RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Why Is It OK for Employers to Constantly Surveil Workers? Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51520"><span class="small">Gabrielle M. Rejouis, Slate</span></a>   
Monday, 02 September 2019 12:43

Rejouis writes: "The surveillance of workers and the workplace is far from a modern phenomenon. Like racial minorities, immigrants, and religious minorities, poor and working people have long been disproportionately surveilled by their employers and the government."

Workers striking. (photo: Tobias Jussen/Library of Congress Prints/Messala Ciulla/Unsplash)
Workers striking. (photo: Tobias Jussen/Library of Congress Prints/Messala Ciulla/Unsplash)


Why Is It OK for Employers to Constantly Surveil Workers?

By Gabrielle M. Rejouis, Slate

02 September 19


The data privacy movement is focused on consumers—but workers need more protection, too.

ven if you aren’t trying to get pregnant, fertility apps can be useful for helping you remember when your last period was. Users can log their menstrual cycle rather than rack their brains (or write it down in a notebook they might lose or forget about) and get predictions on when their next cycle will begin. They can also track intimate information on their bodies and sexual activity, including weight, mood, and frequency of sex. It’s great. 

Unless your employer has paid to get a copy of that data. In April, the Washington Post reported that Ovia, a fertility app, allows employers to provide accounts as part of wellness programs and to access an aggregate of the data employees provided. Employers may use this information to inform hiring, promotion, or pay decisions—which violates federal prohibitions. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. It can be especially dangerous in a workplace with few women, in which “de-identified” data provides little protection from discrimination. 

Ovia is an example of employers seeking more information on their workers and expecting employees to help them via self-surveillance. Yet if you were to tune in to the roiling privacy debate on Capitol Hill, you’d hear little of this. Congress’ debate around passing privacy legislation has largely left out workplace protections. The current debate centers “consumer privacy,” but this distinction falsely creates dual identities with different protections for you the consumer and you the worker. 

The surveillance of workers and the workplace is far from a modern phenomenon. Like racial minorities, immigrants, and religious minorities, poor and working people have long been disproportionately surveilled by their employers and the government. (This will be the subject of the upcoming Color of Surveillance conference at Georgetown Law on Nov. 7, a project I’m co-organizing.) For example, Henry Ford sent detectives to his factory workers’ homes. Investigators would ask employees questions and examine homes to evaluate their moral standing. Concerned about high employee turnover, Ford wanted his employees to conform to his social and moral expectations. The Pinkerton Detective Agency infiltrated mining communities and unions at the direction of union-busting owners. Detectives gathered information to disrupt organized action and disband unions. 

From the 1590s to 1800s, English lawmakers monitored the poor who received financial assistance. The “Poor Laws” they enacted required paupers to work in exchange for benefits. The policies also carried mechanisms for social control: Administrators could use absence from church services and drunkenness to reduce or withhold support. According to historian Steve Hindle, one woman lost her pension after refusing to marry the man who impregnated her. The Poor Laws also relied on neighbors to report on one another. 

But historically, surveillance had limitations. A detective could only keep track of so many workers at one time. It was expensive and resource-intensive. 

Over time, surveillance has become more sophisticated, more granular, and more invasive. Employers have gone from using human informants to scanning employee emails or monitoring Reddit. In July, a Walmart employee was fired for posting confidential information about a new Walmart program on a subreddit used by other Walmart employees. Members responded by posting pro-union memes (Walmart is notoriously anti-union). 

But surveillance goes much further than spying on communications. Rather than asking a foreman about employee productivity, an employer can pull up this information from an app—a new form of surveillance made possible with algorithmic managers. In contrast with previous methods of surveillance, algorithmic managers require workers to watch and report on themselves. The artificial manager stores and manages worker input, constantly collecting information. It knows, with precise detail, your location and how much work you’ve completed. Hotels give their housekeepers apps to track workflow. The app knows which room the housekeeper is in because the housekeeper tells it. Housekeepers tell the app how long it took to clean a room. Algorithmic managers also keep track of what orders warehouse workers have fulfilled and how many miles rideshare drivers have traveled. Employees often cannot disable these apps without retaliation—and in some cases, like ride-sharing and food delivery gigs, it would be literally impossible to work without the app. 

As surveillance increases, workers are losing protections. Collective bargaining could give workers the opportunity to push back against surveillance, but few have this opportunity. At the height of union membership, 1 in every 3 Americans belonged to a union. Today, it’s only 1 in 10. Additionally, the workers most affected by algorithmic managers are dispersed and have particular difficulty organizing collective action. In May, for instance, Uber and Lyft drivers organized a strike to raise objections to the Uber initial public offering. However, without a centralized place to communicate, some drivers learned about the protest during or after the strike. 

