Tuesday, April 30, 2019

Unions are on frontlines of fight against inequality

(JONATHAN WIGGS/GLOBE STAFF)
                                                                                                                                                                                          By Katie Johnston Globe Staff
April 29, 2019, 8:32 p.m.                                                                                                                                       Stop & Shop’s stores were ghost towns during the recent strike. With workers standing outside in picket lines, customers stayed away , leading to one of the most effective strikes in recent memory.



The grocery clerks and bakers and meat cutters holding signs were protesting proposed cuts to their benefits, but their plight also resonated with the public because they represented something bigger: working Americans across the country whose wages are barely budging while the cost of living skyrockets in such places as Boston and corporations rake in record profits.



In the recent wave of strikes nationwide, unions have effectively linked their cause to the broader fight against income inequality that ramped up nearly eight years ago with Occupy Wall Street. And for the most part, they have succeeded in fending off cuts and even adding new protections.These battles are being waged as anger grows over the widening gap between rich and poor and public support for the labor movement is at a 15-year high, even as union membership continues its long, steady decline. But with nearly 15 million union members nationwide, and young people, professionals, and people of color bringing new energy to the movement, unions are showing they can still be a formidable force.“What we’re seeing is an increasing resistance to the fundamental unfairness of a system that’s so skewed both economically and politically to the wealthy,” said Benjamin Sachs, a Harvard Law School labor professor, noting that when Uber goes public, former CEO Travis Kalanick’s stock is expected to be worth upward of $6 billion — an amount that would take a full-time Uber driver 150,000 years to make. “Societies can’t function that are that unequal,” Sachs said.



Unions have long played a major role in narrowing the income gap, according to a recent paper by economists at Princeton and elsewhere. They combed through Gallup surveys of American households going back to the 1930s and found that, when more workers were organized, the income divide was lower, improving the pay of union and nonunion employees alike.
(CRAIG F. WALKER/GLOBE STAFF/2018) 

No one expects unions to recover all of the ground they have lost. There have been significant recent setbacks, namely the Supreme Court decision that allows public sector workers to opt out of paying union dues. Formerly union-heavy industries such as manufacturing also have far fewer workers than they used to, and the rise of part-time and contract labor makes it more difficult for workers to organize.

And even when workers are unionized, they are often forced to bargain 
away the rights of future hires, noted Trey Kovacs, a policy analyst at 
the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

