Business
L.A. County supervisors seek aid for hundreds of workers affected by Phillips 66 refinery closure
With a major oil refinery in Wilmington and Carson scheduled to close next year, Los Angeles County officials are looking to shore up resources for hundreds of workers who will be left without jobs.
The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a motion Tuesday asking county staff to work with local partners such as the city of Los Angeles and the South Bay Workforce Investment Board to develop a plan to provide hiring fairs, training and other job placement resources for affected workers.
Oil giant Phillips 66 announced in October that the century-old complex, which sprawls across 650 acres and produces about 8% of the state’s gasoline, would cease operations late next year. Its closure will affect some 600 employees and 300 contract workers that keep its operations running.
Supervisor Janice Hahn said at the meeting that more than half of the affected workforce is Latino and includes skilled workers such as operators, welders, engineers and safety compliance experts that would bring “years of specialized training and certifications” to other jobs. She said they should receive support to help them make the transition to similar jobs in renewable energy, infrastructure development and advanced manufacturing.
“This is a time the county needs to lean in and support them as they face this abrupt transition,” Hahn said.
Supervisors Hahn and Holly Mitchell introduced the motion, which also asks various departments to identify career pathways for “hard-to-hire” skilled trade positions within the county itself.
“We have the responsibility to ensure that displaced workers can smoothly transition … not just by partnering with the private sector but also by opening up doors here at the county,” Mitchell said at the meeting.
The county’s Director of Economic Opportunity has 60 days to report back to the board with an action plan.
The announcement of the pending closure came amid community concerns of harmful emissions and high pollution levels. Mark Lashier, chairman and chief executive of Phillips 66, said in an October news release that the long-term sustainability of the operation was “uncertain and affected by market dynamics.”
“We understand this decision has an impact on our employees, contractors and the broader community,” Lashier said. “We will work to help and support them through this transition.”
The closure will leave the state with eight major refineries, three in the Bay Area and five in Southern California, operated by Chevron, Valero and others.
Business
Column: GOP and Musk unveil a threat to Social Security
You may have been tempted to believe Donald Trump when he swore, along with some of his Republican colleagues, to protect Social Security. If so, the joke may be on you.
That concern emerged Monday when Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) uncorked a tweet thread on X labeling Social Security “a classic bait and switch” and “an outdated, mismanaged system.”
Twenty-three minutes after Lee posted the first of his tweets, it was retweeted by Elon Musk, who has been vested by Trump with a portfolio to root out inefficiencies in the government. Musk led his retweet with the comment “interesting thread”; if that wasn’t an explicit endorsement, it matched his way of amplifying others’ tweets, tending to give them credibility within the Musk-iverse.
It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it out by the roots.
— Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah)
Lee’s tweet thread, along with Musk’s apparent concurrence, serves as an outline of the arguments the GOP may use to undermine faith in Social Security, the better to soften it up for “reforms” that will translate into costs imposed on retirees, disabled workers and their dependents.
I recently reported on all the ways that Trump could quietly or secretly undermine his pledge to protect Social Security. Lee’s thread and Musk’s apparent endorsement are different — they amount to a frontal attack on the program.
While delving into Lee’s screed, we should keep in mind that he’s a leader of the cabal with the knives out for Social Security. As I’ve reported, during his first successful Senate campaign in 2010, he unapologetically declared, “It will be my objective to phase out Social Security, to pull it out by the roots.”
Lee said that was why he was running for the Senate, and added, “Medicare and Medicaid are of the same sort. They need to be pulled up.”
So here he is, right out of the box.
Lee’s attack has four basic components. One is to bemoan the fact that Social Security is funded mostly by a tax, which he asserts the government can use for any purpose — not necessarily to cover retirement and disability benefits.
Another is to point out that the program’s reserves aren’t stored in individual accounts with workers’ names on them, but collected in “a huge account called the ‘Social Security Trust Fund.’”
A third is to claim that “the government routinely raids this fund. … They take ‘your money’” and use it for whatever the current Congress deems ‘necessary.’”
