RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
We Need More Than $15 Print
Sunday, 14 October 2018 13:20

Rosenblum writes: "The company's declaration followed months of mounting bad publicity for Amazon. US workers have been speaking out in greater numbers about the punishing pace of work, high injury rates, and a plantation mentality on the warehouse floor."

Jeffrey P. Bezos. (photo: Blue Origin)
Jeffrey P. Bezos. (photo: Blue Origin)


We Need More Than $15

By Jonathan Rosenblum, Jacobin

14 October 18


Jeff Bezos doesn't deserve any praise for the recent raise at Amazon — not least because $15 isn't anywhere near enough.

ower concedes nothing without a demand,” abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass declared 161 years ago. Last week saw that truth on broad display as Amazon, facing growing political and organizing pressure, announced it was setting a minimum wage of $15 an hour for its US workforce and also raising wages in England.

The company’s declaration followed months of mounting bad publicity for Amazon. US workers have been speaking out in greater numbers about the punishing pace of work, high injury rates, and a plantation mentality on the warehouse floor. A British journalist went undercover at Amazon and wrote a book describing workers forced to pee in bottles and extraordinarily high rates of depression. (Ironically, Hired: Six Months Undercover in Low-Wage Britain is selling remarkably well on amazon.com.)

Amazon workers in Germany, Poland, and Spain struck on Amazon’s Prime Day in June, protesting appalling working conditions. In the US, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) went after the company for paying such poor wages that much of its workforce is dependent on public benefits like food stamps, housing subsidies, and Medicaid. And Amazon’s wage concession followed continued high-visibility mobilizations by the Fight for 15 against McDonald’s and other corporate targets.

Naturally, Amazon executives sought to pivot talk away from corporate concession and towards business enlightenment. “We listened to our critics, thought hard about what we wanted to do, and decided we want to lead,” said Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s founder and CEO.

The political establishment lavished kudos on the company, valued at $1 trillion, and CEO Bezos, whose net wealth tops $150 billion, for its generosity to workers.

“An outstanding move,” gushed the Seattle Times editorial board in Amazon’s hometown. “Prime Amazon: In praise of the internet giant’s $15 hourly wage,” trumpeted the New York Daily News headline.

Fellow billionaire Nick Hanauer teamed up with union leader David Rolf to heap praise on the company. “Amazon has smartly chosen to lead the way into the real economy, where we solve the problems, build the things, and pay the wages that truly make America great,” Hanauer and Rolf wrote just hours after the company made the announcement. Even Bernie Sanders, Amazon’s erstwhile nemesis, felt compelled to pile on, congratulating Bezos personally in a tweet.

So much for the back-slapping and public optics. The view from the warehouse floor is a little more complicated. For while the raise certainly is a product of sustained pressure on the company, it’s not the game-changing largesse that Amazon’s public relations department would have us believe. In low-wage states like Kentucky and South Carolina, to be sure, the raises may amount to $2 or $3 an hour or more. But many Amazon warehouse workers, particularly on the coasts, already were paid close to $15 an hour.

And while rolling out the new wage rate with great fanfare, Amazon more quietly informed workers the company would be eliminating stock options and performance bonuses. For full-time workers in the company’s warehouses, those compensation add-ons had pushed them above $15 an hour. But no more. Many full-time workers will see minimal raises — or even net declines. Facing sharp backlash, Amazon this week conceded they’d give additional pay raises to the full-timers to make up for the lost bonuses.

How this latest twist plays out for the full-time workers remains to be seen. But suffice it to say, the raises won’t drain company coffers. Indeed, setting a $15 minimum wage for 350,000 Amazon workers likely will cost the company less than one tenth of one percent of its net worth: A pittance.

October 2 was the big announcement day. When a New Jersey fulfillment center manager excitedly announced the raise to a gathering of night-shift Amazon workers, the room remained silent, reported one of the workers. It was only when human resources staff started clapping aggressively that others gamely joined in, he said.

His colleagues will accept the raise since they have bills to pay, but because of the punishing pace, “Workers hate the company. People feel they’re treated like they are slaves,” he explained.

Workers at an Amazon warehouse outside Seattle, Washington, attributed the raise to Sanders’s advocacy and “people speaking up in an organized way,” according to a part-time distribution center worker. But the issues for Amazon’s workers go far beyond low wages, he said. The constant push for impossible levels of productivity, a lack of respect from supervisors, rampant workplace injuries, and continual burnout and workforce churn are what angers workers the most.

