Washington Tip Wage

Shale drilling is big business, but for many, the effects are small

Plenty of southwestern Pennsylvanians view Marcellus Shale as a driving economic engine of the region's future.

"We're just scratching the tip of the iceberg," said Donora manager Dennis Fisher. "These wells are going to produce for the next 45 to 50 years, and the economic impact is going to be tremendous."

But who exactly will reap the rewards?

A Pittsburgh Post-Gazette survey of municipalities in the Marcellus hotbed of Washington County reveals a scattered economic boon produced by the advent of drilling rigs, compressor stations, pipeline networks and processing plants.

Many residents have benefited directly; many more have not.

To be sure, the state overall has gotten wealthier through the influx of Marcellus Shale-related tax revenues.

On a local level, landowners leasing mineral rights throughout the county have pocketed tidy sums. A variety of small businesses have thrived. Jobs have been created. Some municipalities have raked in the cash through clever use of special fees on the drilling industry. And Canonsburg's Southpointe office park has blossomed with tenants related to the natural gas industry.

By and large, though, those direct impacts are limited.

No hard numbers exist detailing how many people have leased their mineral rights. But Range Resources, the area's biggest player, said that since 2008, it has made about $800 million in upfront payments to more than 10,000 landowners in Washington County, which averages out to $80,000 per leaseholder.

That amounts to perhaps 5 percent of the county's 207,000 residents.

Range estimates that this year it has already paid out another $75 million in royalties.

"That $75 million is pretty much all in Washington County and paid to a relatively small number of households, when compared to the entire county," Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella said.

Officials from a number of the county's 66 boroughs, cities and townships report little or no economic impact or improvement in quality of life for their residents and communities as a result of Marcellus activity, with one general exception: better roads -- repaved by the companies that ruined them in the first place.

In some locales, drilling has not yet occurred; in others it likely never will. In more urban areas, there are few landowners with large tracts to lease.

"It hasn't been any impact so far," said Supervisor Robert Mercante of West Bethlehem, which is home to a handful of well pads on private property. "The ones that benefit are the property owners where the well sites are. No one else has benefited that I know of.

Restaurant Groups Claims New Tip Credit Regulations Are Half-Baked ...

Co-authored by  C.J. Eaton and Michael Fleischer

On Thursday, June 16, 2011, several trade groups representing the restaurant industry filed suit against the Department of Labor (DOL) seeking to have revoked the newly amended FLSA tip credit regulations. 

As mentioned previously on this blog , the DOL issued new tip credit regulations on April 5, 2011, that made substantive changes regarding the notice that an employer seeking to use the tip credit must provide to a tipped employee before utilizing the tip credit.  Employers were not given an opportunity to comment on the new notice requirements and had only thirty days to comply with the regulation.  The trade groups allege that the new requirements are potentially costly and administratively burdensome to employers who utilize the tip credit, and could expose them to litigation or investigations by the DOL.  If an employer fails to comply with the new regulations, it could lose the right to take the tip credit, and as a result have to pay tipped employees the full minimum wage, in addition to being assessed liquidated damages or other penalties.

The lawsuit, filed by the National Restaurant Association, Council of State Restaurant Associations, and National Federation of Independent Business in federal court in Washington, D.C., alleges that the newly amended regulations violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.  §§ 611, 702, for three reasons.  First, the DOL’s abrupt amendment to the regulations, issued without allowing for a public comment period, violates the APA because the DOL failed to go through the process of notice and comment rulemaking required by the statute.  Second, the trade groups assert that the new regulations must be set aside by the court because they are arbitrary and capricious.  Third, the suit alleges that the DOL failed to conduct an analysis to determine whether the amendments would result in additional compliance costs to affected industries as required by the APA.

The complaint also alleges that the DOL failed to follow the requirements set forth in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 , which require agencies to weigh the effect of new regulations on businesses and to determine whether they can be made more effective or less burdensome.  Finally, the trade groups assert that the failure to allow for public participation also violates Executive Order 13563.  Based on these grounds, the trade groups are asking that the court vacate the notice requirements and enjoin the DOL from enforcing the requirements.

Wage-Hour Compliance Handbook, Practical Guide to Law and Administration

Wage-hour Compliance Handbook, Guide to Law and Administration

Restaurant business

Economics

Principles of Microeconomics, Global Financial Crisis Edition