Workers need protections from expanding surveillance and control. Yet, if current congressional debates bear any fruit, the average American will soon have more protection from tech giants and telecommunications companies than from the people who sign their paychecks. The unauthorized or harmful uses of geolocation data affect both consumers and workers. However, only harms to consumers, not workers, are being addressed. After Vice reported that bounty hunters were purchasing consumer geolocation information from cellphone companies (two were allegedly involved in a triple murder earlier this year), Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Geoffrey Starks and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden called for agency action or policy change to end the sale of this data. Yet employers can directly access their employees’ geolocation data through mobile apps, and there’s no congressional action at hand. Workers should have privacy over their data in the same way consumers do—or else they’ll continue to find themselves coded into a corner. 

Future Tense is a partnership of Slate, New America, and Arizona State University that examines emerging technologies, public policy, and society. 

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: On Labor Day, US Workers Are 1/3 Poorer Than in 2003 and Top 1% Is 2x Richer Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51519"><span class="small">Juan Cole, Informed Comment</span></a>   
Monday, 02 September 2019 11:13

Cole writes: "So it really isn't for the workers, it is for the bosses."

Members of the Communications Workers of America on strike outside an AT&T office on August 29 in Miami. (photo: Lynne Sladky/AP)
Members of the Communications Workers of America on strike outside an AT&T office on August 29 in Miami. (photo: Lynne Sladky/AP)


On Labor Day, US Workers Are 1/3 Poorer Than in 2003 and Top 1% Is 2x Richer

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

02 September 19

 

n Labor Day, American workers have little to celebrate. That’s alright. The September Labor Day, while initially proposed by some workers in the 1880s, was backed by conservative President Grover Cleveland over May 1, which he associated with radicalism (i.e. with workers who would demand their rights). So it really isn’t for the workers, it is for the bosses.

David Harrison at the Wall Street Journal reports that the lower 50% of US households by wealth have 32% less wealth than in 2003 in real numbers.

They have only now, in 2019, finally regained the wealth they lost in the Great Bush near-Depression of 2007-2009. 

So they’ve gotten back to what they had in the way of assets (home value and other valuables; probably not stocks, since that half of Americans doesn’t typically own securities) in 2007, but not what they had in 2003. 

There are 129 million households in the United States, so this means about 64.5 million households are one-third worse off with regard to asset ownership than when Bush went to war in Iraq. (Is there a connection?)

In contrast, the top 1% of households, 1.29 million of them, have twice as many assets as they did in 2003. 

Harrison says that the rate of increase in inequality in wealth holdings is even greater than that in income. 

Speaking of income, the average wage of the average worker in real terms has been static for decades. Americans after WW II were used to getting better off each year. Those who aren’t wealthy haven’t, since about 1970.

The poor got significantly poorer in the past two decades, and the rich got significantly richer. This broad social trend helps to explain our politics, in which workers suffer from frequent wage theft (a technique Trump perfected), from wages on which most people can’t actually live, and from downward mobility.

The other part of our politics is our plutocracy, in which a small number of billionaires runs the society for their own profit and benefit. Campaign finance laws have been gutted by the Republicans on the Supreme Court, so that a nonentity like Trump could use his ill-gotten gains to more or less just buy the election, along with his dark-money backers. Trump repaid the backers by cutting taxes massively on the top 1%, creating a $1 trillion a year Federal budget deficit. Since the government supplies services to people, and it can no longer afford to provide the same level of service, this “tax cut” is actually a tax on workers.

Last year I anticipated the WSJ story in some ways with a column surveying similar findings. I pointed out that joining the Democratic Socialists of America and a labor union were among the remedies for our bad case of plutocratitis.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: 'The Supreme Court Is Not Well. And the People Know It.' Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=27142"><span class="small">Garrett Epps, The Atlantic</span></a>   
Monday, 02 September 2019 11:02

Epps writes: "The Supreme Court as we once knew it—as a national institution that could at least sometimes stand apart from partisanship—died last year. The ongoing fight over its corpse spilled into public view last week."

Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: REX/Shutterstock)
Brett Kavanaugh. (photo: REX/Shutterstock)


'The Supreme Court Is Not Well. And the People Know It.'