Those issues share a common root: a business model that implacably demands that workers submit to inhumane levels of exploitation. Unlike in Europe, where many Amazon workers have organized unions, struck, and won modest gains, US workers aren’t yet unified in sufficient numbers to make big demands on the corporate giant.

Will the splashy wage announcement head off incipient worker organizing? Quite to the contrary, asserted the Seattle worker. It will build confidence in organizing because it shows workers that the company will respond to pressure, he said.

It will take a lot more escalation to win meaningful change. The Amazon workers I’ve talked to over the last year agree that the company won’t fix the appalling conditions until it is forced to do so. That will happen when workers build union organization and, united with consumers and allies, prove they can disrupt Amazon’s operations and hit the company’s bottom line.

That may sound like a pipe-dream. But consider that a hundred years ago the titans of the emerging production economy—think basic steel, auto, and electrical industries—seemed omnipotent and untouchable. It took years of struggle, including many tough battles and devastating losses, before the wave of 1930s plant occupations and strikes led by socialists and radicals of various stripes forged new industrial unions. In doing so, they boosted not just working conditions in the production sector, but propelled a broader social movement that organized and won public works jobs, Social Security, labor rights, minimum wages, and other gains of the New Deal era.

Significantly, too, the same factors that shaped the meteoric growth of basic industry a hundred years ago — the tremendous economies of scale achievable in mass production, the deployment of cutting-edge technologies, and the application of precise scientific management of production and distribution, including a just-in-time employment model — are core elements of Amazon’s business model today.

The challenge, then as now, is for workers to recognize that as with the industrial monopolies of the last century, Amazon’s extraordinary sweep of power also is its Achilles heel—provided that workers organize. Alone, the Amazon warehouse worker is among the weakest of laborers in America; together in large numbers, they have the power not just to transform what it means to be a warehouse worker, but to help drive a new social movement in our country.

It’s worth recalling that in November 2012, much of the political punditocracy was aghast when a relatively small coterie of New York City fast-food workers first hoisted picket signs demanding $15 and a union. Such an unrealistic demand! Now, six years later, more than nineteen million low-wage US workers have won raises through legislation and workplace organizing as a result, directly or indirectly, of the Fight for $15 movement.

And yet, even with these gains, workers aren’t making it. Nearly 80 percent of full-time American workers say they live paycheck-to-paycheck, 71 percent are in debt, and most workers are unable to build up savings to get through a medical, employment, or housing crisis. America is, today, a nation of spectacular wealth enjoyed by the gilded 1 percent while tens of millions daily teeter on the brink of financial ruin and destitution.

Many of those desperate workers, indeed, already are paid $15 an hour. It’s just not nearly enough to live on.

Over the last six years, we’ve seen corporations like Target, Walmart, and Costco make economic concessions in an effort to forestall demands for something more valuable and radical — real worker power. Now, Amazon has fallen in line with its corporate siblings.

The pundits’ praise for Bezos is utterly misplaced. Praise should go to the workers, who endure brutal conditions, who have just achieved a modest yet remarkable concession from Amazon, and who, step by step, are struggling and learning to build worker power inside the behemoth. We must support them, because their success in this years-long battle will lift us all.

So, let’s be clear: $15 is not nearly enough. It’s time to raise a new banner, a much bolder one that demands an end to brutal working conditions and obscene profiteering, and a societal commitment to rights, security, and power for all workers.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS | A Chance to Swing the Senate: Cooks and Casino Workers Take on Trump Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=31568"><span class="small">Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 October 2018 11:53

Gordon writes: "It's what campaigners say every November, I know, but this year's election really is as important as it gets."

Dean Heller. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Dean Heller. (photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)


A Chance to Swing the Senate: Cooks and Casino Workers Take on Trump

By Rebecca Gordon, TomDispatch

14 October 18

 


The other day as I was passing through a waiting room in my gym, I suddenly saw -- well, who else in 2018? -- Donald Trump on a giant TV screen. He was trying on a specially made hardhat and preparing to address the National Electrical Contractors Association Convention. (“We are truly grateful to our electricians, our wiremen, linemen, engineers, technicians, journeymen, contractors, and apprentices -- oh, I love that word. That was a great -- I love the word ‘apprentice.’ [Applause.] I love that word. You know, I did that show 14 seasons, and then I left. They wanted to sign me for three more seasons. I said, ‘No, I’m going to run for president.’ [Laughter.] It’s true.”) And one thing struck me from watching his face, something we never cease to do these days: he’s having the time of his life. No kidding. He’s the center of everything, the beau of every ball. He’s historic! Yes, he truly is! No one has ever... no, never... been faintly attended to this way in the history of the media... in the history of anything. Period. Exclamation point!

