RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
Fast Food Automation, an Old Idea, Gets New Life to Bash Fight for 15 Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=35632"><span class="small">Adam Johnson, FAIR</span></a>   
Sunday, 11 December 2016 09:21

Johnson writes: "Putatively liberal outlet Vox spends a great many column inches trying to stop the national labor movement known as 'Fight for 15' from increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour."

'Fight for Fifteen' protest. (photo: Mike Groll/AP)
'Fight for Fifteen' protest. (photo: Mike Groll/AP)


Fast Food Automation, an Old Idea, Gets New Life to Bash Fight for 15

By Adam Johnson, FAIR

11 December 16

 

utatively liberal outlet Vox spends a great many column inches trying  to stop the national labor movement known as “Fight for 15” from increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Its most frequent writer on the subject, Timothy Lee, is a former adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, and is on the record opposing any minimum wage (when debating between $12 and $15, he doesn’t mention that he prefers $0), so it’s entirely predictable he would consistently argue against Fight for 15:

  • “What Bernie Sanders Misses About a $15 Minimum Wage” (11/15/15)
  • “Hillary Clinton Knows a National $15 Minimum Wage Is a Bad Idea. She Endorsed It Anyway” (4/15/16)
  • “California Just Passed a $15 Minimum Wage. Even Left-Leaning Economists Say It’s a Gamble” (5/31/16)

Lee’s posts on the topic consist of hand-wringing over theoretical loss of employment and an increased incentive for automation technology. He’s written a variation of the same article several times before; his latest, “‘I Told You So’: Former McDonald’s Exec Blames Fight for 15 for New Touchscreen Ordering” (11/30/16), is the same as all the previous ones, only with the topical hook of a McDonald’s PR campaign and a Forbes op-ed (11/29/16) by former McDonald’s CEO Ed Rensi:

“I told you so,” he writes. “In 2013, when the Fight for 15 was still in its growth stage, I and others warned that union demands for a much higher minimum wage would force businesses with small profit margins to replace full-service employees with costly investments in self-service alternatives.”

But McDonald’s, the fast food industry’s lobbyists and right-wing media outlets have been making this threat for years, long before Fight for 15 gained mainstream acceptance and any political victories:

  • “McDonald’s Fries Only a Click Away” (Reuters, 6/13/03)
  • “McDonald’s Hires 7,000 Touch-Screen Cashiers” (CNET, 5/17/11)
  • “The Fast-Food Restaurants That Require Few Human Workers” (NPR, 8/26/13)

The idea that McDonald’s would expand its use of kiosk technology is neither novel nor certain, but Lee presents it as a direct response to Fight for 15, rather than a long-planned technological adaptation that remains up in the air:

Now, Rensi says, his prediction is coming true. McDonald’s is just one of several restaurants around the country that are experimenting with automated restaurant technologies. If jurisdictions continue to push up the minimum wage, more and more businesses will look for ways to automate their operations in order to avoid having to pay higher wages.

The economic logic of Rensi’s argument is impeccable.

“Impeccable,” you say? Please tell us how.

If you make the minimum wage high enough, businesses will look for more opportunities for automation and hire fewer workers. The question is whether a $15 minimum wage is high enough to induce a lot of employers to switch to more automated systems.

And earlier this month, McDonald’s announced that it was going to begin installing touchscreen ordering kiosks in its restaurants, which should allow restaurants to serve more customers with fewer workers.

But there’s no reason to think these experiments wouldn’t have happened without Fight for 15. Indeed, as mentioned above, these announcements predate Fight for 15, and have been “announced” in some form or another several times.

Does this mean McDonald’s isn’t rolling out kiosk technology in earnest? Of course not; corporations are always looking for new technologies to reduce labor costs. But would this roll-out somehow not occur if workers struggling to stay above the poverty line hadn’t taken to the streets to demand a living wage? Predictably, this is not a question Lee feels a need to explore, much less answer.

