial, a lot of businesses complained about it. They did their best to block it. I have to imagine that’s something that’s going to be very much in Trump’s sight.”

Those in support of the changes argue that employers have taken advantage of the exemption. They state that employers name their employees as managers so they are exempt from overtime. Thus the millions of new eligible workers might just be getting the overtime they deserve.

“Basically companies were taking advantage of that provision,” Baker said. “By having such a low cutoff, one that hasn’t been adjusted for inflation, you’re giving these companies the opportunity to evade the overtime rules.”

The White House has argued the updated rule will help restore overtime privileges that have dwindled significantly over the decades. The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) found that repealing the overtime rule would increase inequality, lower incomes and increase the hours of almost a million workers.

“The only clear beneficiaries of repeal would be business owners and shareholders, who would see higher profits from reduced payroll costs,” EPI said in an email statement provided to InsideSources. “It makes no sense to reverse the rule and take those raises away from hard-working employees.”

The NLRB has also been a significant source of new rules during the current administration. The board has changed contracting in ways that could radically alter how business models like franchises operate by expanding what’s known as the joint-employer standard.

“The NLRB decision that expanded the joint-employer liabilities standard should be something where Congress acts swiftly to pass legislation to return to the previous direct and immediate controlled standard,” Kovacs said.

The NLRB rule can make an employer responsible for the employees and labor liabilities of subcontractors and franchises. The old joint-employer standard used to be determined based on whether the company had direct control over the employees of the other. The new standard looks at indirect control, which critics argue is way too vague.

“What you saw out of the Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board was really unfairly tilting the playing field in favor of unions over workers and employers,” Kovacs said. “I think you need to get back to having certainty and fairness in our labor employment laws and not just benefiting one party in the workplace.”

The NLRB consists of a five-person board usually split between Republicans and Democrats. The president gets to nominate the deciding vote. NLRB rulings could be reversed through further case precedent or through congressional action but both those routes involve lengthy processes.

Follow Connor on Twitter

The Fight for $15 movement was still able to celebrate stateside victories Friday despite the election earlier in the week going mostly to minimum wage critics.

Republicans secured the presidency and congressional control during the election Tuesday. Most of these candidates were skeptical of the benefits of raising the minimum wage because economics indicates such a price floor increases unemployment. Four states, however, voted on ballot measures Tuesday in support of increasing their local minimum wages.

“We’ve won raises for 22 million hard-working Americans, and transformed how we talk about work and wages in this country,” Fight for $15 stated on its website. “Together, we kickstarted this movement for good pay for hard work and it shows no sign of stopping. This week, we went to the ballot box and won higher wages.”

The successful ballot box measures occurred in Arizona, Colorado, Maine and Washington. Washington will increase their minimum wage to $13.50 while the other states are looking at going to $12 an hour by 2020. New York and California remain the only states to pass an increase as high as $15 an hour.

“Those states join the likes of New York and California, and cities across the country, that have backed this fight,” Fight for $15 also wrote. “Our work is far from over, but it’s obvious to everyone now that high wages are winnable everywhere. We won’t stop until we do.”

The Fight for $15 movement has been at the forefront of the minimum wage push since it started in 2012. The movement hadn’t officially backed a presidential candidate but its union backers did endorse Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

Clinton earlier in the campaign said the federal minimum wage shouldn’t exceed $12 an hour. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. She did say she supported states that went higher than $12 and eventually came to support the $15 an hour mark. Republican presidential-elect Donald Trump remained opposed to the $15 minimum wage.

The Fight for $15 and other supporters of raising the minimum wage argue the policy is a great way to lift low-wage workers out of poverty. Critics warn it will actually hurt the poor by reducing employment opportunities. Employment Policies Institute Research Director Michael Saltsman noted unions were just able to outspend those groups against the policy.

“Our final read of the data was about $15 million total spent on minimum wage campaigns in those states, just by the proponents,” Saltsman told InsideSources. “Most of that money in those cases, or at least the majority, came from out of state.”