Why would he want to do one thing differently? I can’t imagine. And any moment he’s feeling even slightly down, all he has to do is hold a rally and be buoyed and cheered (in both senses of the word). Really, it’s his world and welcome to it. Yes, as the New York Times revealed recently, so much about the story that got him elected president was a con. He wasn’t a self-made man, or rather a self-made billionaire, but a daddy’s boy, a "self-made sham." He was already pulling in $200,000 a year (in today’s dollars) by age three and a millionaire, thanks to daddy, by age eight. And he and his family, the Times suggested, cut corners and cheated on their taxes to give themselves money galore from their dad’s businesses even as The Donald himself bounced from one disaster to another. (Who even remembers the Trump Shuttle or the moment the Trump-owned Plaza Hotel went bankrupt, not to speak of those five Atlantic City casinos that went down in a heap?)

But here’s the thing: none of it really matters. As Hillary Clinton and crew didn’t understand when it came to The Donald's unreleased tax returns in 2016, Americans love a con man. It’s in the American tradition to admire someone who beats the system (even if you can’t). And that applies to taking daddy’s money, too, and claiming otherwise. Don’t think for a second that it will shake his adoring base. The catch, of course, is that while Donald Trump can get away with being a self-made sham, most Americans can’t and when the fat hits the fire -- and it will sooner or later -- he’ll undoubtedly escape with the dollars, as he has in the past, but his base and so many other Americans won’t (any more than they did in the 2008-2010 Great Recession). 

Right now, the checks on him are so minimal that he can live it up until hell freezes over, which is why the coming midterms are undoubtedly an election for the ages.  Whether it’s a blue wave or an orange one will matter bigly, which is why those who are working to ensure that the oranging of America won’t go on forever may be the unsung heroes of our moment. Here, then, is a report from TomDispatch regular Rebecca Gordon, who usually brings us news about American torture practices and our never-ending wars, but in these months has found herself on another kind of front line entirely -- in Nevada and deep in the mid-term moment.

-Tom Engelhardt, TomDispatch


A Chance to Swing the Senate
Cooks and Casino Workers Take on Trump

t’s what campaigners say every November, I know, but this year’s election really is as important as it gets. Will U.S. voters choose to halt the progress of Donald J. Trump’s slow-motion coup? Or will the tide just continue rolling over us? So much depends on what happens in Nevada -- a state that once elected a senator by a mere 401 votes. The race between Jacky Rosen and Dean Heller represents the best chance we have of taking the Senate away from the GOP this year. That’s why 40 people are spending two months living in a hotel this fall, working to make it happen. I’m one of them.

It’s 11:00 on a Tuesday morning in Reno, Nevada, when Christina, Cesar, and Nate step to the front of the room to start the meeting. They begin a slow, accelerating clapping, and the room responds in kind. “Se puede o no se puede?” shouts Cesar. (“Can we do it or not?”) “Sí se puede!” comes the thunderous answer. (“Yes, we can!”)

Next, a canvasser named Tonya gives the weather report: “It’s gonna get up to 92 today, with just a little bit of breeze. So drink lots of water.” Then Christina goes over yesterday’s numbers: “We knocked on 2,148 doors and talked to 612 voters. We identified 429 Rosen supporters and 419 for Sisolak. That’s great!” Again, everyone applauds.

Christina, Cesar, and Nate are our team captains, the “leads,” as we call them, of this election effort. We’re all part of what’s known as an “independent expenditure campaign”; that is, we do our work without coordination or even communication with any candidate’s organization. Our campaign has been mounted by Culinary Workers Local 226 under the auspices of the AFL-CIO to elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate and the governor’s mansion.

Like the leads, Tonya is one of almost 40 rank-and-file members of UNITE HERE, the hotel, casino, and food-service workers union in North America. Along with some family and friends, they’re now in Nevada for the duration. They’ve taken a leave of absence from their jobs as cooks, casino workers, hotel housekeepers, and airport catering workers to help elect Jacky Rosen senator and Steve Sisolak governor. For two months they’re living away from their homes and families in an extended-stay hotel.

Six days a week, these men and women hit the streets of Washoe County, knocking on doors to talk with voters about the issues that truly matter: the rising cost of living, a stagnant minimum wage, the overcrowding and underfunding of local schools, and Republican efforts to deny health insurance to Nevadans with pre-existing conditions or throw hundreds of thousands of people off the Medicaid rolls. They listen to voters’ stories and respond with their own.

