Business
Column: A Trump judge eviscerates a pro-worker regulation at the request of big employers
The Biden administration’s support of worker rights and union organizing has become a byword.
President Biden has restored the National Labor Relations Board to its traditional role as protector of collective bargaining rights. He walked the United Auto Workers picket line during its ultimately successful contract negotiations with the Big Three automakers.
He has nominated and renominated the outstanding worker advocate Julie Su as secretary of Labor. And he swept a gaggle of Trump-appointed union-busters and anti-union ideologues out of a key federal agency responsible for ruling on disputes involving government union contracts.
As major companies have consciously invested in building brands…as the cornerstone of their business strategy, they have also shed their role as the direct employer of the people responsible for providing their products and services.
— David Weil, “The Fissured Workplace”
But now he has run up against a brick wall of hard-right anti-union ideology put in place by his predecessor: another Trump-appointed ultra-partisan federal judge using his perch in an obscure courthouse to make policy for the entire nation.
We’re talking about J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court of Tyler, Texas. Last week Barker, ruling in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 12 other business lobbies, invalidated an NLRB rule aimed at broadening the standard by which big corporations could be held jointly responsible for the welfare and unionization rights of workers employed by their franchisees.
Barker was appointed by Trump in 2019 after a career as a Texas state lawyer writing briefs to restrict voting rights and LGBTQ+ rights, supporting Trump’s travel ban on Muslim-majority nations and attacking access to contraceptives and abortion.
On March 8, he ruled that the NLRB’s joint-employer regulation, issued in October, was so broad that it would “treat virtually every entity that contracts for labor as a joint employer.”
Many workers whose wages or workplace conditions were effectively dictated by big companies that fobbed their responsibilities onto franchise owners would consider that anything but a drawback.
The NLRB is certain to appeal Barker’s decision, probably to the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has set its own standard for far-right judicial overreach. The board had earlier argued that Barker shouldn’t have taken the lawsuit in the first place, because by law NLRB final rules can be appealed only to the federal appeals court in the District of Columbia. Barker rejected that argument.
Big business has been fighting efforts to broaden legal interpretations of joint-employer status for decades. The plaintiffs in this lawsuit included lobbies for builders, restaurants, hotels and convenience stores.
Many of them base their business models on their ability to control workplace conditions from afar while pushing legal liability for labor violations onto franchise owners, whom they often describe (inaccurately) as small mom-and-pop operations just scraping by.
Among the plaintiffs is the Chamber of Commerce of Longview, Texas. Longview is a small city in the east Texas oil patch; presumably its chamber was recruited because the plaintiffs figured that its presence would give them standing to sue in the federal district court in Tyler, which has two judges, both appointed by Donald Trump, including Barker. They got their wish.
Another plaintiff is the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace. You might suppose that an organization bearing that name represents the whole panoply of business stakeholders, from fast-food workers to corporate employers, but no.
“Democratic” here means much the same thing as it did when “German Democratic Republic” signified a Communist dictatorship in East Germany, which was anything but a democratic workers’ paradise. The coalition comprises 600 employer groups “joined by their mutual concern over regulatory overreach by the National Labor Relations Board.”
Now let’s turn to the lawsuit itself. If you surmise that its opening brief, filed on Nov. 9, bristled with disinformation, you would be right.
The brief stated that the NLRB “rammed” the rule changes through on the claim that “the 90-year-old National Labor Relations Act has been misinterpreted for most of its existence.” (Actually, the board is only 88 years old.)
A couple of points here. First, it’s a little unclear what the plaintiffs meant by “ramming through” the new rule. The NLRB first proposed the rule in September 2022, and didn’t promulgate it until 13 months later. In the interim it put the proposal out for public comments, of which it received 13,000.
The plaintiffs implied that the NLRB’s joint-employer rules have been static since the board’s founding in 1935. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The standard came before the Supreme Court more than once, starting in 1964. The board amended it, sometimes narrowing and sometimes expanding its definition of joint employer, in 1982, 2002, 2007, 2018 and 2020, before the latest version was issued in October.
