Flush TPP Protest L.A. 11-25-13

Obama, Pelosi And Reid Greeted By Anti-TPP Protesters In LA

Uncategorized Corporatism, Democracy, Finance and the Economy, Food, healthcare, Internet, TPP, video
By Lauren Steiner, www.PopularResistance.org
November 28th, 2013

  Powered by Translate

5

Above: About 250 people greeted President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi with protests against the TPP at a high donor fundraiser in Los Angeles.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (#TPP), a global trade agreement being secretly negotiated by the US Trade Representative with 600 transnational corporations and industry trade groups, will affect nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives. If passed, it will undermine state, local and federal laws, including those governing food safety, environmental protection, internet freedom, worker rights, democratic sovereignty, healthcare and drug prices, and banking and finance regulation.
In short, it will be a disaster for public health and safety, future sustainability of the world’s food supply and basic democratic principles.
When asked why it was being negotiated in secret, Ron Kirk, the former US trade negotiator said, “Because if the people knew what was in it, it would never be passed.” It’s bad enough that Congress and the public have been shut out of these negotiations, while corporations are running the show. But even worse, the Obama Administration wants to ram the TPP through Congress using a Nixon-era process called Fast Track.
On November 25th, Barack Obama came to Beverly Hills for a high dollar fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees at the Beverly Park homes of former basketball star Magic Johnson and billionaire media mogul Haim Saban. Tickets started at $2500 a person for the reception and $16,200 a person for the dinner.
250 protesters were there to greet Obama and tell him to flush the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Below is how the day and night went in pictures.
To join the campaign to stop the TPP and fast track visit www.FlushTheTPP.org.
Photo Gallery: The Democrats held a high dollar fundraiser in Beverly Hills on November 25th that was attended by the three Democratic leaders: President Obama, Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi — along with 250 people outside protesting the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The photographers for the photo essay below are: Barry Levine, Guero Cerdo, Jessica Niederbruning, D’Marie Mulattieri, JB Wagoner, Ina Martinez, Niloo Khodadadeh, Mike Chamness, Rachael Sullivan , Sheila Burnham, Esperanza Ramirez, Justice Served and Matthew Leddy.

More media coverage:

Photos: Hundreds Rally in Beverly Hills Against Obama’s Trade Policy, Beverly Hills Patch

Dozens Of Protesters Await President Obama’s Arrival In Beverly Hills, CBS Los Angeles
President Obama’s arrival ties up Westside traffic, ABC Los Angeles
Inside the President’s SoCal Visit, NBC Southern California
 SoCal Drivers Warned to Expect Delays During Two-Day Presidential Visit, KTLA

LA Port Drivers Sign With Teamsers

Crazy Dreamers? Port Truckers Battle "Sweatshops on Trucks"

Wednesday, 20 November 2013 13:57 By Jane Slaughter, LaborNotes | Report

Drivers who move Asian goods from southern California docks pulled a 36-hour strike ending today, charging three employers with unfair labor practices including retaliation for organizing.
Port truckers in the huge L.A.-Long Beach ports are largely immigrants. Most lease their vehicles from the companies that employ them, with payments deducted from their paychecks. Also deducted are charges for parking, diesel fuel, and insurance, including insurance on the cargo.
"Last Friday I only got less than $200," striker Daniel Linares said, "for working six days a week, from early in the morning to 4 or 5 in the afternoon."

Sometimes he makes $400-$500, he said, but even so, "this job is a sweatshop on trucks. It's a miserable wage, not even close to a living wage. The company is making millions of dollars and giving us crumbles."

One of the companies, Pac 9 Transportation, was also charged with falsely claiming that its employees are independent contractors. Standing in front of the Pac 9 entrance an hour before his shift would have begun, Linares explained there's nothing independent about his relationship with management.

"We are under dispatch," he said. "They give us a load, we go to the port and get the load. We have to take that to a destination [a warehouse or rail yard]. They give us another load to take from that destination to the Port. They keep us back and forth.
"When we are stuck inside the Port, they don't let us leave the Port."

Pac 9 drivers have filed claims with the California Labor Commission charging the company with essentially stealing more than $7 million that should have been wages. They are striking to demand the company recognize them as employees, so they can unionize with the Teamsters.

Strikers at Green Fleet Systems and American Logistics, who are employees, are already organizing with the Teamsters. They say management has retaliated with harassment, which is illegal. Workers at all three companies have filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board.

A Minority
As in the Walmart and fast food strikes that have captured the attention of labor activists this year, today's port trucking strikers are a small minority of the workforce. Linares, who is from El Salvador, estimated that 15 of the about 150 drivers at his company would strike. "The rest say we are dreamers," he said. "They say we are crazy fighting for our rights." The Teamsters said about 100 drivers were striking altogether.

He said strikers planned to picket at the company entrance yesterday to delay fellow drivers from entering but not actually block them. Today, strikers planned to escalate by following trucks as they left the port and to throw up picket lines when the trucks stopped—reviving the "ambulatory picketing" used by the Teamsters in their decisive 1934 general strike in Minneapolis.

Because he's paid by the load, Linares says, Pac 9 dispatchers are indifferent when he's stuck inside the Port for five or six hours, waiting for containers to be moved from ship to truck, making no money: "I call the company and say I'm stuck, two hours passed and I haven't been served. They tell me to stay."

And why is service sometimes slow inside the Ports? In Linares's view, it's because the union members there have control over their work. "They're hourly," he explained. "They have unions and good benefits and everything."

Apparently "being your own boss" is not the American dream these immigrants came seeking. Strikers are just looking for a chance to join the proletariat.

Walmart Sued by NLRB

NLRB Decides to Prosecute Nationwide Violations at Walmart, AFL-CIO Commits to Backing Workers

Jackie Tortora

Making Change at Walmart, a coalition of Walmart associates, small business owners, religious leaders and other members of the community that are fighting to make change at the nation's largest employer, announced today the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) will prosecute Walmart for its "widespread violations of its workers’ rights." 

The decision will provide additional protection for Walmart’s 1.3 million employees when they are speaking out for better jobs and working conditions. 

The coalition was advised Monday that the NLRB ‘s General Counsel  is prepared to prosecute a complaint against Walmart for illegal firings and disciplinary actions involving more than 117 workers, including those who went on strike last June.

The decision addresses allegations of threats by managers and the company’s national spokesperson discouraging workers from striking and illegal disciplinary actions against workers who were on legally protected strikes. Workers could win back pay, reinstatement and the reversal of disciplinary actions as a result of the decision; and Walmart could be required to inform and educate all employees of their legally protected rights.    

 

Sign up to receive AFL-CIO Now blog alerts>>

“The Board’s decision confirms what Walmart workers have long known: the company is illegally trying to silence employees who speak out for better jobs,” said Sarita Gupta, executive director of Jobs With Justice and American Rights at Work. “Americans believe that we have the responsibility – and the right – to speak out against corporate abuses of workers, and this proves we’re finally being heard, and making kinks in Walmart’s armor. Customers, clergy and community members from across the country are standing with Walmart workers bravely calling for better jobs and a stronger economy for all of us.”

UFCW International President Joseph Hansen agreed with Gupta:

Today, the government confirmed it will prosecute Walmart for illegally firing and disciplining workers who just exercised their rights.  Quite frankly, enough is enough. Walmart workers are sick and tired of empty statements and unenforced policies and it is time for Walmart to obey the law.

The decision was a response to charges filed last year against Walmart managers who threatened and discouraged workers from going on legally-protected strikes as well as illegal firings and disciplinary actions stemming from a protest at the company's June shareholder meeting in Bentonville, Arkansas.

Tiffany Beroid, a Walmart worker from Laurel, Md., explained why the workers are standing up:

Working at the largest employer in the country should mean making a decent living. Those days are long gone. Walmart continues to show that it’s afraid to have real conversations about creating better jobs, but would rather scare us into silence. But change at Walmart is too important to our economy and for our families for us to stop speaking out.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said he was proud that AFL-CIO is committed to supporting the brave Walmart workers who are standing up for their rights:

Walmart and the Walton family will have a choice: they can choose to stand with the American people and strengthen our economy or continue a race-to-the-bottom business model that hurts workers and our economy.  They can choose to honor their workers' rights; to ask Walmart to publicly commit to improving working conditions or continue their pattern unlawful retaliation against those who speak out.

Meanwhile in L.A., truck drivers went on strike against Walmart and other companies for similarly denying rights to their employees, including misclassifying workers and firing union activists, in the latest wave of actions against the retail giant.

Don't forget to check out  www.BlackFridayProtests.org.

CNA Robin Hood Financial Tax in Europe

European Progress Toward a Financial Transactions Tax

Monday, 18 November 2013 09:16 By Salvatore Babones, Truthout | News Analysis

The Europeans for financial reform, a coalition of progressive forces, support a Financial Transaction Tax. Picture taken during the first seminar of the Europeans for Financial Reform initiative, Brussels, 15 March 2010. (Photo: Thomas Delsoi / PES PSE )Germany's major political parties have agreed on the need to impose a financial transactions tax (FTT) as part of a broad package of economic reforms to be undertaken by a coalition government.

The German federal elections in September 2013 gave the conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel 311 seats in the German Parliament, just short of a majority. As a result, Merkel is negotiating with other parties to form a governing coalition.

The FTT is very popular in Germany. Eighty-two percent of Germans support an FTT, according to the latest Eurobarometer poll, compared with 64 percent of Europeans as a whole.   If Europeans could vote on financial regulation, they would vote for an FTT.   For details on the implications of financial transactions taxes and how they work, see the answers to these Frequently Asked Questions on FTTs.

For good or for bad, Germany is the economic and political heart of the European Union. Europe's largest country and largest economy has an even larger influence on European politics. In many ways, as goes Germany so goes Europe.

In recent years, this has sometimes been a problem, as when Germany demanded harsh austerity measures in response to the Eurozone banking crises of 2008-12.

At other times, German leadership has been a blessing. Germany has consistently used its influence to promote peace and good governance. And since the NSA was caught tapping Merkel's phone, Germany has come out strongly in favor of Internet privacy.

Now, Germany is leading the way toward a European FTT. Until the German coalition negotiations, the FTT had faded from the European agenda in the face of determined opposition from big banks and other business interests.

The popularity of the FTT in Germany made it one of the first planks to be agreed upon in the ongoing coalition negotiations. It may take several weeks or months for Germany's political parties to reach a final agreement. When the new German government takes office, a European FTT likely will be one of its top priorities.

The European Union began moving toward an FTT at the June 2013 Eurozone summit. At that event, European leaders agreed in principle to impose a tax on financial transactions. Their stated goal was to raise money to support European financial institutions.

The main opposition to a European FTT comes from the United Kingdom. The UK government is closely aligned with London's banks and financial firms. These businesses would bear the brunt of any FTT, because it would make them pay tax every time they traded financial instruments like stocks, bonds and derivatives.

Despite its fierce resistance to a European FTT, the UK has had a tax on stock market transactions since 1808. All industrialized countries have or used to have some form of tax on financial transactions. The difference is that a European FTT would be explicitly designed to slow trading in some of the most profitable - but riskiest - areas of finance.

The UK is a member of the European Union but is not a member of the Euro currency group, the so-called Eurozone. Germany is the most important member of the Eurozone, and the European Central Bank is based in Germany's financial capital, Frankfurt. If the new German government pushes for an FTT, the Eurozone is likely to follow.

A European FTT would have an important demonstration effect for the rest of the world, including the United States. To date, global financial regulation has been very weak. Pundits who are opposed to financial regulation claim that globalization makes it impossible to tax and regulate banks across borders.

If Europe successfully implements an FTT, it will demonstrate that it is possible to make banks pay for the privilege of trading financial instruments like stocks, bonds and derivatives. This could be an important first step toward creating a more stable global financial system that better serves the interests of the peoples of the world.

States Resist Illegal NSA, FBI, DEA Spying

How Can the States Provide Fourth Amendment Protection Against the NSA?