I live in San Francisco, but until November 6th, I’ve joined them here in a campaign that seems to go on 24 hours a day. Most of my own work is done in a cramped office attached to the main room of the campaign’s headquarters, where I share a desk with Paul, the other “data nerd.” We spend our days hunched over laptops, preparing the lists of voters and their addresses that the canvassers will load into their electronic tablets the following day.

Get-out-the-vote technology has come a long way since we used to buy expensive paper lists from private companies and photocopy precinct maps purchased from the local registrar of voters. Today, most progressive campaigns contract with NGP VAN, an integrated electoral database that facilitates all kinds of voter contact, from email to phone banks to door knocking. Using the VAN, campaigners can locate specific voters they particularly want to talk with, based on, among other things, age, gender, race, party affiliation, and voting frequency.

Data nerds like Paul and me can then explore individual precinct maps filled with the dots of target houses and use a mouse to draw boundaries around areas where the canvassers should be putting their energies. It’s a process known as “cutting turf.” ­Canvassers load these “turfs” onto their tablets daily and promptly have a map of where they’re going, including information about each voter they’re likely to run into. They can then add to our database by recording observations and the results of their conversations as notes for future canvassers: “Mean dog,” “Confederate flag hanging in the garage,” or “needs a ride to the polls.” Each night, the results of that day’s canvass are uploaded to the VAN.

Wonderful as it may be, however, the technology remains secondary to the true wonder of this Nevada campaign: the surprisingly powerful conversations that canvassers are having when they knock on those doors. More about those conversations later, but first a bit about why they’re so important.

What Are the Stakes?

Nevada’s voters -- along with those in a few other states -- have the opportunity to shift the balance of power in the Senate. Reclaiming one (or at least part of one) of the three branches of the federal government is the best hope of staving off the overlapping agendas of President Trump and the Republicans.

Voters here also have the chance to elect a Democratic governor. Control of state legislatures and governorships has gained a particular significance as the 2020 census approaches, because state governments control the process of drawing congressional districts. According to the Gallup polling organization, since 2006, Republican Party affiliation has hovered somewhere between 26% and 30% of the population, but the gerrymandering of congressional districts has helped that party hold onto 236 of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives. (The Democrats have 193 and six seats are presently vacant.) Every 10 years, after the national census, congressional districts get redrawn. So the best chance of reclaiming future House seats from Republican gerrymandering lies in winning as many statehouses and governorships as possible now.

The U.S. and the rest of the world have endured more than a year and a half of Donald J. Trump, his bluster, bombast, and horrific blunders. After years of complaining that this country is the world’s laughingstock, the president finally demonstrated the truth of that claim when a recent self-aggrandizing speech of his provoked laughter at the U.N. General Assembly.

We’ve lived through a presidential election tainted by Russian interference; an ever-flowing stream of blatant lies from the White House; the vile separation of families at the U.S.-Mexico border; the successful appointment to the Supreme Court of two right-wing ideologues; the recycling of Bush and even Reagan-era war criminals; and the continuation of U.S. support for a criminal and ruinous war in Yemen, where millions of people are teetering on the edge of famine.

Over the last 20 months, the Trump administration has begun to demonstrate the classic hallmarks of a fascist regime: racism, authoritarianism, and extreme nationalism. This rightward lurch comes in the disturbing context of growing anti-democratic movements internationally -- from eastern Europe and Germany to Brazil and the Philippines.

That’s why it’s hard to overstate the importance of this campaign in Washoe, Nevada’s second-most-populous county, where Reno is located. In 2008 and 2012 -- together with Clark County, home of Las Vegas -- Washoe helped swing the state for Barack Obama. In 2016, its voters did the same for Hillary Clinton. In this year’s mid-term election, it holds the key to possibly turning the Senate.

For almost a decade, Washoe and Clark counties have put Nevada in the “blue state” column, but the margins have grown slimmer each year. According to figures assembled by UNITE HERE, Barack Obama beat John McCain in this state by almost 120,000 votes. Four years later, he beat Mitt Romney by a little less than 68,000. In 2016, Clinton won Nevada by only 27,200 votes.

As is so often the case in a mid-term campaign, turnout is the crucial factor. It’s not easy to get people to vote in a non-presidential election year, even when their own interests are very much at stake. And that’s where the union’s approach is crucial.