In negotiations with Stop & Shop, for instance, the United Food & Commercial 

Workers union accepted lower pension benefits and a delay in Sunday time-and-a-half 
pay for future employees. Following a six-month lockout in Massachusetts by National 
Grid, the United Steelworkers gave up pensions for new hires.“You’ve created a
 subclass of future workers,” Kovacs said. “If they want to take this job, they’ll 
never have the same benefits of the people that they work alongside.”
But after several decades of unions getting “hammered” by companies during 
labor disputes, unions are finding a renewed zeal for their actions, said Tom Juravich, 
a labor studies professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst — especially 
as the stock market hits record highs and average Americans realize they aren’t 
sharing in the wealth. “What we’ve really watched in these last few years is 
inequality has really ground down people,” he said.
Last year, about 485,000 people were involved in work stoppages, 
the highest number since 1986.
The resurgence in labor activism picked up steam in the fall of 2011, 
when the Occupy movement brought to light the fact that a disproportionate 
amount of the country’s wealth belonged to the wealthiest 1 percent. 
But without resources or a clear-cut vision, the movement fizzled out 
within a few months. The following year, the Service Employees 
International Union launched the Fight for $15, and the ensuing protests
 by fast-food and other low-wage workers led to $15 minimum wages around 
the country, including eventually in Massachusetts.
Today, as it becomes clearer the economic recovery following the Great Recession 
is mainly benefiting the wealthy, unions are getting bolder about going out on strike,
 from teachers around the country to Marriott hotel workers in eight cities, 
including Boston, to the 31,000 Stop & Shop workers in New England.
With their deep pockets, organizing abilities, and political clout, unions — 
unlike the ragtag protesters of Occupy Wall Street — are uniquely positioned 
to draw attention to the widening chasm between the haves and the have-nots.
And they are being buoyed by high-level support. And the decline of unions
 over the years plays into wage stagnation, she said, as does the Trump 
administration’s rollbacks of labor protections.
But the current booming labor market allows workers to take more risks,
 knowing there are so many job openings, Shierholz said. And the divisive
 rhetoric coming from the White House is similarly spurring people to band together.
The recent union successes have also built on a growing hunger for social 
justice fueled by movements such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, 
said Randy Albelda, an economist at the University of Massachusetts Boston. 
Women and people of color have figured prominently in the recent strikes, she said, 
and it’s helping people relate to union actions, which in the past have 
predominantly featured white men making good wages. Strikes are also 
being held by worker alliances not linked with traditional unions, 
including a series of 24-hour work stoppages by Uber and Lyft drivers.
During the teachers’ strikes in parts of the nation, parents and students
 joined picket lines, knowing that teachers were trying to improve schools
 as well as their jobs; during the grocery store strikes, customers held 
signs alongside workers, realizing that “if the person who works at the deli 
can take care of her kid, that’s probably good for me,” Albelda said.
“It’s about the coming of age, in some ways, of the labor movement,” she noted.
The Marriott workers also experienced a “we’re in this together” mentality 
during their six-week strike last fall, said Carlos Aramayo, financial 
secretary-treasurer of Unite Here Local 26, which represents hotel workers 
in Boston.
“I have never seen the level of public guy-on-the-street support that I 
saw during the Marriott campaign,” he said. “Just random people walking by 
and being like, ‘You guys are doing a good job, keep it up. You’re fighting for all of us.’ ”
The public’s heightened involvement in labor disputes is also being 
magnified by social media, including shoppers who posted photos of 
receipts from other grocery stores on Facebook to show they were 
boycotting Stop & Shop.
Still, unions must continue to evolve to embrace a changing workforce 
and the changing nature of work, labor analysts said. And unions need 
contracts that go beyond members’ jobs to improve education, health care, 
and other aspects of their communities.
“Democracy is about everyone getting a voice,” said Aramayo. “You need a voice 
at the ballot box, sure, but you need a voice at work.”

Katie Johnston can be reached at katie.johnston@globe.com.
 Follow her on Twitter @ktkjohnston.




Monday, April 29, 2019

Tulsi Gabbard Assists Families Devastated by Historic Flooding in Iowa




 
HAMBURG, IA — Tulsi Gabbard, Hawaii congresswoman and presidential candidate, was on the ground in Pacific Junction and Hamburg, Iowa, to visit with and assist families whose homes and businesses were devastated by the recent flooding. She joined volunteers in helping to clean up a house that had been flooded to the ceiling, removing drywall, flooring, carpet and furniture. She thanked first responders, teachers, and community volunteers who have been offering relief, shelter, and supplies to those in need.
 
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said heavy rain this spring will make conditions even worse in most states with more than 200 million people at risk for flooding in their communities.
 
“The grit and resilience in these communities, even in the wake of such great loss, is a symbol of the strength of the American spirit. We must do all we can to support those whose farms, businesses, and homes have been destroyed. There are hundreds of families who are still displaced and many who will not ever be able to return to their homes,” said Tulsi Gabbard after witnessing historic flood damage in Southwest Iowa. “The contamination of wells and water continues to threaten their health and well-being, along with concerns about future flooding due to inadequate levees. Congress must act now to provide aid to these families and farms in need, and we must invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.”

Sunday, April 28, 2019

Victory Against the City of Oakland's Abuse of the Homeless



April 27, 2019
Dear supporters of the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute,
We are happy to inform you of some good news.
On April 23, 2019 the residents of the encampment in Union Point Park in Oakland, California were granted a preliminary injunction requiring the City of Oakland to desist from destroying the property of residents. The case is Van Hung v. Schaaf, Case No. 19-cv-01436-CRB. Further, the City of Oakland agreed that they would not arrest unhoused residents while cleaning and clearing the park. (see: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190424931)
The requirements that the City of Oakland must respect the rights of these residents may present a practical barrier to future sweeps. Can the City of Oakland conduct sweeps of encampments without arresting residents or destroying their belongings?