The plaintiffs wring their hands over the fact that the board reversed a rule that it “promulgated just three years ago.” You might ask yourself: Hmm, what changed in Washington between 2020 and 2023?
If you guessed that the Trump administration was turned out of office and replaced by the Biden administration, well done.
The latter gave the NLRB a Democratic majority, just as the former had given it a Republican majority. Presidents have the power to do that and most have done so when they were succeeding a president of the other party. So when the plaintiffs depict the board as an unchanging entity that reversed itself, they’re lying, possibly in the hope that a judge will be too stupid to notice their sleight of hand. Or too partisan to care.
But they can’t avoid explicitly stating their true concern with the joint-employer rule: The rule threatens employers with “billions of dollars in liability and costs.”
Defining joint-employer responsibilities has become more important in recent decades as more businesses turn to the franchise model, which gives fast-food, hotel and retailing behemoths plausible deniability over how their front-line workers are treated and paid.
“As major companies have consciously invested in building brands … as the cornerstone of their business strategy,” labor expert David Weil wrote in his 2014 book “The Fissured Workplace,” “they have also shed their role as the direct employer of the people responsible for providing their products and services.” The trend, Weil wrote, encompasses hotel maids, cable installers, commercial janitors and merchandise pickers in Amazon warehouses — all are actually on the payroll of third-party employment firms.
(By the way, Biden nominated Weil in 2021 to a high-level position at the Department of Labor, but the nomination was killed by opposition from Republicans and Big Business.)
In recent years, the principal target of joint-employer cases at the NLRB has been McDonald’s. That’s unsurprising, since with more than $119 billion in overall international sales it’s the largest franchisor in the world.
The Obama-era NLRB brought a massive case against the company and 29 franchisees in 2014, which turned into what was regarded as the biggest case the board ever instituted, and the longest. The main issue was whether the company had participated in — in fact, helped to run — a nationwide attack on the Fight for $15 union campaign for a higher minimum wage at its restaurants.
Then-NLRB general counsel Richard Griffin alleged at the outset that the franchisees fired, suspended, cut work hours, threatened, spied on and interrogated employees involved in the union campaign, all of which he interpreted as illegal responses to union organizing.
Administrative Law Judge Lauren Esposito cited evidence that the anti-union response was “formulated and implemented” from McDonald’s headquarters in Chicago and that the company provided franchisees with “suggested policies” and legal training in labor relations — so much so that the company was properly regarded as the franchise workers’ joint employer.
By the time Esposito prepared to rule, Trump was president. He replaced Griffin with Peter Robb, whose record as an anti-labor lawyer was well nigh unassailable and whose hostility to the joint-employer rule was manifest. Before Esposito could rule, Robb settled the cases against the franchisees by ordering back pay for the workers who were fired or had their hours cut. But the settlements didn’t involve McDonald’s Corp., which therefore skated on the joint-employer issue.
Esposito rejected the settlements, but she was overruled by the NLRB’s new, Republican majority. The sole dissent came from Lauren McFerran, an Obama appointee who was the only Democrat then on the board.
“A finding of joint-employer status,” she wrote, “would have important collateral consequences for McDonald’s, in both unfair labor practice proceedings involving its franchisees and … if workers employed at McDonald’s franchisees sought to organize (that is, unionize).”
In other words, the Trump NLRB moved heaven and earth to keep McDonald’s from being declared a joint employer.
McFerran is now chair of the NLRB, presiding over a 3-1 Democratic majority. (One seat on the five-member board is vacant.)
The NLRB’s joint-employer rule would bring millions of workers — typically low-wage workers without health or retirement benefits and virtually no job security — under the umbrella of their well-heeled ultimate employers. It’s possible, if not certain, that they would see an improvement in their working lives, through better wages and more opportunity to unionize.
Even big franchisees or labor brokers don’t have to care about their public image — most customers don’t even know they exist. But McDonald’s, Marriott, Walmart and Amazon have a lot to lose in public esteem by getting tagged as an abuser of workers.