I’ve worked in a fair number of electoral campaigns over the years, some of them run by issue-based political organizations, some on behalf of a specific candidate. The compressed timeframe and exhausting pace can create a powerful incentive for the people involved to be less than truthful about their achievements. Sometimes it’s lies all the way to the top. Precinct walkers exaggerate their contact numbers when reporting to their leads. Leads exaggerate their team numbers to their supervisors, and so on up the chain.

This campaign has been different. The leadership is focused on getting as accurate a picture as possible of each day’s canvassing, of the quality as well as the quantity of discussions with voters. The leads work with canvassers to be sure that when a voter replies, “I guess so,” to “Can we count on you to vote for Jackie Rosen?” that “guess” doesn’t get recorded as “strong support.” That voter is someone we should talk with again and possibly even offer to bring to a polling site ourselves during Nevada’s two-week early-voting period.

Three Organizing Skills

Many of the canvassers have worked on union-organizing campaigns in their own shops. In fact, recently one of our organizers, Seth, was over the moon because his local in Sacramento, California, just won a contract they’d spent months fighting for. Leaving that city in the midst of that campaign was a hard choice for him, but the skills he brought to Reno have proven invaluable.

It’s fair to say that UNITE HERE has at least two goals in this campaign. The first, of course, is to elect Jacky Rosen and Steve Sisolak, which, as these campaigners see it, will further both the interests of working people in general and the union’s goals in particular. These include guaranteeing the rights of immigrants, who make up much of the workforce in the hospitality sector of the economy; advancing the concept that “one job should be enough” for economic survival; and keeping the government from taxing the hard-won health benefits of union members while ensuring that all working people have access to adequate health care.

Rosen, for example, is committed to raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.  (Since 2009, it’s been stuck at $7.25.) She has also visited the U.S.-Mexico border to investigate the grim conditions at Trump-era immigrant detention facilities. Finally, unlike her opponent, she’s committed to holding on to the health-care rights Americans won under Obamacare.

But that’s only for starters. The campaign also has a second purpose, as important to the union in its own way as winning this election: the development of future organizers and leaders from its rank and file. UNITE HERE emphasizes leadership among those who are the majority of its members -- immigrants, people of color, and women. I often overhear the leads discussing how to help specific canvassers practice leadership skills. Most mornings, Cesar, Nate, and Christina -- each of whom came from that same rank and file -- ask a few of the canvassers to demonstrate one of three crucial organizing skills: getting in the door, asking an “agitational” question, or telling a personal story. All three will help any canvasser make a genuine connection, however brief it may be, with the stranger who opens the door when they knock.

“Getting in the door” means being able to catch a potential voter’s attention, even after she says she’s busy, or not interested, or disgusted by all the negative ads she’s seen on TV. There’s no way to identify a voter as one of yours -- or persuade her to become one -- if you can’t even start a conversation with her. I often watch canvassers demonstrate approaches that work for them. A typical one I heard the other day: “I can see you’re really busy and I wouldn’t interrupt you, except that this is really important for our community. I’m a hotel room cleaner from Northern California spending two months away from my family, living in a hotel, to have a chance to talk with people like you.” It works, because it’s real.

You then ask what the leads call “an agitational question” to heighten the emotion of the moment, raise the temperature a little. This is effective, but only if you’ve paid close attention to whatever clues you can pick up about the situation of the person on the other side of that door. It also means really listening to how they answer your questions. Otherwise, you won’t connect to a voter’s genuine concerns. “Is the cost of living affecting your family?” a canvasser might ask in a less-affluent area. “Are you worried about how crowded your children’s schools are getting?” could be a question that gets the attention of a voter with a yard full of toys. Not surprisingly, for instance, some Spanish-speakers respond emotionally to questions focused on how they feel about the president who launched his campaign by decrying “Mexican rapists.” Canvassers come back to the office and role-play their conversations, constantly trying to figure out better ways to make and hold that crucial connection to a voter.

“Telling a personal story” is a way of inviting that voter to see the unknown person at her door as someone like herself and to understand why that canvasser really believes her vote matters. Several mornings we’ve listened teary-eyed as a canvasser tells a story from her own life. “I was homeless as a child,” one woman began, “and I don’t want any other child to have to go through what my family and I did.” Her generosity in exposing her life not just to fellow campaigners but to complete strangers, to people who might mock or even rudely dismiss her -- or might be moved enough to really begin to talk -- inspired us all to keep at it.