Friday, 15 November 2013 11:03 By Michael Boldin, Truthout | Op-Ed

(Photo: EFF Photos / Flickr)In her 2004 Brooklyn Law Review article, Ann Althouse offered some powerful suggestions on how to resist "anti-terrorism" powers, such as the Patriot Act, and should be seen as a guide to resisting NSA spying:

The fight against terrorism has raised concerns that the federal government has overreached its legitimate power. Concerns about racial profiling, invasions of privacy, unreasonable searches, and infringement on free speech have fueled a political movement, led by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Bill of Rights Defense Committee (BORDC), urging state and local government to adopt resolutions directing their officials not to participate in at least some aspects of the antiterrorism effort.

More on applying this to the NSA in a moment. First, is this legal?

The Doctrine
The ACLU and BORDC resolutions against the Patriot Act (and subsequent ACLU-backed state laws refusing to comply with the 2005 REAL ID Act) were based on a widely accepted legal principle known as the "anticommandeering doctrine."
This means the federal government cannot require a state to carry out federal acts. The federal government can pass a law and try to enforce it, but your state isn't required to help them.

The US Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed anticommandeering, relevant court cases being:
* 1842 Prigg: The court held that states weren't required to enforce federal slavery laws.
* 1992 New York: The court held that Congress couldn't require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
* 1997 Printz: The court held that "the federal government may not compel the states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program."

Under this doctrine, Althouse noted that "state and local government officials, if they have the nerve, will be able to decline to carry out the anti-terrorism tasks Congress or the president attempts to assign to them."

Applied to NSA
This can have a significant impact on the NSA's ability to continue its mass-spying programs.
In 2006, the Baltimore Sun reported that the NSA had maxed out the capacity of the Baltimore-area power grid:

The NSA is already unable to install some costly and sophisticated new equipment. At minimum, the problem could produce disruptions leading to outages and power surges. At worst, it could force a virtual shutdown of the agency.

To get around the physical limitation of the amount of power required to monitor virtually every piece of communication around the globe, the NSA started searching for new locations with independent resources.

A location was chosen in San Antonio because of the independent power grid in Texas. The new Utah Data Center was chosen for access to cheap utilities, primarily water. The water-cooled supercomputers there require 1.7 million gallons of water per day to function.

That water is being supplied by a political subdivision of the State of Utah. Under the anticommandeering doctrine, Utah isn't required to provide that water.
No water = No NSA data center.

But it's not just Utah, and it's not just water. The war on drugs, for example, is a major benefactor of NSA data collection. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the DEA's Special Operations Division works closely with the NSA, passing "tips" along to local law enforcement and instructing them to cover their tracks so the public doesn't learn where the information came from.
EFF calls this "intelligence laundering," which flat-out "bypasses the Constitution."

The Act
Following the lead of the ACLU and BORDC, model legislation to refuse cooperation with the NSA is now available for introduction in your state. The 4th Amendment Protection Act would ban states like Utah from providing water, or Texas from providing electricity, to NSA data centers. It would also ban law enforcement from receiving "tips" from the DEA's special operations division.
In addition, the Act prevents state-run universities from partnering with the NSA. Currently there are 166 so-called "Centers of Academic Excellence" around the country. These schools are major research and recruiting centers for the agency.

Corporations could find themselves in trouble, too, under the proposed Act:

Any corporation or person that provides services to or on behalf of this state and violates the prohibitions of Section 2 of this act shall be forever ineligible to act on behalf of, or provide services to, this state or any political subdivision of this state.

As a result, corporations like Georgia Power, Rocky Mountain Power, Big-D Construction or Intercontinental Hotels just might give pause before signing a new contract to provide services to the NSA.

Can It Work?
This same process was used effectively by northern abolitionists in resistance to the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Today, states like Washington and Colorado are helping end the war on cannabis by refusing to comply with federal prohibition.
We should follow their courageous path against the NSA as well.

Calling your state representative and senator today and encouraging them to introduce and pass the 4th Amendment Protection Act would be a good first step. It's not going to be easy, but sooner or later, we're going to have to stop putting up with it.
Rosa Parks may have put it best:

People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in.