This victory sets a precedent challenging the City of Oakland’s practice of clearing encampments by stealing and destroying the property of unhoused residents using trash compactors. Further, the City of Oakland is aware that the criminalization of homelessness must end in order to avoid future liability.
In the prior litigation Miralle v. City of Oakland, Case No. 18-cv-06823-HSG, the City of Oakland avoided the court imposing a preliminary injunction by making representations that they would follow their “stated procedures”. (see: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20181129b09)
(above are trash compactors used by the City of Oakland
 to destroy the property of unhoused residents)

The court in Van Hung V. Schaaf agreed with unhoused residents who asserted that the City of Oakland “did, in fact, seize and destroy property at that encampment in violation of both the City's Standard Operating Procedure and the representations that the City made before Judge Gilliam."
Another case, Shipp v. Schaaf, Case No. 19-cv-01709-JST, was initiated by the residents of the encampment at East 12th Street and 16th Avenue in the City of Oakland. In both Miralleand Shipp the residents received Temporary Restraining Orders providing them more time to prepare for the clearing of their encampments. (see: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190404961) Even though this litigation did not stop the sweeps, the City of Oakland is now facing scrutiny by the courts for civil rights violations against these unhoused residents while these cases are pending.
The above cases and others still pending are the culmination of over a year of work by the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute (MCLI) in our Campaign for the Human Rights of Landless People. In 2018, MCLI developed and distributed templates for homeless encampments to file civil rights lawsuits as self-represented litigants. MCLI did this because the notice provided to encampments was insufficient to have time to find attorneys to represent these unhoused residents. Accordingly, MCLI has been coordinating directly with unhoused residents to commence multiple lawsuits in the City of Oakland.
This work was inspired by MCLI’s collaboration with First They Came for the Homeless in filing the case Sullivan v. City of Berkeley, No. C 17-06051 WHA. The court in Sullivan recently denied the City of Berkeley’s efforts to have the case dismissed. (see: https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20190423910)

MCLI wants to thank attorney Osha Neuman from the East Bay Community Law Center for his assistance on the ground as well as attorneys EmilyRose Johns and Dan Siegel from Siegel, Yee, Brunner, & Mehta, and attorney Joshua Piovia-Scott from Hadsell, Stormer, & Renick who stepped up to represent these unhoused residents after their cases were initiated. These attorneys have done tremendous work assisting these unhoused residents.
As we move forward, it is MCLI’s goal to end the criminalization of homelessness throughout the United States. To do this we need to secure victories in and beyond the S.F. Bay Area. This will require our continued efforts to develop and distribute civil rights templates facilitating further litigation.
In addition to ending the criminalization of homelessness, MCLI is committed to fight for the human right to housing. We cannot content ourselves to merely accept ever expanding encampments throughout our communities. We must end homelessness by ensuring that all community members have access to housing regardless of the income or other barriers.
Housing is a human right!
It is universally agreed that the most fundamental human right is the right to life. It is well known that sleeping exposed to the elements will eventually result in sickness and death.
In the U.S. Constitution the right to life is proclaimed as “sacred & undeniable” as well as “inherent & inalienable”.
The U.S. voted for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states in Article 25 as follows:
“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. ”
The Unites States signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESR). Article 11 of ICESCR guarantees the right to housing. As a signatory of ICESCR the United States cannot defeat the object and purpose of the treaty by allowing a permanent state of homelessness for large numbers of people in our communities.
MCLI is seeking political solutions by engaging with officials in the cities of Oakland, Berkeley, and Richmond to end the criminalization of homelessness and increase low-income and no-income housing.
MCLI has also asked for the United Nations Human Rights Committee to monitor the treatment and conditions of unhoused people in the United States. (See: http://www.mclihumanrights.org/2019/01/27/mcli-steps-up-as-trump-rejects-the-human-rights-council/)
At the end of the day we need to seek a permanent solution to end homelessness.