Wide and Deep

In the past, when I’ve worked on electoral campaigns with community organizers, I’ve found that they’re often frustrated with the minimalist quality of the contacts permitted anyone by the pace of an electoral campaign. That’s not surprising since community organizers want to make deep connections with potential or actual community leaders. For that, multiple conversations and visits to people’s homes are often a necessity, so that there’s time for both of you to open up and make a true connection. 

Electoral organizing, by contrast, is often described as going wide but not deep. Your goal is to touch as many people as possible, with time in short supply, and get them to vote your way in a specific election (or simply out to vote). It’s all about the numbers. That’s why electoral organizing can, in the end, be so unsatisfying. Even when you win, it can feel like you haven’t built anything lasting. The day after the election, the organization you helped put together is usually dismantled like the campaign office where you’ve lived for the previous few months. Even when community organizations participate in elections, they often find it difficult to consolidate their relationships with the campaign volunteers, let alone the actual voters they’ve met.

Knowing all that, why did I choose this particular campaign to work on in 2018? I could, for instance, have tried to add my bit to Stacey Abrams's run for governor in Georgia. I’d certainly love to see that particular black woman occupy that particular post. Like many folks I know, I could have worked in northern California’s 10th congressional district where a Democrat has a rare chance to unseat an incumbent Republican. But I chose to come to Nevada for two reasons.

I wanted to work on a campaign that I knew would be well-organized and well run, that wouldn’t waste my time or that of other campaign workers, volunteers, and above all voters. Experience had shown me that UNITE HERE knows how to get things done.

I also wanted to work on a campaign that would build beyond Election Day. As the daughter of a sometime union organizer and a proud member of my own union of part-time college faculty, I believe that, despite their internal failings and the endless vicious attacks launched on them in this century, unions remain the best vehicle for the collective power of working people. And that power -- combined with the strength of national and international movements for peace and racial, gender, and climate justice -- is what stands between Donald J. Trump and his plutocratic ilk and the rest of us.

And I’m impressed with this union-run electoral campaign in the northwestern corner of Nevada. Six days a week, at least nine hours a day, ordinary working people are going both wide and deep in an organized effort to build political power and better the lives of workers and their families. Their eyes are on Nevada in an election where the stakes couldn’t be higher. 

Email This Page


Rebecca Gordon, a TomDispatch regular, teaches at the University of San Francisco. She is the author of American Nuremberg: The U.S. Officials Who Should Stand Trial for Post-9/11 War Crimes. Her previous books include Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States and Letters from Nicaragua.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, Beverly Gologorsky's novel Every Body Has a Story and Tom Engelhardt's A Nation Unmade by War, as well as Alfred McCoy's In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power, John Dower's The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II, and John Feffer's dystopian novel Splinterlands.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: It Is Up to Us to Make Our Voices Heard in Order to Salvage Our Democracy Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36361"><span class="small">Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 October 2018 10:47

Reich writes: "With less than a month until the midterms, billionaires and corporations are dumping huge sums of money into our political system to keep Republicans in control of Congress."

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)
Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich. (photo: Steve Russell/Toronto Star)


It Is Up to Us to Make Our Voices Heard in Order to Salvage Our Democracy

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Facebook Page

14 October 18

 

ith less than a month until the midterms, billionaires and corporations are dumping huge sums of money into our political system to keep Republicans in control of Congress. Casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has just forked over more cash to boost Republican-aligned Super PACs ahead of Election Day. This year Adelson and his have wife have donated more than $50 million to support the Republican Party -- a small fraction of the the estimated $700 million windfall Adelson's casino business will receive because of the Trump-GOP tax cuts.

This week we also learned that Trump personally lobbied the prime minister of Japan on Adelson's behalf to help him secure a lucrative gambling license. It is up to us to make our voices heard in order to salvage our democracy from this corruption. But we can't overcome this avalanche of money, unless we vote.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The People Orchestrating This Policy Should Be in the Hague Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=11104"><span class="small">Charles Pierce, Esquire</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 October 2018 08:48

Pierce writes: "Everybody involved in this policy should sleep tonight in a bunk bed in The Hague."

A migrant family. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A migrant family. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)


The People Orchestrating This Policy Should Be in the Hague

By Charles Pierce, Esquire

14 October 18


Yeah, they're Americans. Send them to the International Criminal Court, and send the kids back to their families.

verybody involved in this policy should sleep tonight in a bunk bed in The Hague. From The New Yorker:

According to a long-standing legal precedent known as the Flores settlement, which established guidelines for keeping children in immigration detention, Helen had a right to a bond hearing before a judge; that hearing would have likely hastened her release from government custody and her return to her family. At the time of her apprehension, in fact, Helen checked a box on a line that read, “I do request an immigration judge,” asserting her legal right to have her custody reviewed.
But, in early August, an unknown official handed Helen a legal document, a “Request for a Flores Bond Hearing,” which described a set of legal proceedings and rights that would have been difficult for Helen to comprehend. (“In a Flores bond hearing, an immigration judge reviews your case to determine whether you pose a danger to the community,” the document began.) On Helen’s form, which was filled out with assistance from officials, there is a checked box next to a line that says, “I withdraw my previous request for a Flores bond hearing.” Beneath that line, the five-year-old signed her name in wobbly letters.