By Garrett Epps, The Atlantic

02 September 19


A new guns case reveals that the once-noble institution has died, and we’re left working with its corpse.

he Supreme Court as we once knew it—as a national institution that could at least sometimes stand apart from partisanship—died last year. The ongoing fight over its corpse spilled into public view last week.

On Thursday, 53 United States senators—every member of the Republican caucus—wrote a “letter” to the clerk of the Supreme Court assuring the justices that the Republican Party has their back. The Democrats, the senators told the Court, pose “a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary.”

The spat is about guns. The Court has granted review in a Second Amendment case entitled New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York, which (nominally) tests an obscure New York City ordinance governing how firearms owners could—note the past tense—travel with their weapons.

Under city law as it was when the case began, New Yorkers with a “premises” license had to keep their guns in their homes at all times, except when being taken to a licensed target-shooting facility for practice and training. But those facilities had to be in New York City itself. “Premises” licensees could not put their guns in their trunk and drive out of town for any reason—not to go to a gun range, not to compete in a shooting match, not to take the guns to a second home.

The plaintiff in this case is the New York branch of the National Rifle Association, and three of its members who said the restrictions on transport violated their Second Amendment rights. When the Court granted review, bells rang on both sides of the gun wars, because the justices had not agreed to hear a Second Amendment case in almost a decade. In 2008, the Court held, 5–4, that the Second Amendment protects a personal “right to bear arms”; two years later, it held, again 5–4, that this right applied against both federal and state governments. After that, the Court refused all pleas to consider gun cases, leaving the lower courts to test different local gun laws. By and large, local and state gun laws—licensing, background checks, assault-weapon and large-capacity-magazine bans—survived those challenges.

But then Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Justice Anthony Kennedy. In an opinion while on the D.C. Circuit, Kavanaugh had proposed a radical approach that might shred most local gun laws. The New York case, it was thought, might be the one in which the new post-Trump Court revealed its Second Amendment cards.

New York’s state and city governments went into overdrive. The City repealed the offending transportation limits; the state legislature passed a statute banning the City from ever adopting them again. New York then told the Court the changes rendered the case “moot”—that is, in effect over, because the plaintiffs had what they’d asked for. The Court is supposed to dismiss moot cases, because there is no more “case or controversy” for the Court to resolve.

The gun-rights advocates were incensed. This response from the Cato Institute in an amicus brief was typical: “Americans deserve clarity when it comes to abuses of their fundamental rights. This Court should not reward, in any way, Gotham’s bad faith attempt to keep the law unclear at the expense of the people.”

“Moot for real or mootness as gamesmanship?” the legendary Supreme Court correspondent Linda Greenhouse asked in The New York Times. “Moot as in ‘nothing left to argue about ever again’ or moot as an example of ‘voluntary cessation’ that can be renounced at some future date?”

The Court is scheduled to decide whether to go forward with the case on its first conference, on October 1.

Enter five Democratic senators, who on August 12 filed an unusual (shall we say) amicus brief. Written by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, the brief pointed out what everyone already knew—that the plaintiffs care less about out-of-state gun ranges in New York and more about “a [Court] majority’s help with their political ‘project.’” (The other senators are Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.)

From there, the brief launched into a freewheeling discussion of recent politics surrounding the Court: the Republican blockade that kept Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat open for a year; the Trump campaign’s proclamation that the Court seat, and the federal courts, were on the 2016 ballot; the involvement of the National Rifle Association and the Federalist Society in judicial selection once Donald Trump took office; the flow of “dark money” into advocacy groups such as the Judicial Confirmation Network for advertisements supporting the nominees Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh; the long string of 5–4 decisions favoring Republican and conservative causes and splitting the Court on precisely partisan lines; and recent poll numbers showing that more and more Americans believe (in the words of one poll) that the Court “should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.”

The brief concluded: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

That brief was tone-deaf at best and threatening at worst. Anybody who finds it objectionable won’t get a fight from me. But at least it was a brief, filed by consent of the parties in conformity with Rule 37. And at least it came out and said what it meant: the Court’s legitimacy is leaking.

Thursday, the Republicans struck back. There’s no rule that permits the filing of random “Yo bros” letters with the Court. The letter also lacks the candor of the Whitehouse brief. Look at this: “Judicial independence is under assault. Democrats in Congress, and on the campaign trail, have peddled plans to pack this Court with more justices in order to further their radical legislative agenda … [Those plans] are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”

To convey how cynical this is, imagine that in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt had proposed his “Court packing” plan—and then accused Republicans of seeking to make changes in the sacred number of justices. The Court is already packed; the packing began in February 2016, with Scalia’s death, and continued with the Gorsuch nomination and Kavanaugh’s tantrum before the Judiciary Committee. And the packing effort has not even paused; Mitch McConnell has publicly said that regardless of the “election-year rule” he invented to block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, Republicans will confirm another justice to the Court if a vacancy occurs next year.