The potential problem with minimum wage increases is the cost that comes with it. Industries with low profit margins like restaurants or retailers might have to reduce the amount of workers they have or decrease their hours to overcome the added cost of labor.

“You have unions, that are essentially political organizations, that have a war chest of millions of dollars that they can throw at a policy issue like this,” Saltsman said. “And then you have local small businesses on the other side that do not have that kind of money.”

Economists have been fairly split on the minimum wage but generally agree, at least some job loss is a risk. The National Bureau of Economic Research and The Heritage Foundation found the risk is especially bad for young and low-skilled workers. The University of California, Berkeley found any losses would be marginal.

Follow Connor on Twitter

President-elect Donald Trump will soon have to choose a labor secretary and one likely pick is Victoria Lipnic.

Lipnic has served since 2010 as a Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The federal agency is tasked with enforcing workplace civil rights laws. Her possible appointment to lead the Department of Labor (DOL) would mean that she would become the top official for all federal workplace laws.

Trump based much of his platform on helping displaced and struggling workers. Even his notable views on immigration were partially focused on stopping companies from replacing workers with cheap foreign labor. Trump’s pick for labor secretary is critical to accomplish his agenda.

Politico first reported Lipnic is being considered for the position on Wednesday. Trump has not released an official list of cabinet picks but sources close to the campaign have listed likely appointees. Here are five facts you should know about the woman who might soon oversee how Americans work.

 

Lipnic Already Has a Close Connection to the Position

Lipnic previously served as an assistant secretary of labor between 2002 and 2009. In the position, she oversaw the Employment Standards Administration (ESA). The ESA was tasked with administering wages and working conditions laws before it was eventually dissolved not long after she left. Her extensive experience at the senior levels of the DOL give her familiarity with her role if she is given the nod to lead the department.

 

She Has Private and Public Experience

Trump gained popularity among many of his supporters by arguing he is not part of the political establishment. His success largely comes from private-sector industries like real estate and hospitality. He will still need, however, people in his cabinet that understand the inner-workings of government.

Lipnic could prove to be a beneficial appointment in that regard because she has both private and public experience. She has primarily worked in the public-sector but also served as an attorney for the law firm Seyfarth Shaw LLP. She has also been counsel for labor and employment matters at the U.S. Postal Service which is a quasi-independent organization.

 

Lipnic Has Worked Along Bipartisan Lines

Lipnic has worked with government officials and lawmakers across the political spectrum. Before being appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama to the bipartisan EEOC, she advised House Republicans as their workforce policy counsel.

Her policy initiatives also don’t run along partisan lines. She has worked to reform overtime regulations, family leave and union financial disclosure requirements.

She has expressed concern for the gender wage gap but rejected a proposal by the current administration to fix it. The proposal is designed to change wage disclosure laws so employers have to provide the government with more data. She argued the law itself was outdated and bad policy, notes Affirmative Action Law Advisor.

 

She Would Be Replacing Obama Appointee Perez

Lipnic would be replacing current Labor Secretary Thomas Perez if she does end up being appointed. President Obama appointed him in 2013 following a career as a union and civil rights advocate. Perez has been viewed by supporters as a champion of worker rights, while his opponents contest he has used his influence to unfairly help labor unions.

The Labor Department has been the primary source of new workplace regulations during the current administration. The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) found in a report Sept. 22 the new regulations could cost $81.6 billion in compliance alone and 155,700 lost jobs over the next ten years.

Perez was appointed and confirmed in July 2013. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was even rumored to be considering Perez for attorney general.

 

Lipnic Will Need Senate Approval

When Trump is sworn in as president it will be his responsibility to fill numerous federal positions. Labor secretary is among those positions that will require approval by the U.S. Senate. Republicans were able to maintain their congressional majority during the election, meaning the approval process is likely not to hit too many obstacles. Lipnic has been previously confirmed by the Senate for other positions, and her prior appointment by President Obama makes confirmation as labor secretary almost assured.

Republican Donald Trump’s victory Tuesday night might mean right-to-work was saved nationally from being overturned by the courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court has remained split since the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia on Feb. 13. Labor unions have prepared lawsuits that could overturn right-to-work nationally if another progressive was added to the court. Trump has promised to appoint a constitutionally conservative justice, meaning the law will likely survive legal challenges.

“If the Supreme Court leaned left then there is a chance that a circuit split, which likely happens in one of the cases between Wisconsin, West Virginia and Idaho may have allowed the unions to overturn right-to-work across the country,” Mackinac Center Labor Policy Director F. Vincent Vernuccio told InsideSources.

Democrats and labor unions generally disagree with right-to-work laws. The policy outlaws mandatory union dues or fees as a condition of employment. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton didn’t reveal exactly who she wanted to appoint to the court, but it would have likely been a more progressive nominee.

“President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland usually sided very heavily with unions,” Vernuccio said. “If you do have an activist court, they may be able to push the envelope.”

Garland will not have the chance to fill the empty seat as Republican leadership in the Senate made a gamble to block his nomination and hope the next president would appoint someone more conservative. That bet now seems to have paid off with Trump’s win. Vernuccio notes that unions were likely banking on getting a more activist justice. Unions could appeal their lower court losses in the hopes of eventually making it to the highest court.

“That was the whole reason the unions were bringing the cases in the circuits that they were bringing the cases in,” Vernuccio said. “They wanted a split.”

Wisconsin, West Virginia and Idaho all had union challenges to their stateside right-to-work laws. Federal law has allowed states to decide whether or not to enact the policy for several decades. The law has been upheld over that time, but a Supreme Court loss could set a precedent that would doom it nationally.

“The Idaho case may have been their best chance because that would eventually go to the ninth circuit,” Vernuccio said. “If the ninth circuit ruled for the unions in Idaho, then yes, that would have created a circuit split that may have been a question that the Supreme Court wanted to review, and if it was a left leaning court, possibly could have decided to overturn right-to-work.”

The AFL-CIO is the largest coalition of labor unions in the country at roughly 12.5 million members. The union and its state-based affiliates have been at the forefront of the stateside lawsuits challenging right-to-work. The law, however, has been able to withstand numerous lawsuits and ballot measures since Florida first enacted it in 1944.

There are currently 26 states that have decided to enact right-to-work. West Virginia became the most recent state to enact the law this past year. Those opposed argue it allows workers to free-ride off the benefits unions offer, while opponents contest it’s about freedom of association and giving people the right to choose.

The AFL-CIO and its local affiliates did not respond to a request for comment by InsideSources.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Republican president-elect Donald Trump’s upset victory over Democratic former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves nothing but question marks in Washington this morning behind the futures of a number of high-profile technology issues.

Though the business mogul never drafted a specific policy platform on tech, Trump, who notably has never used email, did take public stances on key issues including cybersecurity, net neutrality, encryption and surveillance that may provide a glimpse of where his administration will come down as their import grows in our increasingly connected society.

 

Cybersecurity

In September, Trump told a crowd in Philadelphia that after taking office, he would immediately order a review of all U.S. cyber defenses and vulnerabilities, including over critical infrastructure like power plants often mentioned by cybersecurity experts, defense and intelligence officials.

His review team would include those experts from the private sector and military officials alongside representatives from law enforcement, who Trump told veterans in October would provide specific strategy recommendations and customized tech for certain targets and mandatory cyber awareness training for federal employees.

Another team headed by the Department of Justice would coordiante threat response between federal, state and local governments and Trump would order the secretary of defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff to recommend new defense and offensive capabilities for U.S. Cyber Command aimed at deterring threats from “especially China, Russia, North Korea along with non-state terrorist actors.”

The broad, generalized prepared remarks differed from Trump’s more off-the-cuff remarks on cybersecurity, including during the first presidential debate in September, when Trump doubted the consensus of top defense and intelligence officials that Russia was behind the hack of Democratic National Committee and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee email accounts.

“As far as the cyber, I agree to parts of what Secretary Clinton said,” Trump said. “We should be better than anybody else, and perhaps we’re not. I don’t think anybody knows that it was Russia that broke into the DNC. She’s saying Russia, Russia, Russia — I don’t, maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?”

 

Surveillance

At the height of the FBI’s legal battle with Apple to compel the iPhone maker to undermine its own end-to-end encryption and provide a back door for law enforcement surveillance, Trump attacked the company in February for refusing to help law enforcement break into the iPhone of one of the ISIS-inspired San Bernardino shooters and called for a boycott on Apple products.

“Apple ought to give the security for that phone, okay. What I think you ought to do is boycott Apple until such a time as they give that security number. How do you like that? I just thought of it. Boycott Apple,” Trump said.

“The phone’s not even owned by this young thug that killed all these people. The phone’s owned by the government, okay, it’s not even his phone,” he continued. “But [Apple CEO] Tim Cook is looking to do a big number, probably to show how liberal he is. But Apple should give up, they should get the security or find other people.”

In response to Islamic radicalization online Trump suggested shutting off portions of the internet in some unspecified way last December, raising alarm bells in social justice and privacy circles over his threat to free speech and expression who drew parallels to regimes in China, Russia, North Korea and Egypt with a policies and histories of censorship and internet outages to control the flow of information and political activism.

“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” the Republican frontrunner said. “We have to do something. We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”

 

Net Neutrality

While Trump didn’t address net neutrality on the campaign trail, he posted a tweet in November 2014 after President Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to adopt strong net neutrality rules, which he said would “target conservative media,” though he declined to elaborate on how the rules mandating all internet traffic be treated the same would do so.

“Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media,” he wrote.

Jeffrey Eisenach, a Trump transition team adviser, said on C-SPAN over the weekend Trump would likely appoint an FCC commissioner with the intention of repealing the rules implemented by Democrat Tom Wheeler.

“Taking his broader views on regulation into account, you would expect him to appoint to the FCC [a chairman] who would be inclined to take a less regulatory position,” Eisenach said according to Politico.

Trump has taken a decidely anti-Silicon Valley stance on a number of other issues, opposing the recent transition of internet oversight to the global community, rejecting the push by many tech companies like Facebook and Google for more H-1B visas for highly skilled immigrant workers, accusing Amazon of antitrust and tax violations, and vowing to oppose the recently proposed AT&T-Time Warner merger not even Netflix is against.

The president-elect received limited campaign donations from the valley compared to Hillary Clinton’s millions, making it unlikely Trump is willing to do any favors for tech over the next four years. But venture capitalist Peter Thiel, who faced criticism from others in the tech community, will likely have Trump’s ear as a result of his outspoken support during the campaign.

Follow Giuseppe on Twitter

A crowd gathered outside the White House expressed disbelief and frustration Tuesday night as Republican nominee Donald Trump first started to secure the presidency.

Trump was able to win the election with at least 276 electoral votes by the end of the night. Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, in contrast, was only able to achieve 218 votes. Several states remain too close to call.

Many in the crowd expressed disbelief as Trump pulled ahead before eventually securing victory.

“I feel sorry for the country and I feel sorry for a lot of people,” Najai Warren told InsideSources from the crowd. “I don’t see how you vote for someone who has no respect for women, other religions, other races or says what he wants without holding his tongue at all. I don’t see how that’s fit for the president.”

The crowd gathered early expecting to celebrate a Clinton victory. Their excitement would soon turn to angry chants against the president-elect.

“That man is a fascist,” George Washington University student Andrew Myslik told InsideSources. “He has no authority in this country. He does not represent what we believe. I just hope the foreign news outlets understand this man does not represent the majority of our country.”

“It’s a complete surprise to me,” a protester who identified herself simply as Leela told InsideSources. “We’ve had Obama’s presidency for the past eight years. We’ve been so lucky and blessed with a leader who’s so even minded and so sound and used to speaking to all Americans and we have a man who is potentially speaking to one subset of the American people and it’s rather disappointing.”

Only a few people in the crowd outwardly expressed support for the president-elect. Julie Strong noted that she doesn’t care for either candidate but was outright opposed to Clinton over allegations she violated the law without punishment. Clinton has been embroiled in several scandals throughout her campaign.

“I want Hillary to be accountable for the actions she has taken against the American people,” Strong told InsideSources. “I want justice to be served in the United States, and I will not sit back and watch what is happening with our judicial system in this instance. I don’t know why she is above the law.”

Clinton has faced allegations that she improperly stored classified information on a private email server. Many conservatives have also criticized her conduct during a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya when four Americans were killed. Strong argues her conduct deserves prosecution.

Daniel Vitagliano came out to support Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. He admits that he didn’t expect Johnson to win but was still surprised with how the election turned out. Vitagliano notes that he thought Clinton would win over Trump.

“I’m surprised Gary Johnson didn’t get the five percent, I’m surprised Trump won,” Vitagliano told InsideSources. “I think everyone is surprised. I think the problem is maybe, a lot of Trump supporters have a lot of hate maybe. They have a lot of drive to go vote.”

Vitagliano describes himself as an American who advocates for libertarianism in Denmark. He notes that Clinton likely had more supporters based on polling before the election. Nevertheless, Vitagliano believes that support didn’t translate to enough people actually going out to vote for her.

Trump will remain the president-elect until January 20, 2017, when he will be officially sworn in. He will be replacing Democratic President Barack Obama who served for the last eight years. Trump has promised to overturn several of his key policy achievements including the Affordable Care Act.

Labor unions have played a critical advocacy role in the 2016 election, and they’re readying to lobby the next president on key policies right out of the gate.

A major focus for labor in the next administration will continue to be workplace laws and regulations. Unions have successfully fought for changes that impact nearly every workplace in the country. President Barack Obama and his administration have helped bring about many of the policy reforms in recent years that unions have had on their agendas.

Nevertheless, unions are still fighting for several key policies that have yet to be achieved. The next president could determine where labor regulations and the economy go from here. Labor unions hope the next president will focus on the minimum wage, healthcare, immigration and trade, among other important policies.

Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has been much more willing to cater her platform to what unions want, perhaps in an effort to prevent labor from supporting primary rival Sen. Bernie Sanders. Republican nominee Donald Trump has argued for decreased government intervention in how businesses operate except when it comes to keeping jobs in the country.

In the general election, few unions have backed Trump, with most supporting the Democratic nominee, as they traditionally have. The election Tuesday will have a significant impact on labor policy in the years ahead.

 

Fighting For a $15 Minimum Wage

Labor unions have been a driving force behind the movement to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour. The Fight for $15 movement has been primarily backed by labor groups like the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The movement has seen victories on the local level but has not yet been able to increase the national minimum wage which has sat at $7.25 an hour since 2009.

“I’m very proud of the Fight for $15,” Unite Here Vice President María Elena Durazo told InsideSources. “I think it shows that people across this country see that as a very crucial issue. To have an impact on the economy the way that we should, to circulate money in our economy, the best way is for workers to get higher wages.”

Labor unions and other advocates have argued an increased minimum wage can help to address poverty. Low-wage workers would be able to afford more which could benefit the general economy. Those opposed, however, warn it will decrease employment opportunities because of the increased cost of labor.

 

Getting People Back to Work

The economy lost over 8 million jobs during the recession almost a decade ago, and many workers still find themselves in jobs below their experience level. The AFL-CIO argues policies should be put in place to get people jobs with decent wages. The union says the government should promote better job opportunities by investing more into education, increasing the minimum wage, and by making unions stronger.

The unemployment rate has declined markedly to 4.9 percent, but job market indicators elsewhere have not been as good. The labor force participation rate, which tracks those employed or actively seeking work, has failed to reach the level it was before the recession. The employment rate, in contrast, doesn’t track those who have suffered long-term joblessness.

 

Improving Healthcare Beyond Obamacare

President Barack Obama made healthcare a cornerstone of his administration with the Affordable Care Act. Labor unions were slow to embrace his healthcare overhaul but did eventually become some of its strongest advocates. Nevertheless, unions still believe there is more that must be done to improve healthcare.