Sunday, April 21, 2019

‘The FBI Appears to Be Engaged in a Modern-Day Version of COINTELPRO’ - CounterSpin interview with Nusrat Choudhury on FBI targeting of black activists




Janine Jackson interviewed Nusrat Choudhury about FBI targeting of black activists for the April 12, 2019, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

Janine Jackson: In the summer of 2017, as demonstrations roiled St. Louis, Missouri, in response to the acquittal of yet another police officer who killed yet another black person, the FBI issued an intelligence assessment that purported to designate a new domestic terror threat: “Black Identity Extremists.” And they predicted that perceptions of unjust treatment of African Americans and the perceived unchallenged illegitimate actions of law enforcement will inspire premeditated attacks against law enforcement.
Does that sound like a bizarre and dangerously imprecise targeting of people of color engaged in righteous and constitutionally protected protest? It sure does.
But as we discussed at the time with our next guest, a tool in the hands of the country’s most powerful law enforcement need not be precise to be used to do tremendous damage.
Nusrat Choudhury is deputy director of the ACLU Racial Justice Program. She joins us now by phone from here in town. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Nusrat Choudhury.
NC: Thank you so much for having me.

JJ: When we spoke with you in the fall of 2017, the FBI Domestic Terrorism Analysis Unithad just issued this weird and disturbing threat assessment, with this new fabricated category of “Black Identity Extremists.” And the ACLU and other groups were working to see just what they were doing—how was this being used? And the FBI wasn’t all that keen for the sunshine. What has happened, or not happened, since then, such that now the ACLU, along with the Center for Media Justice, have filed a lawsuit against the FBI?

NC: As you said, we requested, under the Freedom of Information Act, records about what appears to be a highly disturbing surveillance program, targeting a fictitious threat of so-called “Black Identity Extremists,” which we and civil rights groups, black-led organizations, black activists and even members of Congress have said raises a red flag that there may be racial profiling and the targeting of black protesters for their First Amendment–protected activity.
After sending that Freedom of Information Act request, what we got back from the FBI were two letters, refusing to even search for certain categories of records that we had requested, and a number of documents, several hundred pages of highly redacted FBI emails, in response to one of the three categories of requested records.
And the FBI, to the extent that it has disclosed any information, hasn’t explained why it’s keeping that information secret with any reliable justifications. So we don’t really know what else is even out there, as well as information from the emails that they’ve redacted.
And this refusal to search is barring the public from getting the information that we need to find out how this surveillance program, targeting this fictitious group that even some law enforcement have said doesn’t exist, is operating and impacting people on the ground.
And that’s why we need a lawsuit. And we the ACLU are standing with our partners at the Center for Media Justice to demand information on behalf of ourselves and the public.
JJ: You’re describing it as a surveillance program. I was going to ask, what sorts of activities do we think that this designation is trying to justify, or is trying to encourage? I mean, it sounds like it could be almost anything. Once you’ve designated something a domestic terrorist threat, it sort of greenlights all kinds of activities, mightn’t it?

NC: The FBI appears to be engaged in a modern-day version of COINTELPRO, and many of us remember, COINTELPRO took place in the last century, in the ’50s and ’60s, targeting covert activities against civil rights leaders and black people who had the courage to protest racial discrimination and to advocate for full equality and racial equity in this country. It looks like it’s version 2.0.
And when we look at this document, this FBI intelligence assessment, from August 2017 that creates this label of “Black Identity Extremists,” it’s based on nothing; there’s no credible evidence that such a movement or group even exists.
But what that report shows is that the FBI is looking at First Amendment–protected activity to determine who is a so-called “Black Identity Extremist.” That report shows a focus at the FBI on social media activity, on the online search terms that people use, and what kind of internet content a person may like, as well as their associations with certain groups.