In fact, some Republicans openly opine that the Court issue is what won them the 2016 election—and when pressed about their lack of legislative accomplishments, they point with pride to their partisan makeover of the federal bench. Must we also be subjected to their solemn panegyrics to “judicial independence”?

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
New Jersey's Politicians Are Attempting to Cover Up Newark's Water Crisis Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35918"><span class="small">Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Monday, 02 September 2019 08:40

Moore writes: "The mayor of Newark and the governor of New Jersey are covering up how serious the lead poisoning is in Newark’s water system."

The filmmaker Michael Moore, near a closed factory in Flint, Mich., where his father worked. (photo: Fabrizio Costantini/NYT)
The filmmaker Michael Moore, near a closed factory in Flint, Mich., where his father worked. (photo: Fabrizio Costantini/NYT)


New Jersey's Politicians Are Attempting to Cover Up Newark's Water Crisis

By Michael Moore, Michael Moore's Facebook Page

02 September 19

 

he mayor of Newark and the governor of New Jersey are covering up how serious the lead poisoning is in Newark’s water system. We saw the same charade in Flint, Michigan. Please read Dr. Mona’s NYT Op-Ed: “I Helped Expose the Lead Crisis in Flint. Here’s What Other Cities Should Do.” (A personal note: NO AMOUNT OF PLASTIC WATER BOTTLES WILL SAVE NEWARK. It’s a ruse. Lead ingested by children causes irreversible damage. These are majority black cities. That’s all you need to know. Nobody in Grosse Pointe or Bedminster will ever have to face this or line up for water to carry home.)

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Why We Should Fight for the Veterans Health Administration Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51516"><span class="small">Suzanne Gordon and Steve Early, Jacobin</span></a>   
Monday, 02 September 2019 08:39

Excerpt: "Think of America's forever wars as a funnel between the largest and second-largest federal government departments."

US Military veteran and amputee Lloyd Epps walks after doctors serviced his prosthetic leg at the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital on January 29, 2014 in Manhattan, New York City. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)
US Military veteran and amputee Lloyd Epps walks after doctors serviced his prosthetic leg at the Veterans Administration (VA) hospital on January 29, 2014 in Manhattan, New York City. (photo: John Moore/Getty Images)


Why We Should Fight for the Veterans Health Administration

By Suzanne Gordon and Steve Early, Jacobin

02 September 19


Republicans and centrist Democrats love to pour money into more and more wars. But when it comes to providing public health care for the soldiers they put in harm’s way, they try to privatize and starve vets’ programs. We have to stop them.

hink of America’s forever wars as a funnel between the largest and second-largest federal government departments.

Entering at the top of the funnel, via the Department of Defense (DoD), are millions of predominantly poor or working-class men and women who join the global war machine.

Hundreds of thousands end up in a world of hurt themselves. Their later need for disability benefits or health care — what in the civilian world would be called “workers’ compensation” — is met, at the other end of the funnel, by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

Yet despite the global disasters conjured up within its walls, the DoD has a far bigger fan club on Capitol Hill than the VA, whose caregiving Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a continual target of bipartisan political attacks, privatization schemes, and underfunding.

When the DoD (or the White House acting on its behalf) asks for a bigger budget, the House and Senate — with few dissenters — vie for which body can allocate more money faster.

On June 12, the House passed a military spending bill that would give the Pentagon another $733 billion. According to the New York Times, moderate Democrats were “reluctant to cut that number” because it was less than the $750 billion annual budget previously approved by the Republican-controlled Senate.

In the House Democratic caucus, among those carrying the ball for the DoD was Mikie Sherrill, a former Navy pilot elected last year. She criticized her liberal colleagues for not believing “in a muscular foreign policy and muscular national defense like I do.” Meanwhile, even the military veterans like Sherill — who sit in Congress because of “service candidate” recruitment by both parties — tend to be far less “muscular” in their defense of the VHA.

In 2018, Democrats on the Hill helped conservative Republicans and the Trump administration pass the VA MISSION Act. As currently being implemented, this legislation will siphon billions of dollars away from the VHA’s budget and direct that money toward private doctors and for-profit hospitals often ill-prepared to treat veterans.