Double-talking a kindergartner out of her rights. Now, that's the way to be a great nation on the world stage. That's making American great again.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
West Virginia's Absurd, Dangerous Supreme Court Impeachment Crisis Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=38548"><span class="small">Mark Joseph Stern, Slate</span></a>   
Sunday, 14 October 2018 08:42

Stern writes: "This saga is an object lesson in the perils of politicizing the judiciary. A minor conflict over the court's budget has escalated into a standoff between the court and the legislature, one driven by Republican efforts to wrest control of the judiciary from Democrats."

West Virginia state Supreme Court Justice Robin Davis on Oct. 3, 2012; Justice Allen Loughry on Oct. 3, 2012; Justice Beth Walker on March 16, 2016; and Justice Margaret Workman on Dec. 29, 2008. (photo: Charleston Gazette-Mail/AP)
West Virginia state Supreme Court Justice Robin Davis on Oct. 3, 2012; Justice Allen Loughry on Oct. 3, 2012; Justice Beth Walker on March 16, 2016; and Justice Margaret Workman on Dec. 29, 2008. (photo: Charleston Gazette-Mail/AP)


West Virginia's Absurd, Dangerous Supreme Court Impeachment Crisis

By Mark Joseph Stern, Slate

14 October 18


The case just went to … the West Virginia Supreme Court, where every justice is either disqualified from hearing it or has been suspended without pay.

ant to know what a real constitutional crisis looks like? Consider the current situation in West Virginia, where the House of Delegates impeached the entire state Supreme Court in August, alleging improper use of government funds. Chief Justice Margaret Workman sued the legislature, alleging that her impeachment violated the state constitution. Her case went to … the West Virginia Supreme Court, where every justice is either disqualified from hearing it or has been suspended without pay. Five acting justices—who were appointed by an appointed justice, who in turn was selected by a retired justice, who was chosen by Workman—heard the case instead. On Thursday, they ruled unanimously in Workman’s favor.

The West Virginia Senate initially planned to ignore the court’s decision and proceed with Workman’s trial. It stood down only when Justice Paul T. Farrell, who was set to conduct the proceedings, announced he would not participate in a trial his own court had found to be illegal. Meanwhile, the House of Delegates has declared it will present its case to the Senate anyway.

This saga is an object lesson in the perils of politicizing the judiciary. A minor conflict over the court’s budget has escalated into a standoff between the court and the legislature, one driven by Republican efforts to wrest control of the judiciary from Democrats. Lawmakers are poised to defy an order of the state Supreme Court, permanently subverting the constitutional separation of powers. There are no real good guys in this story, but some are certainly worse than others. And if Republicans succeed in their scheme, they will have provided a road map to other politicians eager to defang an independent judiciary.

The West Virginia calamity began in late 2017, when a local news station revealed that the justices had spent large sums of money on office renovations. This spending, while distasteful, was not clearly illegal, as the court has near-total control over its own budget. Still, a bipartisan group of legislators urged further investigations. Republicans delayed action until August because it benefited them politically to do so. The justices are elected, and Democrats have long held a 3–2 majority on the court. Any justice impeached before mid-August would be replaced in November through an election. A justice impeached after Aug. 14, however, would be replaced by Republican Gov. Jim Justice and would not face election until May 2020. The legislature engineered its assault on the court to ensure the governor could replace Democrats with Republicans.

Still, the court itself was not blameless. Justice Menis Ketchum, a Democrat, resigned from the court in July then pleaded guilty to a felony count of wire fraud. Justice Allen Loughry, a Republican, was indicted in June for fraud, false statements, and witness tampering. Loughry, who was suspended from the court but refuses to resign, was convicted on multiple counts of fraud and false statements. The other three justices—Workman, Robin Davis, and Beth Walker—are accused of less serious wrongdoing, namely exorbitant use of state funds. Davis resigned rather than face impeachment and is suing the legislature in federal court. Walker, a staunch conservative, was acquitted by the Senate in October. It appears likely that Republicans never intended to remove Walker and impeached her only for consistency’s sake, since she too spent a great deal of money ($130,655) to upgrade her chambers.

That leaves Workman, a liberal lion who was elected to the court in 1988, stepped down in 1999, and then was elected to the court again in 2008. Like her colleagues, Workman spent a questionable amount of money ($111,035) renovating her chambers. Along with Loughry and Davis, she also overpaid retired judges who filled in on circuit courts, exceeding the statutory limit (though complying with the pay scale promulgated by the court itself). Workman was impeached on the basis of her imprudent spending and overpayments. In September, she sued the legislature, alleging that her impeachment violated the state constitution and urging the state Supreme Court to halt her impending Senate trial.

This presented a problem: There is not really a West Virginia Supreme Court at the moment, at least not one that can adjudicate this dispute. Workman disqualified herself from hearing her own case. Walker disqualified herself, as well, since she faced a similar charge to Workman. Loughry remains suspended, and Acting Justice Paul Farrell Sr., who is temporarily replacing Loughry, disqualified himself too. Justices Tim Armstead and Evan Jenkins, whom the governor appointed to replace Ketchum and Davis, also declined to participate, apparently due to the potential conflict of interest. There are thus zero sitting justices able to hear Workman’s case.

In response, Workman herself asked a former justice, Thomas McHugh, to appoint an acting chief justice. McHugh selected Harrison County Circuit Judge James Matish. Then Matish appointed four acting justices to replace Walker, Armstead, Jenkins, and Farrell (who is himself replacing Loughry). It was this court that heard Workman’s case—a court selected by neither the people of West Virginia, nor the legislature, nor the governor.

On Thursday, this makeshift court ruled emphatically in Workman’s favor, holding that the legislature’s actions violated both separation of powers and due process. The state Senate could not lawfully remove Workman for overpaying senior judges, the court explained, because the state constitution grants the court sole authority for promulgating its own rules. While the legislature attempted to limit these payments, the chief justice expressly overruled these restrictions, and Workman therefore acted within her constitutional authority in disbursing larger paychecks. Moreover, the court found that the legislature has no power to impeach a justice based on alleged violations of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct. Once again, the state constitution permits the court, and only the court, to enforce this code. An unproven allegation that a justice flouted the code may not provide the basis for impeachment. So Workman cannot be removed for allegedly violating the code by spending too much on renovations.

The court also found that the legislature infringed upon Workman’s due process rights by departing from the legal procedures that govern impeachment. Oddly, the House of Delegates failed to set out “findings of fact” in its articles of impeachment—a clear obligation under state law. The House also declined to explain how precisely Workman’s conduct constituted an impeachable offense. As a result, the court held “in the strongest of terms” that the legislature contravened due process and invalidated all articles of impeachment against Workman. (All five justices agreed that the proceedings violated separation of powers, but two held that the court should not have resolved the due process claim, viewing it as a political question, not a legal one.)

Stripped of its legalese, this decision clarifies what most observers already know: This impeachment is fundamentally political, and the legislature has executed it in a remarkably incompetent manner. The West Virginia Constitution permits impeachment “for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, gross immorality, neglect of duty, or any high crime or misdemeanor.” It’s telling that the House did not even attempt to explain how Workman’s conduct fit any of these categories. The chief justice expended funds in accordance with judicial guidelines. For better or worse, the constitution allows the state Supreme Court to create its own regulations and procedures. Workman did not violate them. How can she be impeached for “maladministration” when she administered the court in accordance with its own rules?

Regardless, Thursday’s decision is already under attack from Republicans, who appear eager to reject it as fruit of the poisonous tree. Workman did not have direct control over the makeshift court’s personnel, but she did select the judge who appointed the temporary chief justice, who then stocked the rest of the bench. As Republicans’ early refusal to comply with the court’s decision illustrates, this absurd process yielded a result that’s easy to dismiss as illegitimate. In all likelihood, we have not yet heard the last word on the impeachment of Margaret Workman.

In its Thursday opinion, the West Virginia Supreme Court bemoaned the current state of affairs. “The greatest fear we should have in this country today is ourselves,” the court wrote. “If we do not stop the infighting, work together, and follow the rules; if we do not use social media for good rather than use it to destroy; then in the process, we will destroy ourselves.” What we are witnessing in West Virginia today is a government destroying itself. It began as a partisan power grab. It may end in the destruction of an entire state judiciary.

Email This Page

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 Next > End >>

Page 1110 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