In patented Vox “explainer” fashion, Lee ends the piece with lazy condescension:

It’s easy to get people fired up about an alliterative slogan like “Fight for 15.” But alliteration isn’t necessarily a good way to choose a policy goal. The implicit idea here—that people everywhere should get the same minimum wage whether they live in a booming, expensive metropolis or a struggling town with a low cost of living—doesn’t make a lot of sense.

“It doesn’t make a lot of sense, you economically literate rubes” isn’t the most compelling argument, but Lee only has 500 or so words to play with, so his denouement being a self-reinforcing insult is understandable. Blaming automation, in general, is a great get-of-jail-free PR card for corporations who plan to or may plan on cutting jobs, and want to turn the public sentiment away from supporting pro-labor measures.

If you get too greedy, we’ll fire all of you” is an anti-worker threat as old as organized labor. Only now, the Pinkertons have been replaced by a sophisticated public relations machine that relies, in part, on credulous write-ups from outlets like Vox.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Trump's Picks for EPA and Interior Threaten the Future of Clean Water Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=36364"><span class="small">Sharon Lerner, The Intercept</span></a>   
Sunday, 11 December 2016 09:21

Lerner writes: "Trump's picks could permanently damage the country's waters, too."

A worker hired by BP to help clean the beaches of oil work in a contaminated area on June 12, 2010 in Grand Isle, Louisiana. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A worker hired by BP to help clean the beaches of oil work in a contaminated area on June 12, 2010 in Grand Isle, Louisiana. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)


Trump's Picks for EPA and Interior Threaten the Future of Clean Water

By Sharon Lerner, The Intercept

11 December 16

 

nvironmentalists have been rightly focused on the fact that climate deniers Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency, and Cathy McMorris Rodgers, whom he is expected to nominate for the Department of the Interior, could devastate the Clean Power Plan, the Paris Accord and, through them, national and even global progress on climate change. But Trump’s picks could permanently damage the country’s waters, too.

Both have a record of wide-ranging hostility toward the environment. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, Pruitt repeatedly (and often unsuccessfully) sued the EPA to stop the agency from doing its job. McMorris Rodgers, a conservative member of the House from Washington who has received almost a half-million dollars in campaign contributions from oil and gas companies, earned a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters. Both have already made the dismantling of water protections a particular priority.

If appointed, these two foes of the earth will likely usher in dark days for our nation’s lakes, streams, and rivers. Our waterways are already in serious peril, according to an EPA evaluation of U.S. lakes released Friday. According to the report, 30 percent of lakes now contain the pesticide atrazine.

Water contamination will almost certainly increase if Pruitt declines to issue penalties to polluters and cuts the budgets of divisions responsible for enforcement, as his record and rhetoric has indicated he will.

“A lot of how much protection we get has to do with whether the agency chooses to buddy up to the industry or really hold them accountable for the violation of the laws,” said Maya van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper. Van Rossum is currently involved in fighting fracking and more than a dozen pipeline projects and fears the threats to the river basin will only increase.

“Under a Pruitt EPA, we’re going to have a whole agency that’s about turning a blind eye, rather than holding industries accountable and protecting the people,” said van Rossum.

While it will take years to feel the full effects of some environmental disasters, the impact of not enforcing water laws will be felt more quickly. “The scary thing about water is there’s no wiggle room,” said Lisa Garcia, vice president of litigation for healthy communities at Earthjustice. “Once you discharge contamination into our drinking water, that’s an immediate impact. This could turn into real impacts to human health. It’s not something you want to play around with.”

Yet Pruitt and McMorris Rodgers already have. Both nominees have vocally opposed the Waters of the United States Rule, which would extend federal protection to thousands of lakes, rivers, and streams and allow the EPA to use the Clean Water Act to prosecute people who pollute them. Last year, Pruitt sued the EPA over the rule because it would harm the “property rights of the average American.”