As the VHA is starved of needed funding, its staffing levels will further decline and then its nationwide network of public hospitals and clinics will be dismantled. (According to union estimates, there are already 49,000 existing vacancies.)

Rather than expanding veterans’ access to high-quality care, Republicans — backed by the Koch Brothers–funded Concerned Veterans for America — and their Democratic Party enablers are laying the groundwork for the complete privatization of veterans’ health care.

Under the guise of saving taxpayers money and giving veterans more “choice,” these bipartisan opponents of Medicare for All want our best working model of single-payer health care to become a poster child for its “failure.”

On the Left, Medicare for All advocates like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez well understand this threat to health care reform for everyone. Sanders has long championed veterans’ health care improvements in Vermont and nationally when he was chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Ocasio-Cortez recently joined forces with Veterans for Peace and VHA nurses, who work in the Bronx, to hold a protest meeting against privatization in her own district.

Far more socialists should get involved in this struggle because, as VHA unions point out, there is much at stake for nine million veterans and their unionized caregivers. It is both a labor and a health care campaign.

VA Care as Workers’ Comp

Rick Weidman, Executive Director for Government and Policy Affairs at the Vietnam Veterans of America, is a leading defender of the VHA who notes, with wry understatement, that “the military is a collection of very dangerous occupations.”

The best-known hazards of military service are encountered in combat, of course. Enlisted men and women assigned to frontline duty in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere have returned with gunshot wounds, lost limbs, traumatic brain injuries, PTSD or MST (military sexual trauma), and respiratory problems from burn-pit exposure.

During noncombat duty, even more military personnel suffer job-related injuries or illnesses similar to those experienced by millions of blue-collar workers in civilian life.

Most American workers who get hurt on the job or develop an occupational disease soon become familiar with the shortcomings of our fifty-state system of workers’ compensation. Benefit levels are too low. Private employers fight their claims. Rehabilitation services are fragmented and managed by private insurers. Workers who get approved treatment for specific work-related conditions may not be able to return to work. At some point, this deprives them of job-based medical coverage for themselves and their families. So even successful workers’ comp claimants can end up in personal bankruptcy due to unpaid bills for other care.

In contrast, veterans who qualify for VHA medical benefits, due to their low income or service-related condition, land on an island of socialized medicine within our larger system of private insurance and for-profit health care providers.

After getting a disability rating based on a particular service-related illness or injury, a veteran enters the VHA system and becomes eligible for unrelated treatment, then or later — from hip replacements to cancer surgery and hospice care.

Like residents of the UK covered by the National Health Service, VHA patients get the benefit of an integrated national network of public hospitals and clinics. All VHA doctors, nurses, and therapists are salaried, not paid on a “fee for service” basis. About a third of the VHA’s 300,000 staff members are veterans themselves. This helps create a unique culture of empathy and solidarity between patients and providers that has no counterpart in American medicine.

Healing Shattered Minds

Due to the fact that the DoD is not the most safety-minded employer in the world, many VHA patients have medical conditions attributable to the military’s own failure to provide them with adequate protective equipment or even hazard exposure warnings.

In their new book Shattered Minds: How the Pentagon Fails Our Troops with Faulty Helmets, investigative reporters Robert H. Bauman and Dina Rasor describe how most troops deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan were never issued relatively inexpensive helmet pads that would have better shielded them from the impact of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and the risk of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs).

As Bauman and Rasor report, service members had to order state-of-the-art pads at their own expense or get help modifying their helmets from a nonprofit group called Operation Helmet. The authors estimate that supplying troops with properly engineered helmet pads could have prevented between 300,000 and 400,000 TBIs.

A more common, less serious, service-related complaint of VHA patients is hearing loss and tinnitus. That’s because almost every branch of the military exposes enlisted men and women to high levels of noise. In the Air Force and Navy, there’s the constant roar of jet engines. In the Navy, there’s the metallic clanking that rebounds through the echo chamber of a submarine or other naval vessels. You don’t have to deploy to the Middle East to be deafened by explosions. Just going through basic training with the US military’s own ordinance can be enough to ensure diminished hearing capacity later in life.

Similarly, infantry training leads to musculoskeletal problems because it involves hauling around sixty- to one hundred-pound packs that place an excessive burden on necks, shoulders, knees, backs, and ankles.