And a fourth is to complain that the trust fund is mismanaged: “If you had put the same amount into literally ANYTHING else — a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account — you’d be better off by the time you reached retirement age, even if the government kept some of it!” He states: “Your ‘investment’ in Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation.”
None of these is a new argument — they’ve been swirling around the conservative and Republican fever swamp like a miasma for decades. They’ve been consistently refuted and debunked. Lee can’t be unaware of that. Some of his arguments have a tiny nugget of truth at their center, but in his hands are twisted and manipulated out of recognition. Consequently, we can label his claims for what they are: Lies.
Let’s examine them one by one. (I asked Lee via a message at his office to justify his tweets, but haven’t heard back.)
Yes, Social Security is funded by taxes. So what? Lee’s salary as a senator is funded by taxes too. Does that make it illegitimate? It’s true that once a tax is collected Congress can decide to spend it however it wishes. But it’s also true that the payroll tax was enacted jointly with the provisions of the Social Security Act that designated the revenue for Social Security benefits.
As Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo observed in 1937, writing for the majority in a 7-2 opinion upholding the constitutionality of Social Security, it was clear that Congress intended the payroll tax to fund the benefits, for lawmakers “would have been unwilling to pass one without the other.”
It’s proper to note here that no one has ever proposed diverting Social Security revenues for any other purpose without recompense — except Republicans such as Lee. George W. Bush proposed converting Social Security into private accounts, which would have been tantamount to such a diversion — and a gift to Wall Street money managers eager to get their hands on the program’s trillions of dollars.
But Bush’s 2005 privatization plan was stillborn and he quickly abandoned it.
It’s also true that the program’s revenues aren’t stored in individual accounts but in the trust fund. That’s right and proper: Social Security is a shared benefit; no one can know in advance what any worker’s benefits will be. They’re pegged to career earnings, but low-income workers get higher benefits relative to wages than higher-income workers. They’re also related to a worker’s personal and family situation — spouses, dependents, health and so on.
It also makes sense to invest the program’s revenues in a shared account, because large investments tend to perform better over time than those under the control of individuals, not least because that minimizes transaction costs.
That brings us to the notion that the government “routinely raids” the trust funds (there are two, actually — one to cover old-age benefits and the other to cover disability payments — but they’re generally treated as a single combined fund). The trust funds currently hold about $2.8 trillion in assets, all invested in U.S. Treasury securities.
Holding a T-bond, as anyone with the slightest knowledge of government fiscal policy is aware, means the bondholder has lent the money to the government, which can use it for any purpose Congress chooses and which must pay interest on the bond. Over the years, the government has used the money to build roads and other infrastructure and provide services. Using the borrowed money for these purposes allows the government to do so without raising income taxes, which would hit the wealthy harder than middle- or low-income Americans.
Lee should ask his well-heeled patrons if they’d prefer to pay higher taxes because the government couldn’t borrow from the Social Security reserves. Anyone have any doubts about how they’d answer? Me neither.
In any event, the financial transactions related to the buying and redemption of the program’s Treasury holdings are fully disclosed every year by the program trustees in their annual report.
What about Lee’s assertion that investing in “ANYTHING else — a mutual fund, real estate, even a savings account,” would make you “better off by the time you reached retirement age.” This statement is as solid a compendium of financial ignorance as one might wish, even coming from a U.S. senator.
To begin with, if Lee thinks the Social Security trust fund should be invested in something other than Treasurys, he can take that up with his colleagues on Capitol Hill. They’re the ones who have mandated, by law, that the trust fund can be invested only in Treasurys. Over the years, proposals to widen the portfolio have been raised and abandoned, for several reasons. Some were concerned about the potential conflicts of interest inherent in a government program investing in the stock market; others that the returns from market investments are too volatile.
Savings accounts? Is Lee kidding? The rate on savings accounts offered to the average customer of Bank of America, to choose a commercial bank at random, is 0.01% a year. As I write, a 10-year Treasury bond yields about 4.2% annually.
