 |
|
|
|||||
Its a tough time to be looking for a job. Amid wider economic uncertainty, some analysts have said that businesses are at a no-hire, no fire standstill. That’s caused many to limit new work to only a few specific roles, if not pause openings entirely. At the same time, sizable layoffs have continued to pile up raising worker anxieties across sectors. Some companies have pointed to rising operational costs spanning from President Donald Trump’s barrage of new tariffs and shifts in consumer spending. Others cite corporate restructuring more broadly or, as seen with big names like Amazon, are redirecting money to artificial intelligence. Federal employees have encountered additional doses of uncertainty, impacting worker sentiment around the job market overall. Shortly after Trump returned to office at the start of the year, federal jobs were cut by the thousands. And the record 43-day government shutdown also left many to work without paychecks. The impasse put key economic data on hold, too. In a delayed report released Thursday, the Labor Department said U.S. employers added a surprising 119,000 jobs in September. But unemployment rose to 4.4% and other troubling details emerged, including revisions showing the economy actually lost 4,000 jobs in August. Theres also growing gender and racial disparities. The National Womens Law Center notes women only accounted for 21,000 of Septembers added jobs and that Black women over the age of 20, in particular, saw unemployment climb to 7.5% for the month. The shutdown has left holes in more recent hiring numbers. The government says it wont release a full jobs report for October. Here are some of the largest job cuts announced recently: Verizon In November, Verizon began laying off more than 13,000 employees. In a staff memo announcing the cuts, CEO Dan Schulman said that the telecommunications giant needed to simplify operations and reorient the entire company. General Motors General Motors moved to lay off about 1,700 workers across manufacturing sites in Michigan and Ohio in late October, as the auto giant adjusts to slowing demand for electric vehicles. Hundreds of additional employees are reportedly slated for temporary layoffs” at the start of next year. Paramount In long-awaited cuts just months after completing its $8 billion merger with Skydance, Paramount plans to lay off about 2,000 employees about 10% of its workforce. Paramount initiated roughly 1,000 of those layoffs in late October, according to a source familiar with the matter. In November, Paramount also announced plans to eliminate 1,600 positions as part of divestitures of Televisión Federal in Argentina and Chilevision in Chile. And the company said another 600 employees had chosen voluntary severance packages as part of a coming push to return to the office full-time. Amazon Amazon said last month that it will cut about 14,000 corporate jobs, close to 4% of its workforce, as the online retail giant ramps up spending on AI while trimming costs elsewhere. A letter to employees said most workers would be given 90 days to look for a new position internally. UPS United Parcel Service has disclosed about 48,000 job cuts this year as part of turnaround efforts, which arrive amid wider shifts in the company’s shipping outputs. UPS also closed daily operations at 93 leased and owned buildings during the first nine months of this year. Target Target in October moved to eliminate about 1,800 corporate positions, or about 8% of its corporate workforce globally. The retailer said the cuts were part of wider streamlining efforts. Nestlé In mid-October, Nestlé said it would be cutting 16,000 jobs globally as part of wider cost cutting aimed at reviving its financial performance amid headwinds like rising commodity costs and U.S. imposed tariffs. The Swiss food giant said the layoffs would take place over the next two years. Lufthansa Group In September, Lufthansa Group said it would shed 4,000 jobs by 2030 pointing to the adoption of artificial intelligence, digitalization and consolidating work among member airlines. Novo ordisk Also in September, Danish pharmaceutical company Novo Nordisk said it would cut 9,000 jobs, about 11% of its workforce. The company which makes drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy said the layoffs were part of wider restructuring, as it works to sell more obesity and diabetes medications amid rising competition. ConocoPhillips Oil giant ConocoPhillips announced plans in September to lay off up to a quarter of its workforce, as part of broader efforts from the company to cut costs. Between 2,600 and 3,250 workers were expected to be impacted, with most layoffs set to take place before the end of 2025. Intel Intel has moved to shed thousands of jobs with the struggling chipmaker working to revive its business. In