Veterans also bring signature issues from particular eras. In Vietnam, draftees and enlisted men were exposed to Agent Orange. Other Cold War–era soldiers and sailors found themselves involved in chemical warfare experiments, nuclear weapons testing, and base cleanups with little personal protection. Troops sent to liberate Kuwait came back with symptoms of “Gulf War Syndrome.” Veterans of multiple tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan were often exposed to lung-damaging and cancer-causing toxic burn-pits. Insurgent use of IEDs in those two countries has led the VHA to become a leading center of research on and treatment of traumatic brain injuries suffered by thousands of troops and professional football players, who now arrange to have their brains sent to the VHA for postmortem verification of their condition.

Veterans’ Suicide Risk

Combat veterans often suffer from mental health issues, like PTSD. Even men now in their eighties or nineties, who witnessed nightmarish scenes of death and destruction many decades ago in Korea or World War II, seek VHA help for disturbed sleep today. Veterans who suffer from mental and behavioral health problems — whether acquired in or exacerbated by military service — are more prone to substance abuse, particularly opioid use if chronic pain is involved.

They also become a bigger suicide risk. An estimated twenty veterans a day kill themselves, although three-quarters of those have never been to the VHA for treatment. Between 2006 and 2015, the number of veterans receiving specialized mental health care at the VHA rose from 900,000 annually to 1.6 million, a reflection of the ongoing collateral damage from never-ending foreign wars.

VHA caregivers are trained to identify and treat these very specific wounds of war. Every VHA employee receives training on how to better recognize and assist patients who are suicidal. Thousands of VHA mental health providers are taught the latest evidence-based treatments for PTSD. (Outside the VHA, only 30 percent of private sector providers use such treatments). And primary care providers and specialists alike recognize the kind of diseases produced by toxic exposures, such as Agent Orange–related diabetes or burn-pit-created respiratory problems.

The VHA ranks with Kaiser Permanente as one of the most heavily unionized health care systems in the country. The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Nurses United (NNU), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Machinist-affiliated National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) have more than 120,000 members serving veterans. Thanks to this union presence — currently under attack by the White House — veterans’ hospital management pays more attention to the kinds of occupational hazards that are rampant in health care work, particularly in nonunion facilities.

For example, the VHA was the first — and may be one of the only US health care systems — to install the kind of lift equipment that helps nursing staff avoid debilitating and often career-ending back, neck and shoulder injuries.

Due to the troubled and occasionally violent behavior of some patients, the VHA also goes to great lengths to ensure a safe workplace for its mental health care providers. (Unfortunately, as documented in a recent Intercept report, the overly aggressive behavior of some Veterans Affairs police officers is not contributing to a safer work environment.)

Less Than Honorable?

VHA eligibility rules are also in need of reform. Congress has allowed the Pentagon to give hundreds of thousands of veterans other than honorable discharges, making them ineligible for VHA care. In some cases, soldiers have been discharged for active duty misconduct related to PTSD or brain injuries — yet they, more than anybody, need later treatment.

Congress has also left the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) consistently understaffed and overburdened. VBA is the separate agency that determines whether former military personnel have actually suffered from an occupational illness or injury — and to what degree of disability. After veterans leave the service, they encounter far too many eligibility determination disputes and delays before they can become VHA patients.

But most constructive critics of the VHA know that further underfunding and expanded outsourcing of care is not the answer. That’s why union-represented VHA staff and their labor and veteran organization allies are blowing the whistle on Trump’s privatization push. On June 5, hundreds of activists around the country participated in protest rallies, press conferences, or informational picketing as part of a “National Day to Save the VA.”

As Vietnam veteran Skip Delano points out, our “private-sector health care system does not have the capability or the capacity to meet the needs of veterans. They will be sent to providers who may know little or nothing about their special problems and may fail to diagnose critical conditions like PTSD, Agent Orange, or burn-pit exposure, or military sexual trauma, to name only a few.”

A former postal worker, coal miner, and New York city teacher, Delano has decades of experience with good, union-negotiated medical coverage. Nevertheless, he believes that, for many patients pushed out of the VHA, “private sector care will be less veteran-centric, of lower quality, require longer wait times, and end up with many veterans getting lost in the system because of poor care coordination and lack of accountability.”

Now a VHA patient himself and a key organizer of VFP’s “Save Our VA” campaign, Delano spends much of his time reminding fellow veterans about the need for solidarity with their own caregivers. According to Delano, if Trump succeeds in weakening federal employee unions, VHA staff will be stripped of legal protections they need to be effective patient advocates and privatization foes.

“Without that collective voice, doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professional will have far less ability to speak out on behalf of veterans,” he warns.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 Next > End >>

Page 775 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN