If there’s one thing everyone seems to agree on when it comes to confronting the foreseeable harms of AI, it’s that we should start by vigorously enforcing the laws on the books.
Menu
Author: Reed Shaw
Axios: How agencies can regulate AI without new powers
Government agencies should use existing regulations and powers to regulate AI, argues a new report from the Center for American Progress and Governing for Impact shared first with Axios.
OnLabor: Mercedes’ Use of Union-Busters in Alabama Highlights the Need for Disclosure Reform
For the first time in decades, public attention was focused on union organizing in the American South.
Huffington Post: Progressives Urge Biden Administration to Crack Down on ‘Union-Busting Industry
A new report warns of “increasingly aggressive tactics” by employers, while calling for greater transparency on anti-union spending.
Notice & Comment: Nothing to See Here: Misconceptions About the Overtime Rule’s Inflation Adjuster
Last week, several business groups including the National Federation of Independent Businesses filed a lawsuit seeking to invalidate one of the Department of Labor’s top priorities: a final rule issued in April that updates the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime salary thresholds to ensure that millions more workers are eligible for extra pay if they work more than forty hours per week.
The Regulatory Review: A Win for the Federal Government’s Contracting Power
A recent court decision supports using procurement authority to address climate change and other policy issues.
Washington Monthly: Protecting Biden Administration Regulations from Regime Change and Skeptical Courts
As agencies race to put new regulations into final form, careful drafting can help insulate progressive rules against a skeptical judiciary.
Notice & Comment: Yet Another Way To Rebut Major Questions Doctrine Challenges
In particular, we focus on how overlapping federal, state and international regulatory regimes may reduce the incremental costs of rulemakings, and therefore weigh against a finding of “economic significance” in the MQD context—as, for example, in the case of the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council’s forthcoming rule on federal contractor climate emissions and risk disclosure.
American Prospect: Federal Agencies Can Disable Employer Debt TRAPs
Advocacy groups offer a road map for how agencies can use existing authority to ban contracts that force workers to pay employers if they leave their job.
PRESS RELEASE: Governing for Impact Urges Biden Administration to Protect Foreign-Educated Nurses from Exploitative “Stay or Pay” Contracts
Legal memo proposes how DOL can protect healthcare workers and patients from restrictive labor practices
WASHINGTON, DC — Today, Governing for Impact (GFI), Towards Justice (TJ), the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC), and the American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) issued a memo urging the Department of Labor (DOL) to prohibit employers from issuing restrictive employment contracts on their workers that would require them to pay their employer if they resign, are terminated, or attempt to find another job.
Stay-or-pay contracts force workers to pay their employers if they leave – or are fired from – a job within a certain time frame. Used in tandem with, or in lieu of, non-compete clauses, which prohibit employees from obtaining a new position in their given industry, stay-or-pay contracts have been shown to reduce workers’ mobility and stifle competition. The threat of financial penalties upon resignation or termination dissuades workers from speaking up about unsafe working conditions, which, in the healthcare industry, can lead to increased rates of employee burnout, more toxic work environments, higher incidence of medical error, and poorer patient outcomes.
“The healthcare industry’s use of stay-or-pay contracts has led to egregious violations of worker rights and dangerous increases in workplace and patient safety, ” said Reed Shaw, Policy Counsel at Governing for Impact. “The Department of Labor has a responsibility to take immediate steps to protect our nation’s healthcare workers, whether they are trained here or abroad.”
Stay-or-pay contracts are increasingly common among healthcare employers that recruit foreign-educated nurses (FENs) to work in the United States. These exploitative agreements often require FENs to commit to a single employer for 18 months to three years. If the FEN leaves the employer before the time is up, the employer charges a “breach fee,” which can amount to tens of thousands of dollars. This type of employer practice exploits an already vulnerable workforce, as employers also often mislead FENs as to the immigration consequences if they leave their jobs.
Stay-or-pay contracts also have adverse impacts on U.S. nurses, who may be forced to accept lower wages and poor working conditions from employers who know that they can always turn to a vulnerable and captive foreign-born workforce instead.
In the legal memo, GFI and its partner organizations recommend that the DOL uses its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to update labor certification regulations to prohibit employers from subjecting their workers to stay–or-pay contracts. The DOL has issued several similar regulations in the past, including, for example, prohibiting immigrant workers from paying the costs of their own labor certification.
About Governing for Impact
Governing for Impact (GFI) is a regulatory policy organization dedicated to ensuring the federal government works for working Americans, not corporate lobbyists. The policies we design and the legal insights we develop help increase opportunity for those not historically represented in regulatory policy implementation work: working people. For additional information about GFI, please visit https://governingforimpact.org/.
###