Though a court is currently reviewing the rule, as EPA head Pruitt could decide not to defend it or even withdraw it. Other water protections in the works that he could snuff out include a tightening of the rules on lead and copper piping. If finalized, those rules could help prevent another Flint.

“We’re really concerned about lead and copper,” said David Goldston, director of government affairs for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “But really it’s everything.”

The fact that Trump has already surrounded himself with so many enemies of the environment makes the threat all the worse. “An entire constellation of anti-environmental people would clearly put in place policies that are counter to the public interest,” said Goldston.

Now environmental groups are turning their energies to fighting the appointments. Some have noted that only a few Republicans would need to break ranks to block Pruitt’s path in the Senate. And the opposition to McMorris Rodgers has already begun. Just hours after Trump’s choice was reported, Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, called on any senator “with a concern for future generations of Americans” to oppose her: “Rep. McMorris Rodgers poses a clear and present danger to our treasured public lands.”


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
And Now We Sit and Watch in Disbelief Print
Saturday, 10 December 2016 16:00

Keillor writes: "It's a wonderful satire right out of Twain or Thurber, a minority of the electorate goes for the loosest and least knowledgeable candidate, certain that he will lose and their votes will only be harmless protest, a middle finger to Washington, and then - Whoa. The joke comes true. You put a whoopee cushion on your father's chair and he sits down and it barks and he has a massive coronary. You wanted to get a rise out of him and instead he falls down dead. Very funny."

Garrison Keillor. (photo: WPPB)
Garrison Keillor. (photo: WPPB)


And Now We Sit and Watch in Disbelief

By Garrison Keillor, The Washington Post

10 December 16

 

t's a wonderful satire right out of Twain or Thurber, a minority of the electorate goes for the loosest and least knowledgeable candidate, certain that he will lose and their votes will only be harmless protest, a middle finger to Washington, and then — Whoa. The joke comes true. You put a whoopee cushion on your father's chair and he sits down and it barks and he has a massive coronary. You wanted to get a rise out of him and instead he falls down dead. Very funny.

Thank you, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for this wonderful joke. Voters in high dudgeon against Wall Street manipulators and the Washington aristocracy vote for the billionaire populist who puts tycoons in power and the Republican hierarchy who owned the logjam that the voters voted against. If Billy the Kid had been smart, he'd've run for sheriff.

And now we sit and watch in disbelief as the victor drops one piece of china after another, spits in the soup, sticks his fist through a painting, and gobbles up the chocolates. Not satisfied with the usual election-night victory speech, he stages a post-election victory tour and gloatfest, a series of rallies in arenas where he can waggle his thumbs and smirk and holler and point out the journalists in their pen for the mob to boo and shake their fists at. He puts the Secret Service through their paces, highways are closed, planes diverted, cities disrupted, just so the man can say how much fun it was to defeat Hillary Clinton and confound the experts.

I stood in an airport last Thursday and watched live cable news coverage of his first stop in Indiana where he toured a factory whose owner had been promised a $7 million tax break in return for not laying off 800 workers. In November, 178,000 new jobs were created and unemployment fell, and here was a platoon of journalists in Indiana trailing a big galoot with a red tie who offered a corporation $7 million not to lose 800 workers. No gain, simply a non-loss. It was a classic TV moment, extensive live coverage of essentially nothing whatsoever and we all stood in a stupor and watched, like people mesmerized by drops of rain sliding down a windowpane.

Eighty-thousand Trump voters in three states gave us this man, which goes to show you how much damage a few people can do. It takes 12 million to provide health care, 3 million to run the public schools, but 19 men with box cutters can turn the country upside down and empower the paranoid right and create the pretense for wars that will cost billions and kill a million people and give us a permanent army of blue uniforms yelling at us to take off our shoes and put our laptops into plastic trays.

He is a showman and oddity has paid off for him, as it did for Lady Gaga and Gorgeous George and Liberace. But the public demands new tricks. Today, railing at the journalists who slavishly cover him is, like bear baiting or lion taming, entertainment enough, but by next fall he will need to pull canaries out of his ears, and by 2018 he'll be diving on horseback from a high tower into a pool of water while playing "Malaguena" on a trumpet.

Meanwhile, the Democrats wander in the woods, walking into trees. A wealthy San Francisco liberal is re-elected as minority leader in the House, having flung millions into the wind and gotten skunked in 2014 and drubbed this fall, and a lackluster black Muslim congressman from Minneapolis is a leading candidate for chair of the Democratic National Committee, the person who will need to connect with disaffected workers in Youngstown and Pittsburgh. Why not a ballet dancer or a Buddhist monk?

Meanwhile, the emperor-elect parades in the nude while his congressional courtiers admire him and the nation drifts toward the rapids. The one bright spot is the old draft-dodger's new-found fondness for generals, including the one who talked him out of the idea of torturing prisoners of war. Military experience does encourage a certain respect for reality. There is hope that if the showman should decide late one night to incinerate Iran or North Korea and get it over with, someone might say, "Hold on. Let's think this through."

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
FOCUS: Organizing Is Reaching Out, Not Tearing Down Print
Saturday, 10 December 2016 12:31

Galindez writes: "I have been advocating for progressives to take over the Democratic Party for a while now. Many of you are probably tired of hearing it. There is currently a battle being waged for control of the party that has gotten pretty nasty. It's not just the comment sections here on RSN that have gotten heated, but also Democratic Party discussion groups and meetings throughout the country."

Supporters of Bernie Sanders and the Green Party march with Cornel West in Philadelphia, PA, during the Democratic National Convention. (photo: Andrew Stefan/RSN)
Supporters of Bernie Sanders and the Green Party march with Cornel West in Philadelphia, PA, during the Democratic National Convention. (photo: Andrew Stefan/RSN)


Organizing Is Reaching Out, Not Tearing Down

By Scott Galindez, Reader Supported News

10 December 16

 

have been advocating for progressives to take over the Democratic Party for a while now. Many of you are probably tired of hearing it. There is currently a battle being waged for control of the party that has gotten pretty nasty. It’s not just the comment sections here on RSN that have gotten heated, but also Democratic Party discussion groups and meetings throughout the country.

We need to tone down the vitriol coming from progressives toward centrist and conservative Democrats, many of whom are great people who believe they have been supporting candidates who could get elected and usher in a more progressive agenda than the Republicans. We have to remember that it is a two-way street. Centrist candidates need us to win in November, and progressive candidates need centrists to win general elections when we have the nomination.

We need to come together and work to win the centrists over with a positive agenda. Tearing them down and playing the blame game will only alienate them and not encourage them to join us in moving the party in a new direction.

Many great progressive activists are organizing to change the direction of the party. Their job is more difficult when the people they need to win over are attacked and demonized by angry progressives who are shouting from the sidelines.

People like Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are not the enemy. Their supporters are not the enemy. They are the people we have to convince that our agenda is the right message for the Democratic Party. Our job is to convince them that establishment politics is not what the American people want anymore.

Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and politicians like Dick Gephardt thought the party was too liberal and blamed that for the party’s lack of success in presidential elections. That is what led to the “New Democrats.” They succeeded with Bill Clinton and took control of the Democratic Party.

The people who supported that shift are not evil people. They thought they were doing what they needed to do to keep the right wing out of power. Our job is to convince them that our country is ready for bold progressive politics. People are looking for candidates who represent their interests, not the interests of the establishment. That is why Donald Trump was able to pull out an Electoral College victory. As flawed as he was, the political establishment was resisting him. The American people are ready for real change, not politics as usual.

As you have heard me say many times, Bernie Sanders showed us the winning formula. I remember a rally in Marshalltown, Iowa, where I thought Bernie expressed it best. Watch this video and then go to work to make this the message of the Democratic Party. Organizing is reaching out, not tearing down.