As for Lee’s assertion that “Social Security can give you a return lower than inflation,” the fact is that Social Security benefits are adjusted for inflation every year. They’re also lifetime benefits. Try to find an annuity plan that pays inflation-adjusted benefits for the life of the annuity holder and his or her spouse — for all but the richest people, it would be unaffordable or at least uneconomical.
Lee also reveals a fundamental misunderstanding about Social Security as a program. It’s not just a retirement program, but a combined retirement and insurance program.
Disabled workers — and their dependents — are entitled to benefits well beyond their contributions; the families of workers who die before retirement age receive benefits that include payments for children through age 17 — through age 18 if they’re in school. If those benefits were based on the balances in a worker’s individual account, then the families of those who have suffered untimely deaths could receive a pittance, running out while still needing help.
Lee concludes by urging his followers to “acknowledge the truth: Social Security as it now exists isn’t a retirement plan; it’s a tax plan with retirement benefits as an afterthought.” This is an outright falsehood. As it now exists, Social Security isn’t just a retirement plan, but a disability program. It’s funded by taxes, but to call retirement benefits “an afterthought” is so wrong it’s frightening.
What should we think about all this? Lee is a member of the Senate majority; his proposals could be a real threat to the program. The fact that they garnered an “attaboy” from Elon Musk should be their death knell. Let’s hope so.
Business
Biden looks to abolish law allowing low pay for disabled people
The Biden administration’s Department of Labor is moving to phase out a controversial program that allows some employers to pay disabled employees less than the federal minimum wage, the department announced Tuesday.
Enacted in 1938 during the late years of the Great Depression, the measure was intended to increase employment opportunities for workers with disabilities but has been denounced by advocates who say it amounts to legalized discrimination. The measure is part of the Fair Labor Standards Act and based on the premise that disabled employees are less productive.
The Department of Labor’s proposed rule would phase out sub-minimum wages by ending the issuance of certificates that permit the lower wages and establishing a three-year period for employers to stop using existing certificates.
“One of the guiding principles of the American workplace is that a hard day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay,” said Wage and Hour Administrator Jessica Looman in a statement. “Opportunities and training have dramatically expanded to help people with disabilities obtain and maintain employment at or above the full federal minimum wage.”
Around 40,000 American workers with disabilities currently receive less than the federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 an hour. Some are employed through nonprofit organizations that aim to provide opportunities for people with autism, cerebral palsy or other disabilities.
According to documents obtained by Bloomberg, some employers have paid workers as little as 25 cents an hour to sort clothes and 5 cents an hour to cut rags. The first certificates permitting sub-minimum wages were issued half a century before the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1990.
The Department of Labor expects workers currently being paid a sub-minimum wage to move into full wage positions rather than face unemployment, said acting Secretary Julie Su in a statement.
The elimination of the low wages will “strengthen inclusion for people with disabilities in the workforce” and “improve their economic wellbeing,” Su said.
The decision to phase out the Great Depression-era program is based largely on evidence that legal and policy changes in recent years have lowered barriers to employment for disabled people. The permission to pay low wages is no longer needed to incentivize employers to hire a disabled person, according to the Department of Labor’s proposed rule.
“Employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities have vastly expanded in recent decades,” the rule says. “The Department has tentatively concluded that subminimum wages are no longer necessary to prevent the curtailment of employment opportunities.”
The fate of the program will rest with President-elect Donald Trump, who takes office next month. During Trump’s first term in office, his administration worked to roll back existing labor mandates and expand businesses’ discretion over a range of issues.
Some Republican lawmakers have raised alarm over the potential elimination of a sub-minimum wage, writing in a letter to Su last December that the lower wages allow individuals with disabilities to work and transition into higher-paying jobs. Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina and Trump ally Elise Stefanik of New York were among the eight signees.
The letter, along with some parents of disabled adults, voiced support for so-called sheltered workshops that employ disabled workers and pay them less than $7.25
“For many Americans with disabilities, these centers provide a unique sense of purpose and community,” the letter said.