If the NLRB had its way, they would no longer be getting away with shedding their responsibilities. Let’s hope that Judge Barker’s ruling is a temporary obstacle to making the world work better.
So much Trump-related news has appeared lately on the airwaves and in web pixels — what with Iran and Epstein and Minnesota and so on — that inevitably a nugget will fall between the cracks.
That seems to have been the fate of the most recent annual financial report of Trump Media and Technology Group, which covered calendar year 2025 and was issued Friday.
Trump Media, which is 52% owned by Donald Trump and trades on Nasdaq with a ticker symbol based on his initials (DJT), is the holding company for Trump’s social media platform, Truth Social.
The value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.
— A risk factor disclosed by Trump Media
The annual financial disclosure has garnered minimal press coverage. That’s a pity, because it makes fascinating reading, though not in a good way.
Here are the top and bottom lines from the 10-k annual report: Trump Media lost $712.1 million last year on revenue of about $3.7 million. That’s quite a bit worse than its performance in 2024, when it lost $409 million on revenue of about $3.6 million. The company attributed most of the flood of red ink to “loss from investments,” of which more in a moment.
Truth Social isn’t an especially strong keystone of this operation. The platform is chiefly an outlet for Trump’s social media ramblings and the occasional official White House statements. But no one has to sign in to Truth Social to see them — they’re almost invariably picked up by the news media or reposted by users on other platforms such as X.
That might explain Truth Social’s relatively scrawny user base. The platform is estimated to have about 2 million active users, according to the analytical firm Search Logistics. By comparison, X has about 450 million monthly active users and Facebook has more than 2.9 billion.
It’s no mystery, then, why TMTG disdains “traditional performance metrics like average revenue per user, ad impressions and pricing, or active user accounts, including monthly and daily active users,” according to its annual report.
Relying on those metrics, which are used to judge TMTG’s social media rivals, “might not align with the best interests of TMTG or its stockholders, as it could lead to short-term decision-making at the expense of long-term innovation and value creation.”
Instead, the company says it should be evaluated based on “its commitment to a robust business plan that includes introducing innovative features, new products, new technologies.” But it also acknowledges that, at its heart, TMTG is a proxy for “the reputation and popularity of President Donald J. Trump.” The company warns that “the value of TMTG’s brand may diminish if the popularity of President Donald J. Trump were to suffer.”
How has that played out in real time? Trump Media notched its highest closing price as a public company, $66.22, on March 27, 2024, the day after its initial public offering. In midday trading Monday, the shares were quoted at $11.08, for a loss of 83% since the IPO.
One can’t quibble with stock market price quotes; nor can one finagle annual profit and loss statements, at least not without receiving questions, and perhaps lawsuit complaints, from attentive investors and the Securities and Exchange Commission.
In recent months, TMTG has engaged in a number of baroque financial transactions.
In May, the company announced that it was planning to raise $3.5 billion from institutions to invest in bitcoin, with the money to come from issues of common and preferred shares. The goal was to climb onto the cryptocurrency train, which Trump himself was fueling by, among other things, issuing an executive order promoting the expansion of crypto in the U.S. and denigrating enforcement efforts by the Biden administration as reflecting a “war on cryptocurrency.”
Under Trump, federal regulators have dropped numerous investigations related to cryptocurrencies. Trump has also talked about creating a government crypto strategic reserve, which would entail large government purchases of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies; a March 3 announcement on that subject briefly sent bitcoin prices soaring by nearly 20%, though they promptly fell back.
Then there’s TMTG’s relationship with Crypto.com, a Singapore-based crypto “service provider” best known to Angelenos unfamiliar with the crypto world as the firm with naming rights to the Los Angeles arena that hosts the NBA Lakers and Clippers, WNBA Sparks and NHL Kings.
In August, Crypto.com and TMTG announced a deal in which TMTG would pursue a crypto treasury strategy consisting mostly of Cronos tokens, a cryptocurrency sponsored by Crypto.com. The initial infusion would consist of 6.4 billion Cronos valued at $1 billion, or about 15.8 cents per Cronos.