July, CEO Lip-Bu Tan said Intel expected to end the year with 75,000 core workers, excluding subsidiaries, through layoffs and attrition. Thats down from 99,500 core employees reported the end of last year. The company previously announced a 15% workforce reduction. Microsoft In May, Microsoft began laying off about 6,000 workers across its workforce. And just months later, the tech giant said it would be cutting 9,000 positions marking its biggest round of layoffs seen in more than two years. The company has cited organizational changes, but the labor reductions also arrive as the company spends heavily on AI. Procter & Gamble In June, Procter & Gamble said it would cut up to 7,000 jobs over the next two years, 6% of the companys global workforce. The maker of Tide detergent and Pampers diapers said the cuts were part of a wider restructuring also arriving amid tariff pressures. Wyatte Grantham-Philips, AP business writer
Category:
E-Commerce
The controversy over Apple removing ICE tracking apps from its App Store isnt over. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital rights group, has filed suit to compel the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to release documentation of their communications with Apple and other tech platforms that led to the app removals. It began in October when Apple first removed an app called ICEBlock, which allows users to report Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity in their area. Attorney General Pam Bondi took credit for the takedown, telling reporters, We reached out to Apple today demanding they remove the ICEBlock app from their App Storeand Apple did so. The Attorney Generals office claimed the apps presented safety risks for ICE agents. In the days that followed, Apple removed several other similar apps, explaining that they could potentially be used to target law enforcement officials. The company says the apps violate section 1.1.1 of its app store guidelines, which prohibits [d]efamatory, discriminatory, or mean-spirited content, including references or commentary about targeted groups, particularly if the app is likely to humiliate, intimidate or place a targeted individual or group in harms way. Apple didnt immediately respond to a request for additional information. And it wasn’t just Apple. Meta removed a Facebook group with 80,000 members called ICE Sighting-Chicagoland at the request (or demand) of the government. Chicago residents had been using the apps to warn neighbors when the masked federal agents were near area schools, grocery stores, and other community locations. Google removed an ICE tracking app called Red Dot from its Google Play store, saying the app violated its policy against apps that share the location of what it describes as a vulnerable group. Bondi vowed to continue engaging tech companies on the issue. But how the government engages matters, explains Mario Trujillo, one of the EFF attorneys who filed the lawsuit. This has a lot of first amendment issues, and there’s this narrow line between permissible government persuasion and then impermissible unconstitutional coercion, Trujillo says. To really understand whether or not the government violated the first amendment, you really have to analyze the actual conversations. Trujillo says the language and tone used by the government also matters. Was there an implicit threat or the threat of consequences if they didn’t do something?. The EFF says people have a protected First Amendment right to document and share information about law enforcement activities performed in public. If government officials coerce third parties into suppressing protected activity, the group says, this can be unconstitutional, as the government cannot do indirectly what it is barred from doing directly. In October, the EFF submitted a Freedom of Information Act request with the DOJ, the DHS agencies (including ICE) asking for the communications with the tech companies. None of the agencies responded, so EFF filed suit to compel the release of the records, Trujillo says. Trujillo adds that its likely that other advocacy groups or media outlets have submitted similar FOIAs. Whoever succeeds in getting the communication records will make them public. If the communications reveal that the government coerced or threatened the tech companies, the stage may be set for a First Amendment lawsuit against the government. The developer of the ICEBlock app, Joshua Aaron, believes the removal of his app is a violation of his First Amendment rights, and intends to fight Apples decision in court. Attempts to contact Aaron werent immediately successful. The app was thoroughly vetted for three weeks by Apples legal and senior officials before approval, Aaron told Decrypt. Its been fine all this time. For them to do it now, thats why I say Im so disappointed.