Business
TikTok loses court bid to stop U.S. ban. Supreme Court appeal is expected
TikTok’s future in the U.S. is now in greater jeopardy after the popular social video app on Friday lost a major court battle as it tries to prevent its banishment.
In May, TikTok sued the government, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to declare unconstitutional a law that would require its Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest TikTok’s U.S. operations or face a ban in the country.
Legislators backing the law said a ban or sale was necessary to address national security concerns posed by the app’s ties to China.
The law, signed by President Biden, is set to go into effect Jan. 19.
TikTok had said in its lawsuit that the law violated its 1st Amendment rights to free speech. TikTok contended that the law “offers no support for the idea” that TikTok’s Chinese ownership poses national security risks.
More than 170 million Americans use the video app, where people share dance routines, cooking tips, funny videos and news stories.
“On the merits, we reject each of the petitioners’ constitutional claims,” the judges said in their decision issued Friday.
Legal experts said they anticipate TikTok will appeal its case to the Supreme Court. It is also possible that Biden could offer ByteDance an extension to divest, but some experts said they believe that is unlikely.
“The Supreme Court has an established historical record of protecting Americans’ right to free speech, and we expect they will do just that on this important constitutional issue,” said TikTok spokesman Michael Hughes in a statement on Friday. “Unfortunately, the TikTok ban was conceived and pushed through based upon inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical information, resulting in outright censorship of the American people.”
Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, said TikTok could ask the court to put a hold on the ruling until the Supreme Court hears its case.
“They still have another shot with the Supreme Court,” Tobias said. “It’s an important issue. It’s a difficult one, and it affects a lot of Americans, foreign policy and national security. If it’s a matter of [the Supreme Court’s]interest in it, I expect that interest would be high.”
President-elect Donald Trump had campaigned on supporting TikTok, despite having pushed for a ban during his first term.
“We’re not doing anything with TikTok,” he said on a video posted on social media earlier this year.
The Trump transition team did not immediately return a request for comment. His statements in support of TikTok have given creators some hope, though it’s not clear what action his administration will take.
The ban would go into effect the day before Trump takes office.
A ban on TikTok could hurt the livelihoods of many Southern California video creators and influencers who post content on the platform. Many of those creators over the years have diversified where they post their content to prepare for a potential ban.
Sabrina Mercado, 21, is a full-time content creator from Downey. She created her TikTok in 2019 and today has 459,000 followers on the platform.
About a year ago, Mercado briefly considered creating a press-on nail business and selling on TikTok Shop, the company’s e-commerce platform, but hesitated.
“If TikTok were to be banned, what would happen to business?” she said. “It just makes things riskier.”
Mercado now posts on Instagram, TikTok YouTube and Snapchat, with Instagram being her main focus.
Joey Soboleski II, 26, a full-time content creator from Glendale, has grown his following to more than 403,000 people who watch his comedy and lifestyle content since joining TikTok in 2019.
Still, he’s not concerned about a ban.
“I built a platform on Instagram that’s bigger than TikTok and I think the viewership will go over to Instagram honestly or YouTube or both. And then the money will go over,” he said.
-
Entertainment1 week ago
Review: A tense household becomes a metaphor for Iran's divisions in 'The Seed of the Sacred Fig'
-
Technology1 week ago
US agriculture industry tests artificial intelligence: 'A lot of potential'
-
Technology6 days ago
Elon Musk targets OpenAI’s for-profit transition in a new filing
-
Sports7 days ago
One Black Friday 2024 free-agent deal for every MLB team
-
News5 days ago
Rassemblement National’s Jordan Bardella threatens to bring down French government
-
Technology6 days ago
9 ways scammers can use your phone number to try to trick you
-
World6 days ago
Georgian PM praises country's protest crackdown despite US condemnation
-
World4 days ago
Freedom is permanent for Missourian described as the longest-held wrongly incarcerated woman in US