A lot of that activity is protected by the First Amendment. And this is precisely why the Center for Media Justice and the ACLU are concerned that this creation of this label was simply to justify surveillance of black people who are protesting police violence and state-sanctioned violence against black people.
JJ: Yeah, even, I think, law enforcement—a former FBI agent, I seem to remember, giving a quote saying, basically, “It’s just black people who scare them”; they’re just working backwards from that.

There’s so many levels to this, but to imagine that various groups would only be fighting back against police racist brutality if they were part of a unified ideological project, and an inherently violent ideological project, that outrage at racist policing is not a motivation that anyone with eyes could have…. I mean, even if you thought that was their sincere belief, that would reflect a lack of intelligence that’s so painful it’s almost unbearable. But that would be the idea, that all of these groups must somehow be linked in an ideological project, otherwise, why would they be engaged in this resistance?
NC: And the assessment itself, this FBI report that creates this label of a “Black Identity Extremist” boogeyman, if you look at the text of it, it’s talking about these six incidents of violence or threatened violence against police. And it doesn’t even link them and, in points, actually says that some of the people involved in these incidents have divergent views.


Saturday, April 6, 2019

Ask Newcastle United to Give Puma the Boot


Puma is the main sponsor of the Israel Football Association (IFA), which, as documented by Human Rights Watch, includes football clubs based in illegal Israeli settlements on stolen Palestinian land. Israeli settlements are illegal land grabs that form an integral part of Israel’s occupation infrastructure pushing indigenous Palestinian families off their land, robbing Palestinians of natural resources and denying Palestinians their right of movement. 

All Israeli settlements are considered war crimes under international law. 


The IFA has refused to take measures to end its complicity in war crimes, despite being repeatedly condemned by UN advisorsdozens of elected officialscivil society and human rights groups representing millions and public figures. More than 200 Palestinian teams have called on Puma to end its support for Israel’s military occupation by terminating its sponsorship deal with the IFA. While Puma did reply to the Palestinian teams, it failed to even remotely address the issues raised.

As one of the world’s top athletic apparel makers, Puma’s sponsorship brings international legitimacy to the IFA and helps keep its direct involvement with violations of human rights and international law off the field. 

Newcastle United currently has a kit sponsorship deal with Puma, and as such is in a position of influence. Join us in writing to Newcastle United to pressure Puma to end its complicity in Israeli war crimes - or else end its partnership with them!

SAMPLE LETTER:


BOXOFFICE@NUFC.CO.UKBOXOFFICE@NUFC.CO.UK

tO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The IFA has refused to take measures to end its complicity in Israeli crimes, despite being repeatedly condemned by UN advisorsdozens of elected officialscivil society and human rights groups representing millions and public figures. As one of the world’s top athletic apparel makers, Puma’s sponsorship brings international legitimacy to the IFA and helps keep its direct involvement with violations of human rights and international law off the field. Puma is directly supporting war crimes.

A global movement of human rights activists is launching a campaign for Puma to drop its sponsorship of the IFA. We'd like to make sure Newcastle United stands on the right side of history. Please do not let your good reputation be tarnished through association. This is why we are calling on you to end all partnership deals with Puma until they end their sponsorship of the IFA.

I look forward to hearing from you.

SAMPLE TWEETS


Example tweets:
Take inspiration or just simply copy and paste one of the following tweets
Companies like @PUMA who seek to support “universal equality” should not be sponsoring and financing the @ISRAELFA who have teams based on stolen Palestinian land. Until @PUMA drop @ISRAELFA, I support the call to #BoycottPUMA #DropPUMA
.@Puma cannot claim to support “universal equality” while sponsoring Israeli teams based on stolen Palestinian land! Palestinian athletes are calling on @Puma to end its support for illegal Israeli settlements – join them! #BoycottPuma
Whilst @PUMA remain proud sponsors of Israeli apartheid, people of conscience are left with no choice but to support the Palestinian call to #BoycottPUMA. The enjoyment of sports should not be at the expense of human rights. #DropPUMA
On the UN day of sports for development and peace, I call on @NUFC to #DropPUMA as a sponsor, until @PUMA ends their sponsorship of Israeli settlement teams, based on stolen Palestinian land. #BoycottPUMA