“We want affordable healthcare, we want affordable medicine,” Durazo said. “That is a very top priority, I would say, not just for our union, because of the demographics in our industry, but I think it’s a priority overall for everyone is the labor movement.”

The Affordable Care Act requires that Americans purchase health insurance, with the goal of spreading the risk among both the healthy and sick. In so doing, private insurance companies cannot discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, and they must follow a wide array of other regulations.

The law has forced more people to get covered by health insurance, with many receiving tax subsidies to help pay for insurance. Nevertheless, the cost of health insurance has increased drastically since the law was first enacted. Labor unions hope the next president will focus on making sure healthcare cost are more affordable.

 

Stronger Collective Bargaining

Labor unions are primarily responsible for negotiating with employers on behalf of workers. Collective bargaining has been their main tool to effectively do just that. It allows unions to negotiate contracts on behalf of all employees within a workplace based solely on a majority vote.

“The right of workers to collectively negotiate decent wages and working conditions, I think has to be a part of our future administration,” Durazo said.

Durazo adds the current president has done a lot to improve collective bargaining by making it easier for workers to vote in a union. She points to a new rule which shortens the length of time in which a labor union certification election is held from a median of 38 days to as little as 11 days. She hopes the next president will continue those reforms so that it’s easier to join a union and harder for employers to ignore them.

 

Fundamental Immigration Reform

Labor unions have been strong advocates for immigration reform. They have pushed for a system that makes it easier for immigrants to legally enter the country. Durazo states the next president must tackle immigration in a fundamental way.

“I would say immigration is a top priority across the labor movement,” Durazo said. “I mean rigorous immigration reform, not a little bit around the edges but deep reform, and we’re on the same page with employers, with business. It’s probably the most diverse united front of any national issue that I know of.”

Those like the AFL-CIO have argued that all workers can benefit from a system that allows for easier immigration that includes a pathway to citizenship. The union notes that some employers have been able to take advantage of illegal immigrants because they are not protected under the law.

“Our broken immigration system exposes immigrant workers to exploitation,” the AFL-CIO states on its website. “When a segment of our society suffers, we all suffer. The labor movement is committed to reforming our country’s broken immigration system.”

Trump has been most at odds with the labor movement on immigration. He has called for deporting illegal immigrants, building a wall on the border with Mexico, and blocking immigrants coming from countries known for Islamic extremism.

 

Stopping the Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has faced adament opposition from unions who claim it would be harmful to workers. It’s also one of the few policies on which the labor movement agrees with Trump. Clinton was originally in support of the trade deal but walked back that position during the Democratic primary.

President Barack Obama found himself at odds with many within his own party for negotiating the deal. It’s designed to open up trade among partner countries. Labor unions have contested that the trade deal is nothing more than a giveaway to corporations at the expense of working families.

The trade deal is designed to gradually end thousands of import tariffs and other international trade barriers. It would also establish uniform rules for intellectual property, environment protections and open Internet access. The trade deal is likely to have a significant impact on international trade at roughly 39 percent of global GDP.

The White House has argued the trade deal will actually help workers despite what unions claim. It will cover a few countries known for notorious labor violations. Communist Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei are among the partner countries cited for labor and human rights violations.

The SEIU and other unions, along with Trump, have compared the deal to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). They claim NAFTA resulted in many American jobs being lost. The president has previously insisted TPP could help fix many of the problems NAFTA caused.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has put forth a tax plan that would be good for him personally, but is that a bad thing?

Trump’s tax plan is designed to simplify the system and reduce taxes. Higher income earners, like Trump, would still pay the highest taxes, but they would also receive the most significant reductions.

“The top 10 percent are paying roughly 70 percent of all income taxes,” National Taxpayers Union Research Director Demian Brady told InsideSources. “So if you’re going to cut taxes it’s going to focus on the people paying the vast bulk of taxes.”