As of Dec. 31, TMTG said in its 10-K, it owned 756.1 million Cronos, acquired at a cost of about $114 million, or 15 cents each. By year’s end, they were worth only about nine cents each, for a paper loss of about $46 million. In trading this week, Cronos was quoted at about 7.6 cents, producing a paper loss for TMTG of about $56.5 million, or roughly half the investment.
The financial maneuvering involved in this trade is a little dizzying. The initial transaction was a 50% stock, 50% cash trade in which Crypto.com bought $50 million in TMTG stock and TMTG bought $105 million in Cronos. Who gained in this deal? It’s almost impossible to say.
Crypto.com did gain, if not purely in cash, then arguably through the Trump administration’s good graces.
On March 27, the SEC formally closed an investigation of the company that it had launched during the Biden administration, when the agency was headed by a known crypto skeptic, Gary Gensler. Trump appointed a crypto-friendly regulator, Paul Atkins, as Gensler’s successor.
It’s reasonable to note that as a business model, crypto treasuries have been in vogue over the last year or so, allowing investors to play the crypto market without all the complexities of actually buying and holding the digital assets by buying shares in treasury companies.
I asked Crypto.com whether the steady decline in Cronos’ price suggested that the hookup with TMTG wasn’t bearing fruit. “The fluctuation in value during this time period is consistent with the entire crypto market, which is typical in a bear market,” company spokeswoman Victoria Davis told me by email.
Davis also asserted that the SEC’s investigation of the company had been closed by Gensler, “not the current administration” (i.e., Trump). That’s misleading, at best. Gensler put the investigation on hold after the 2024 election, when it became clear that Trump was going to be in charge.
Crypto.com’s March 27 announcement of the formal end of the case attributed the action to “the current SEC leadership” and blamed the case on “the previous administration.” I asked Davis to explain the discrepancy but got no reply.
TMTG, like Crypto.com, attributed the decline in Cronos’ value to the secular bear market raging in the entire cryptocurrency space, a reflection of “temporary price swings across the crypto market,” said TMTG spokeswoman Shannon Devine. She said the price decline “will not diminish our enthusiasm for the enormous potential of the [CRONOS] ecosystem.”
Trump’s coziness with crypto companies hasn’t gone unnoticed by Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee, who issued a scathing report on the topic in November. (The White House scoffed at the report, saying in response to the report that Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public.”)
In mid-December, TMTG launched yet another remaking — this time, plunging into the business of fusion power. The instrument is TAE Technologies, a Foothill Ranch-based company working to develop the technology of nuclear fusion as a clean energy source. According to a Dec. 18 announcement, TMTG and TAE will merge, creating what they say is a $6-billion company.
According to the announcement, TMTG will contribute $200 million to the merged company when the deal closes in mid-2026, and an additional $100 million subsequently. Following the merger, TMTG said last month, it will consider spinning off Truth Social into a new publicly traded company.
These arrangements are murky. TAE is privately held and the value of Truth Social is conjectural at best, so TMTG shareholders could be hard-pressed to assess their gains or losses from the merger and spin-off.
What makes them even murkier is the speculative nature of fusion as an electrical power source. Although numerous companies have leaped into the field — and TAE, which has been backed by Alphabet, the parent of Google, is among the oldest — none has shown the capability of generating electrical power at commercial scale with the elusive technology.
Although some researchers say that fusion could become a technically and economically feasible power source within 10 years, only in 2022 did fusion researchers (at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) achieve the goal of using fusion to produce more energy than is required to sustain a reaction. They were able to do so only for less than a billionth of a second.
Others working on the technology have expressed doubts that fusion could become a viable power source before the 2040s. The technical challenges, including how to convert the energy produced by a fusion reactor into electricity, remain daunting.
All this points to the fundamental question of what TMTG is supposed to be. TMTG’s original mission, according to its own publicity statements, was to build Truth Social into an alternative social media platform “to end Big Tech’s assault on free speech by opening up the Internet.”
