After four years under Joe Biden, who enthusiastically called himself “the most pro-union president in American history,” employers and labor groups alike are heading into President-elect Donald Trump’s second term unsure of what lies ahead.

Although his nominee for Labor secretary has won bipartisan praise and has a pro-labor track record, Trump’s threats to deport millions, impose tariffs and weaken worker protections have left many in the labor movement wary of what his time in office will bring.

Here’s what a second Trump administration could mean for labor.

What is the National Labor Relations Board and what could happen to it under Trump?

The National Labor Relations Board is the federal agency tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions. Under Jennifer Abruzzo, whom Biden appointed to run the NLRB as its general counsel, the board took “a fairly innovative and aggressive approach” to enforcing protections, said labor attorney Benjamin Dictor, who represents several unions, including United Auto Workers and a Teamsters local.

Abruzzo took an expansive approach to labor law that favored workers. For example, she pushed through a ban on noncompete agreements, which restrict a person’s ability to get a new job after leaving a post. She also drove regional offices to pursue more broad remedies for harmed workers and successfully sought a ban on captive audience meetings, in which employers require staff to listen to anti-union arguments.

Dictor and others anticipate the Trump administration will swiftly replace Abruzzo with a more employer-friendly general counsel. This type of ping-ponging of priorities from administration to administration is typical, but the change is expected to be even more pronounced, given Abruzzo’s novel approach.

Trump also has a clear path toward securing a Republican majority on the five-member board itself, which will allow his administration to reverse gains that unions made under Biden. The labor board probably will seek to reverse decisions that expedited the union election process, put pressure on employers to voluntarily recognize and negotiate with unions, prohibited confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions and banned captive audience meetings, among other actions, said Adam Primm, an attorney who represents employers.

Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) led a last-ditch attempt last week to lock in Democratic control of the board for the next two years, but the effort collapsed when the Senate failed to approve a second term for one of Biden’s nominees.

Trump has promised to deport millions of people. What would that mean for the economy?

A major deportation effort could have a significant effect on industries that rely heavily on immigrant workers including agriculture, construction and hospitality.

The Center for Migration Studies of New York estimates that as many as 8.3 million immigrants working in the U.S. are here illegally and they represent more than 5% of the workforce.

Among employers there is rising concern that under Trump there will be a significant increase in workplace raids, audits of employment eligibility documents and other immigration enforcement actions against companies, said George Howard, an attorney with Quarles & Brady.

Labor advocates, meanwhile, worry about the opposite happening: Enforcement against unscrupulous employers will fall by the wayside.

For example, immigrant labor advocates expect Trump will do away with a Biden program that awards job permits to undocumented workers at companies under investigation for workplace violations — an effort intended to encourage cooperation with investigations of safety, wage and other labor violations.

Attorney Yvonne Medrano of Los Angeles-based Bet Tzedek Legal Services, a nonprofit legal advocacy group, said there is concern that employers of undocumented immigrants may feel emboldened to exploit workers if the government eases up on efforts to root out wage theft, child labor and other violations.

Trump has said he will impose sweeping tariffs. How could they affect American workers?

Trump has said he will impose sweeping tariffs on key trading partners including Canada, Mexico and China as soon as he takes office. The effects of those tariffs could hit American workers in several ways.

Prices would rise on certain goods in industries affected by tariffs, broadly increasing the cost of living and eroding workers’ purchasing power unless wages rise commensurately, said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics.

Higher prices would have an outsize effect on lower-income workers because a larger proportion of their budget is spent on food and clothing, Zandi said.

And it’s likely that countries facing tariffs from the U.S. would retaliate with their own tariffs, as China did during Trump’s first term. The trade war Trump led in his first term delivered higher costs to consumers and uncertainty to the U.S. auto, agricultural and manufacturing sectors.

Companies that rely on imported goods, such as machine parts and industrial supplies, will be forced to pay more for those goods, ballooning their costs and potentially forcing them to make job cuts, Zandi said.

Trump has picked Lori Chavez-DeRemer, a pro-union Republican, to lead the Labor Department. What does that mean for workers?

The union-friendly track record of Trump’s Labor secretary choice has fueled anxiety among the GOP, with several Republican senators expressing concern. Lori Chavez-DeRemer is known for being one of only three GOP lawmakers who co-sponsored legislation, known as the PRO Act, that would have significantly expanded labor rights, including measures that increased penalties for employer labor law violations and expanded union eligibility.

Trade groups have also emphasized concern with the choice.

“IFA looks forward to ensuring the job-killing PRO Act and Biden-era joint employer standard have no place in the incoming administration,” Matt Haller, chief executive of the International Franchise Assn., said in a recent statement. He was referring to an attempt by Biden to broaden rules for when two or more companies should be considered employers of a group of workers.

Although a pro-worker appointee has sparked concerns, attorney Patrick Muldowney, who represents employers on labor issues, said the appointment does not mark a tangible threat to employers.

“I don’t see that as moving the needle very far,” Muldowney said.

The Department of Labor administers federal laws governing minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, as well as protection against employment discrimination, workplace safety rules and unemployment insurance. Its reach is less visible in states like California that have implemented stronger protections than those offered at the federal level.

Labor advocates still expect the Trump administration to pursue anti-worker changes under Chavez-DeRemer.

Judy Conti, government affairs director of the National Employment Law Project, said she anticipates the Trump administration will ease up on enforcing safety rules, narrow eligibility for overtime pay and make it harder for gig-economy workers to gain status as employees.

“Chavez-DeRemer’s record suggests she understands the value of policies that strengthen workers’ rights and economic security,” said Rebecca Dixon, president and CEO of NELP, in a news release last month. “But the Trump administration’s agenda is fundamentally at odds with these principles.”

Her “true commitment to workers will be tested,” Dixon said.

Last week’s shocking killing of UnitedHealthcare’s chief executive, Brian Thompson, reopened a national wound inflicted by the delay and denial of health coverage to countless Americans.

This was a violent crime that won’t solve anything. But the ensuing organic and spontaneous outpouring of populist anger underscored how many Americans have been cruelly and unjustly denied medical treatment.

After an election that showed widespread discontent with the status quo, this should be a wake-up call for Washington. Despite progress on healthcare coverage and rights, protecting American patients is unfinished business.

In the 1990s, California pioneered a patients’ rights movement that gave those covered by HMOs a right to second opinions, independent medical reviews of coverage denials and guaranteed coverage of certain commonly denied procedures. Many states adopted California’s model, and President Obama’s Affordable Care Act took important steps to insure the uninsured and prevent companies from denying coverage to people who want it.

But America’s patients never got equitable access to justice when claims are denied. People who buy their own insurance or get it through a government job or program such as Medicare have the right to sue for damages if they believe they have been harmed by an unreasonable denial. But most of us get health insurance through our jobs and have no such right to go to court, no matter how outrageous the denial or tragic the consequences. More than 100 million Americans have no legal recourse if a health insurance company messes up our claim.

In the 1987 case Pilot Life Insurance Co. vs. Dedeaux, the Supreme Court ruled that people with employer-provided coverage do not have a right to sue their insurer for damages but rather only for the value of the denied benefit. If the covered person dies, any suit is rendered moot.

Despite many attempts to change this, including through Obamacare, the ruling has stood. That’s why insurance companies often act as if they have a license to kill: They face scant legal consequences for any harm they cause by delaying or denying payment for needed care.

A 17-year-old Angeleno, Nataline Sarkisyan, became a poster child for addressing this injustice. Nataline, who had recurrent leukemia, had to wait too long for insurance approval of a liver transplant that doctors considered likely to save her life. Her mother, Hilda Sarkisyan, protested with nurses at the headquarters of their health insurance plan, Cigna. When the company finally approved the surgery under pressure, it was too late: Nataline died in 2007, hours after the approval was granted. And because of the Pilot Life decision, the family had little legal recourse.

The Sarkisyans have crusaded to have the Pilot Life ruling overturned and to spare others their daughter’s fate. Congress has made it easier to obtain coverage but has yet to give patients the leverage they need once they have insurance: the right to collect damages from companies that behave horribly.

This shouldn’t be hard. Congress — whose members do enjoy a right to sue over denials of their own health insurance claims — has many options for limiting the extent of insurers’ exposure to lawsuits, such as making them liable only when they show gross indifference to a patient’s suffering.

Insurance companies pay attention to whether patients can take them to court. At least one company, Aetna, even had a training tape showing how to process claims differently for those with and without a right to sue.

If insurance companies have no legal incentive to approve a claim, they will too often deny or delay it. It’s time for Congress to restore the possibility of justice for millions and answer the urgent calls for reform.

Jamie Court is the president of the nonprofit Consumer Watchdog.

A sports memorabilia auction is never as gripping as the ballgame that gave the item being auctioned immense value. But bidding for the baseball Freddie Freeman crushed for a grand slam that gave the Dodgers a walk-off victory in Game 1 of the World Series against the New York Yankees in October did generate its own brand of drama.

The ball was sold for $1.56 million Saturday night by SCP Auctions, but not before a spirited back-and-forth between bidders that extended the bidding 2½ hours beyond the initial deadline.

The money goes to the family of the 10-year-old boy who corralled the ball in the right-field bleachers at Dodger Stadium amid the delirious celebration after Freeman homered with the bases loaded in the bottom of the 10th inning, and the Dodgers one out away from defeat.

The moment will forever live among the very best in Dodgers history, rivaling Kirk Gibson’s eerily similar walk-off homer in Game 1 of the 1988 World Series. The memory will always be cherished by Zachary Ruderman and his parents, Nico and Anne. The money will be life-changing for the Venice family.

Yet it appeared the bidding wouldn’t reach seven figures when the highest offer was $800,000 with five minutes left in the weeklong auction. But a bid of $850,000 triggered a 30-minute extension, which again counted down to nearly zero before a $900,000 bid was entered.

On it went, each extension nearly expiring before the next bid was made, all the way to $1.3 million. The buyer’s premium and fees hiked the total to $1.56 million.

“It was crazy,” said David Kohler, president of SCP Auctions. “Sometimes it happens. We are thrilled at the result and are honored to handle one of the most important artifacts in World Series history.”

The record auction price for a baseball is $4.392 million, set only two months ago for the ball Shohei Ohtani hit at LoanDepot Park in Miami on Sept. 19 to become the first MLB player to hit 50 home runs and steal 50 bases in a season. The previous record of $3.05 million was paid in 1999 for Mark McGwire’s 70th home run ball from the 1998 season.

How the money from the sale of the Ohtani ball will be divided is in dispute. Max Matus filed a lawsuit in Florida’s 11th Judicial Circuit Court against the man who ended up with the ball, Christian Zacek, fellow Florida resident Kelvin Ramirez and Goldin Auctions, claiming ownership of the ball.

There is no such controversy surrounding the Freeman ball, which soared directly at Zachary Ruderman, whose avowed favorite player is Freeman and who keeps score at the frequent games his family attends.

“Everybody was on their feet, nobody was even sitting,” Zachary told The Times. “I was standing on the bleacher seat so I could see. A second or two after the crack of the bat, I realized it was coming directly toward us.

“It was honestly a reaction, an instinct.”

Everyone sitting around him was delirious with joy at the Dodgers victory, remaining at the stadium while the team celebrated on the field. Nobody tried to snatch the ball from him.

“Hundreds of people were mobbing me,” Zachary said. “So many people wanted to take a photo with me and the ball. It was overwhelming.”

Early the next morning, Zachary accompanied his mom, Anne, on a business trip. He wore a Dodgers cap and T-shirt and a flight attendant asked him if he’d watched the walk-off home run.

“Yeah,” Zachary replied, “I caught it.”

The flight attendant jumped on the plane’s public address system and announced Zachary’s great fortune to the other passengers. He stood from his seat to applause.

The most expensive MLB item ever sold at auction is Babe Ruth’s 1932 World Series jersey, which sold for $24.12 million in August 2024. The Yankees No. 3 road jersey was worn by Ruth when he hit his legendary “called shot” home run at Wrigley Field.

The identity of the new owner of the Freeman ball has not been made public. Zachary Ruderman has had his moment of fame and — now — fortune, and his family only hopes the ball will be be displayed for Dodgers fans to enjoy and reminisce.

“It’s a lot more attention than my son has ever had,” Nico Ruderman said. “People recognize him. I mean, literally everywhere we go people stop him and want to take pictures with him. He’s really actually been loving it. It’s been a fun experience for him.

“It’d be great if the ball is displayed in Dodger Stadium so fans can see this special piece of history.”