Trump’s plan plan primarily focuses on reducing income and corporate tax rates. Those like himself, with incomes above $225,000, will only have to pay 33 percent which is much lower that the current rate. The plan will also lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

“The corporate tax rate is actually the highest in the world and he’s lowering that to actually one of the lowest in the world to 15 percent,” National Tax Limitation Committee Policy Advisor Peter Ferrara told InsideSources. “It would be a great gain to the economy which never really recovered from the recession.”

Ferrara adds that having a higher corporate tax is harmful to those with lower incomes. It provides less money for companies to expand, invest in new jobs or provide higher wages. National Center for Policy Analysis Senior Fellow Pamela Villarreal notes the tax plan would benefit the rich but not necessarily at the expense of lower income earners.

“I think those policies would benefit people like him as a business person, you know as the hotel owner, but obviously it would also benefit other people as well,” Villarreal told InsideSources.  “We think that while Trump’s plan accrues most benefits to the top half of income earners, we see that all people will fare better.”

The Trump plan includes a flat 25 percent tax rate for anyone making below the $225,000 mark. Those making below $75,000 will only have to pay 12 percent. Taxpayer Advocacy Services President John R. Dundon II likes some parts of his tax plan but is highly skeptical of the man behind it.

“I believe Mr. Trump’s tax ‘plan’ at present is little more than a tool for his campaign,” Dundon said in an email statement to InsideSources. “There is no feasible way to connect all the dots inside the plan with reality even with the most wildly optimistic visions of the future.”

Dundon is also a member of the National Association of Enrolled Agents. He doubts Trump would be the person to bring about the changes he is promising given his past business practices and ego. He adds Trump will likely go out of his way to reward his crony friends and other business owners like himself.

“I think a reduced business income tax rate would be great for employers,” Dundon said. “On the same note, I find it impossible to believe that President Trump would ever repeal ‘most tax breaks for businesses’ as his ‘plan’ presently asserts.”

Trump was attacked by critics during the election for his use of tax deductions and legal loopholes. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton denounced him Oct. 9 during a debate for claiming a billion dollar loss to his business that allowed him to avoid paying the same amount in taxes.

“The fact that we are going to have lower and flatter rates across the board I think will provide a good case for not having loopholes,” Villarreal said.  “If the tax rate is low enough, especially the corporate tax rate, then there’s really no reason to have these loopholes.”

Trump defended his use of deductions by noting he paid exactly what was legally required. He challenged Clinton for not trying to close the loopholes during her long career as a politician. His current tax plan doesn’t eliminate the deductions.

“What he was saying in that exchange is that these deductions are allowed in our current tax system,” Ferrara said. “So if Hillary objects to them, then Hillary should try to change them but he wasn’t proposing to change them at all because the tax is supposed to be a tax on net income.”

Trump took advantage of a loophole that is designed to protect against losses. National Tax Limitation Committee President Lew Uhler notes that such deductions should remain in place. He adds that they were implemented in the first place so that businessmen are taxed on their actual profits instead of what they lose.

“I don’t think his plan makes any change in the deductibility of actual losses in a given year by corporations or by an individual taxpayer,” Uhler told InsideSources. “It would be inappropriate to make such changes because those deductions should be allowable.”

Nevertheless, reducing deductions could have a huge benefit. Brady notes it would mean less time and money spent on paperwork and advisors to navigate the complex tax code in search of possible deductions. It would also mean the government can’t single out certain industries and employers with different tax rates.

“Another problem with our code is all the time that gets spent doing this and all the money that is spent on tax minimization software and seeking out tax advisors and accountants,” Brady said. “It would not only reduce your net tax liability but also free up all the time and extra money that goes into preparing your taxes.”

Villarreal counters the claim by noting there actually wouldn’t be much in the way of economic gains. She notes the deductions are primarily the result of how high the tax rate is and thus lowering it would be more beneficial. A lower corporate tax rate could mean the deductions become unnecessary.

“I don’t think economically closing those loopholes are going to have much of an effect,” Villarreal said. “The reason those loopholes are there is the first place is because our marginal tax rates are pretty substantial. Every time the tax rates go up there seems to be a push for Congress to provide some kind of carve out for certain industries or certain groups of people.”

Follow Connor on Twitter