Spinning off Truth Social would place that goal on the side. TMTG is on its way too becoming a hodgepodge of crypto, fusion and other investments selected without regard to whether they fit together or are even achievable. The only constant is Trump himself.
If you want to invest in him, TMTG may be the best way to do it. But judging from its latest financial disclosure, that’s not the same as being a good way to do it.
The U.S. attack on Iran is expected to have an unwelcome impact on California drivers — a jump in gas prices that could be felt at the pump in a week or two.
The outbreak of war in the Middle East, which virtually closed a key Persian Gulf shipping lane, spiked the price of a barrel of Brent crude oil by as much as $10, with prices rising as high as $82.37 on Monday before settling down.
The price of the international standard dictates what motorists pay for gas globally, including in California, with every dollar increase translating to 2.5 cents at the pump, said Severin Borenstein, faculty director of the Energy Institute at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business.
That would mean drivers could pay at least 20 cents more per gallon, though how much damage the conflict will do to wallets remains to be seen.
“The real issue though is the oil markets are just guessing right now at what is going to happen. It’s a time of extreme volatility,” Borenstein said. “We don’t know whether the war will widen or end quickly, and all of those things will drive the price of crude.”
President Trump has lauded the reduction of nationwide gas prices as a validation of his economic agenda despite worries about a weak job market and concerns of persistent inflation.
The upheaval in the Middle East could be more acutely felt in the state.
Californians already pay far more for gas than the rest of the country, with the average cost of a gallon of regular at $4.66, up 3 cents from a week ago and 30 cents from a month ago, according to AAA. The current nationwide average is about $3 per gallon.
The disruption in international crude markets also comes as refiners are switching to producing California’s summer-blend gas, which is less volatile during the state’s hot summers. The switch can drive up the price of a gallon of gas at least 15 cents.
The prices in California are largely driven by higher taxes and a cleaner, less polluting blend required year-round by regulators to combat pollution — and it’s long been a hot-button issue.
The politics were only exacerbated by recent refinery closures, including the Phillips 66 refinery in Wilmington in October and the idling and planned closure of the Valero refinery in Benicia, Calif., which reduced refining capacity in the state by about 18%.
California also has seen a steady reduction in its crude oil production, making it more reliant on international imports of oil and gasoline.
In 2024, only 23.3% of the crude oil refined in the state was pumped in California, with 13% from Alaska and 63% from elsewhere in the world, including about 30% from the Middle East, said Jim Stanley, a spokesperson for the Western States Petroleum Assn.
“We could see a supply crunch and real price volatility” if the Middle East supply is interrupted, he said.
The Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf, through which about 20% of the world’s oil passes, was virtually closed Monday, according to reports. Though it produces only about 3% of global oil, Iran has considerable sway over energy markets because it controls the strait.
Also, in response to the U.S. attack, Iran has fired a barrage of missiles at neighboring Persian Gulf states. Saudi Arabia said it intercepted Iranian drones targeting one of its refinery complexes.
California Republicans and the California Fuels & Convenience Alliance, a trade group representing fuel marketers, gas station owners and others, have blamed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s policies for driving up the price of gas.
A landmark climate change law calls for California to become carbon neutral by 2045, and Newsom told regulators in 2021 to stop issuing fracking permits and to phase out oil extraction by 2045. He also signed a bill allowing local governments to block construction of oil and gas wells.
However, last year Newsom changed his stance and signed a bill that will allow up to 2,000 new oil wells per year through 2036 in Kern County despite legal challenges by environmental groups. The county produces about three-fourths of the state’s crude oil.
Borenstein said he didn’t expect that the new state oil production would do much to lower gas prices because it is only marginally cheaper than oil imported by ocean tankers.
Stanley said the aim of the law was to support the Kern County oil industry, which was facing pipeline closures without additional supplies to ship to state refineries.
Statewide, the industry supports more than 535,000 jobs, $166 billion in economic activity and $48 billion in local and state taxes, according to a report last year by the Los Angeles County Economic Development Corp.