Category:
E-Commerce
The Trump administration announced on Thursday new oil drilling off the California and Florida coasts for the first time in decades, advancing a project that critics say could harm coastal communities and ecosystems, as President Donald Trump seeks to expand U.S. oil production. The oil industry has been seeking access to new offshore areas, including Southern California and off the coast of Florida, as a way to boost U.S. energy security and jobs. The federal government has not allowed drilling in federal waters in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, which includes offshore Florida and part of offshore Alabama, since 1995, because of concerns about oil spills. California has some offshore oil rigs, but there has been no new leasing in federal waters since the mid-1980s. Since taking office for a second time in January, Trump has systematically reversed former President Joe Bidens focus on slowing climate change to pursue what the Republican calls U.S. energy dominance in the global market. Trump, who recently called climate change the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, created a National Energy Dominance Council and directed it to move quickly to drive up already record-high U.S. energy production, particularly fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. Meanwhile, Trumps administration has blocked renewable energy sources such as offshore wind and canceled billions of dollars in grants that supported hundreds of clean energy projects across the country. The drilling proposal drew bipartisan pushback in Florida, where a spokesperson for Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis said the Trump administration should reconsider and Republican Sen. Rick Scott said the states coasts must remain off the table for oil drilling. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, a frequent Trump critic, called the administrations plan idiotic. Tourism and access to clean beaches are key parts of the economy in both states. Plans to allow drilling off California, Alaska and Florida’s coast The administrations plan proposes six offshore lease sales between 2027 and 2030 in areas along the California coast. It also calls for new drilling off the Florida coast in the Gulf of Mexico at least 100 miles from shore. Drilling leases would be sold in the newly designated South-Central Gulf region, adjacent to the central Gulfs thousands of wells and hundreds of drilling platforms. The new designation distinguishes the targeted area from the Eastern Gulf where drilling is prohibited under a moratorium Trump signed in his first term. Industry representatives said the change was aimed at addressing concerns from Florida officials who oppose drilling near their tourism-friendly coasts. The five-year plan also would compel more than 20 lease sales off the coast of Alaska, including a newly designated area known as the High Arctic, more than 200 miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in announcing the sales that it would take years for the oil from new leases to get to market. By moving forward with the development of a robust, forward-thinking leasing plan, we are ensuring that Americas offshore industry stays strong, our workers stay employed, and our nation remains energy dominant for decades to come, Burgum said in a statement. The American Petroleum Institute called the new plan a historic step toward unleashing more offshore resources. Industry groups point to Californias history as an oil-producing state and say it already has infrastructure to support more production. Opposition from California and Florida Scott, a Trump ally, helped persuade officials in Trump’s first term to drop a similar offshore plan in 2018 when Scott was governor. Scott and Florida Republican Sen. Ashley Moody introduced legislation this month to maintain the drilling moratorium from Trump’s first term. Newsom, who often touts the states status as a global climate leader, said in response to Thursday’s announcement that California would use every tool at our disposal to protect our coastline. California has been a leader in restricting offshore drilling since an infamous 1969 Santa Barbara spill helped spark the modern environmental movement. While no new federal leases have been offered since the mid-1980s, drilling from existing platforms continues. Newsom expressed support for greater offshore controls after a 2021 spill off Huntington Beach and has backed a congressional effort to ban new offshore drilling on the West Coast. A Texas-based company, with support from the Trump administration, is seeking to restart production in waters off Santa Barbara damaged by a 2015 oil spill. The administration has hailed the plan by Houston-based Sable Offshore Corp. as the kind of project Trump wants to increase U.S. energy production. Trump signed an executive order on the first day of his second term to reverse Bidens ban on future offshore oil drilling on the East and West coasts. A federal court later struck down Bidens order to withdraw 625 million acres of federal waters from oil development. Environmental and economic concerns over oil spills Lawmakers from California and Florida warned new offshore drilling would hurt coastal economies, jeopardize national security, ravage coastal ecosystems, and put the health and safety of millions of people at risk. This is not just a little bit offshore drilling. This is the entire California coast, every inch of Alaska, even the eastern Gulf of Mexico, said California Rep. Jared Huffman. Basically, everywhere Big Oil has been salivating to drill for decades. Rep. Jimmy Patronis of Florida led a group of Republican lawmakers who asked Trump in a Thursday letter to withdraw some parcels off the Florida coast from leasing. They warned that oil exploration could interfere with a training area for nearby military airbases. Allowing the parcels to go forward would have a chilling effect on the militarys ability to test new munitions, including hypersonic and counter drone weaponry, they wrote. The state is also still recovering from the environmental and economic havoc caused by the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spll, which fouled coasts across the Gulf, said Florida Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor. A Santa Barbara group, the Environmental Defense Center, formed in response to the 1969 California spill, said the plan puts at risk the Santa Barbara Channel off Southern California, an important feeding ground for endangered blue, humpback, and fin whales. There is no way to drill for oil without causing devastating impacts, said Maggie Hall, deputy chief counsel at the advocacy group. The risk is unacceptable. Matthew Daly and Matthew Brown, Associated Press Associated Press reporters Julie Watson, Sophie Austin, and Kate Payne contributed to this report.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||