Scott Galindez attended Syracuse University, where he first became politically active. The writings of El Salvador's slain archbishop Oscar Romero and the on-campus South Africa divestment movement converted him from a Reagan supporter to an activist for Peace and Justice. Over the years he has been influenced by the likes of Philip Berrigan, William Thomas, Mitch Snyder, Don White, Lisa Fithian, and Paul Wellstone. Scott met Marc Ash while organizing counterinaugural events after George W. Bush's first stolen election. Scott will be spending a year covering the presidential election from Iowa.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
What I Saw at the Michigan Recount Print
Saturday, 10 December 2016 09:36

Sharp writes: "On December 7, 2016, I volunteered as an observer with Recount Michigan 2016. I showed up at 9:00am sharp in the heart of Detroit, in heavily democratic Wayne County, Michigan."

A tabulator looks over a ballot during a presidential election recount. (photo: John Ehlke/AP)
A tabulator looks over a ballot during a presidential election recount. (photo: John Ehlke/AP)


What I Saw at the Michigan Recount

By Nick Sharp, Medium

10 December 16

 

n December 7, 2016, I volunteered as an observer with Recount Michigan 2016. I showed up at 9:00am sharp in the heart of Detroit, in heavily democratic Wayne County, Michigan.

It was a bloodbath.

I did not count a single vote during my entire first four-hour shift.

Trump’s legal team was there in force, circling the room like sharks. They were challenging everything, gumming up the works and disqualifying whole precincts. I was only aware of a single Green Party attorney plus one law student in my (large) room. Many challenges had one or more Trump lawyers speaking with election officials, and no legal advocate present for the other side; they were simply outnumbered and outgunned.

Every recount table had 1–2 Trump observers present, each one holding written scripts to challenge every single precinct, regardless of the facts.

(Note: I am not a lawyer, the next two paragraphs are my understanding based on what I observed on site.)

When a precinct is challenged, everything is recorded in writing by the election officials present. If the challenge is obviously true, the precinct in question is deemed un-recountable, right there. The civic employees write a report, return everything to the box, seal the box, and move on to the next precinct, then the process of recording and unsealing a box begins again.

But, even if the challenge is clearly contrived, it still has to be recorded, on the spot. The civic employees must fill out a form, in longhand, and write up a report?also in longhand?—?before they can get back to work counting ballots.

I sat at my table for a full hour before our first box was even unsealed.

Around the time our first box was finally getting unsealed, an exasperated election official shouted an announcement to the room. It was a large room and there were many people in it?—?he would have needed to shout anyway?—?but his frustration was clear. He had the air of a normally calm civic bureaucrat trying to do his job and get the votes counted on time, but who had been pushed to the breaking point by Trump’s lawyers and their delay tactics.

The election official announced that Trump’s head lawyer had just filed a blanket challenge in the state capitol. So, (here, I’m paraphrasing from memory) “All precincts have already been challenged. You don’t have to read your scripts anymore, we’re not writing down the challenges. If you still want to read them, go ahead and read them.” (Shouting louder) “But we’re not writing them down any more.” (He raised his arms) “We’re not gonna do it!”

Trump observers kept reading their challenges, and civic employees kept counting ballots, trying to concentrate on the count. A miscount of one in a thousand could (and did!) disqualify entire precincts from the recount. Thousands of votes and hours of counting were disqualified if one ballot in a thousand was missed amid the chaos in the room.

Why did Detroit and Wayne County?—?the bluest county in Michigan?—?have so many Republican lawyers present?

Where did all these Republican lawyers come from? They looked like they walked in straight out of a Brooks Brothers catalog, but they were not there to have a good time.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I wonder?—?were there similar swarms of Republican lawyers in the red counties, challenging everything?

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 1791 1792 1793 1794 1795 1796 1797 1798 1799 1800 Next > End >>

Page 1800 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