Bloomberg News and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Fintech company Block said Thursday that it’s cutting more than 4,000 workers or nearly half of its workforce as artificial intelligence disrupts the way people work.
The Oakland parent company of payment services Square and Cash App saw its stock surge by more than 23% in after-hours trading after making the layoff announcement.
Jack Dorsey, the co-founder and head of Block, said in a post on social media site X that the company didn’t make the decision because the company is in financial trouble.
“We’re already seeing that the intelligence tools we’re creating and using, paired with smaller and flatter teams, are enabling a new way of working which fundamentally changes what it means to build and run a company,” he said.
Block is the latest tech company to announce massive cuts as employers push workers to use more AI tools to do more with fewer people. Amazon in January said it was laying off 16,000 people as part of effort to remove layers within the company.
Block has laid off workers in previous years. In 2025, Block said it planned to slash 931 jobs, or 8% of its workforce, citing performance and strategic issues but Dorsey said at the time that the company wasn’t trying to replace workers with AI.
As tech companies embrace AI tools that can code, generate text and do other tasks, worker anxiety about whether their jobs will be automated have heightened.
In his note to employees Dorsey said that he was weighing whether to make cuts gradually throughout months or years but chose to act immediately.
“Repeated rounds of cuts are destructive to morale, to focus, and to the trust that customers and shareholders place in our ability to lead,” he told workers. “I’d rather take a hard, clear action now and build from a position we believe in than manage a slow reduction of people toward the same outcome.”
Dorsey is also the co-founder of Twitter, which was later renamed to X after billionaire Elon Musk purchased the company in 2022.
As of December, Block had 10,205 full-time employees globally, according to the company’s annual report. The company said it plans to reduce its workforce by the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2026.
The company’s gross profit in 2025 reached more than $10 billion, up 17% compared to the previous year.
Dorsey said he plans to address employees in a live video session and noted that their emails and Slack will remain open until Thursday evening so they can say goodbye to colleagues.
“I know doing it this way might feel awkward,” he said. “I’d rather it feel awkward and human than efficient and cold.”
Missouri auditor to probe St. Louis arts funder after whistleblower complaint
Christi Jacobsen enters race for Western House seat
4.1-magnitude earthquake hits south-central Nebraska
Kalshi Enforcement Action Belongs in Nevada Court, Judge Says
Up to 4 inches of snow expected in NH tonight. See latest forecast
Florida High School Football Rankings: Top 25 teams – Oct. 21
Cleary's 21 help Le Moyne down Central Connecticut State 69-64 in OT
How old is Bo Nix? What to know about Oregon quarterback ahead of 2024 NFL Draft
99th annual Pony Swim held in Virginia
Indiana Members Credit Union announced as new anchor tenant at Bottleworks District
Fraud-plagued Minnesota sues Trump admin for withholding $243M in Medicaid payments
Is Iran expanding attacks to target energy and civilian sites in the Gulf?
Trump claims US stockpiles mean wars can be fought ‘forever’; Kristi Noem testifies before Congress – US politics live
War in the Middle East: Iran’s broad retaliation in the Gulf • FRANCE 24 English
Trump sends official notification to Congress on strikes against Iran
-
World6 days agoExclusive: DeepSeek withholds latest AI model from US chipmakers including Nvidia, sources say
-
Massachusetts6 days agoMother and daughter injured in Taunton house explosion
-
Denver, CO6 days ago10 acres charred, 5 injured in Thornton grass fire, evacuation orders lifted
-
Louisiana1 week agoWildfire near Gum Swamp Road in Livingston Parish now under control; more than 200 acres burned
-
Oregon4 days ago2026 OSAA Oregon Wrestling State Championship Results And Brackets – FloWrestling
-
Florida2 days agoFlorida man rescued after being stuck in shoulder-deep mud for days
-
Technology1 week agoArturia’s FX Collection 6 adds two new effects and a $99 intro version
-
News1 week agoVideo: How Lunar New Year Traditions Take Root Across America