Unions United defends against the Chamber of Commerce War on Workers by uniting all Unions to act together in Solidarity. We are open to AFL-CIO Unions, Change to Win Unions, and Independent Unions across America.
EXCLUSIVE: Two time Academy Award-winning cinematographer Haskell Wexler, ASC today threw his support behind the mounting movement calling for accountability in the on-set death of Midnight Rider crew member Sarah Jones. In a letter sent to fellow members of IATSE Local 600 and obtained by Deadline, Wexler supports efforts to include Jones’s name to Sunday’s Oscars In Memoriam tribute and called her death in Thursday’s train incident an act of “criminal negligence.” Wexler co-founded a group called 12on/12off
which advocates a rehaul of current standards that allow for
excessively long work hours and questionably safe working conditions on
film and TV sets across the industry. In 2006 he directed the
documentary Who Needs Sleep? about the dangers crews face in situations in which such health concerns are not prioritized. Read Wexler’s letter: Related: ‘Midnight Rider’ Suspends Filming Following Train Death
Dear Fellow Workers,
I am part of a group asking that Sarah Jones’ name be included in the
Academy’s “In Memoriam” section of the Awards telecast this Sunday.
Sarah and the three injured crew members were not victims of an
“accident” but of criminal negligence. Something that would not have
happened if proper safety rules were in place.
Here is a copy of an ad rejected by our Union magazine, ICG.
I was told that the magazine is on, “high alert” on this subject of
workplace safety, especially if it comes from me! In this case, the
subject comes from the IATSE. They say the magazine doesn’t want to deal
with this “political football” even though it is an official IATSE
resolution.
Employers will work you longer for less money and under questionable
safety conditions because it is their duty to prioritize the bottom
line. As individuals we cannot complain. That’s why we need a Union to
speak for us, certainly when our safety, our health, and our very lives
are at stake! Since they’ve abdicated that responsibility, please join
us at 12on12off.
Wear the hat and never forget that as human beings we believe that
every person’s health, safety and life is worth more than any film or TV
show we can produce.
The director of the Center for Peace and Justice in the United States,
Tom Hayden, expressed concern about the misinformation about the
violence they have unleashed in Venezuela fascist groups and criticized
the international media for not showing a clear version of events ."I think the media have served to confuse the news and not favor
Venezuela because they display information about what is happening, and
why Americans have not given a clear opinion ," said Hayden. In an exclusive interview, the activist also referred to the treatment
of news about the South American nation , which provided a strong
support for the violent protests, seen as peaceful, possibly moved
from foreign security agencies to overthrow the legitimate government of
President Nicolas Maduro. (TeleSUR) " The Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA) are
instigating these groups," said the official.Also the director of the U.S. Center for Peace and Justice , said he
sent a letter to President Barack Obama because he is shocked how the President's act (helps) perpetrate violence in Venezuela ."I wrote a letter to President Obama because I believe a hand of
government is involved in the crisis in Venezuela and Obama should say
so clearly that you do not agree with a coup ," said Hayden. He reiterated that "the United States should not support groups trying to overthrow Maduro. He
has not faced a real movement that seeks to overthrow his elected government. It is known that these groups are managed by the FBI, but are not allowed to make coup attempts, as this is prohibited by law. " (?) On
the other hand, he sent a question to students supporting the
protests, which are driven by sectors of Venezuelan right, "they need to decide, if you are want to reform the Venezuelan political system or
want to overthrow it. If they want reform, then the Government should meet their requirements. But it seems they want to overthrow the government with this escalation
of protest", so they need to make a decision, Hayden suggested. Hayden
finished his speech, emphasizing the message to Obama, is to remember
the mistakes of the past, citing the case in Honduras in 2009 when
there was a coup and President Obama called it " hit", which suggests you should stop complaining encourage and clarify his position before the world. Worth remembering that last Saturday, Venezuelan Foreign Minister
Elias Jaua rejected the statements of U.S. State Department chief John Kerry, who
defended the violent groups that caused havoc in the nation 's
capital and beyond. Jaua stressed the economic bribes from the U.S. to keep the fascists in the streets. "I
denounce the U.S. for funding and training (these people), besides encouraging violence by the
statements of its senior officials (Obama and Kerry). These same violent groups have caused immense death and injury to the Venezuela people." Venezuela
El director del Centro de Paz y Justicia de Estados Unidos, Tom
Hayden, manifestó su preocupación por la desinformación sobre la
violencia que han desatado en Venezuela grupos fascistas y criticó a la
prensa internacional por no mostrar una versión clara de los hechos.
“Pienso que los medios de comunicación han actuado para confundir las
noticias y no favorecer a enezuela porque no muestran información
sobre lo que ocurre, y por eso los estadounidenses no han emitido una
opinión clara”, expresó Hayden.
En entrevista exclusiva para teleSUR, el activista también se refirió
al tratamiento de las noticias sobre la nación suramericana, que
suponen un claro apoyo a las protestas violentas, vistas como pacíficas,
movidas desde extranjero posiblemente por organismos de seguridad para
derrocar el Gobierno legítimo del presidente Nicolás Maduro.
“La Agencia Central de Inteligencia (CIA) que si lo quiere hacer
seguramente, y en esto entran otros entes privados y públicos que están
instigando a estos grupos”, señaló el funcionario.
Asimismo el director del centro estadounidense de Paz y Justicia,
comentó que envió una carta al presidente Barack Obama porque le intriga
la manera de actuar del mandatario ante la violencia perpetrada en
Venezuela.
“He escrito una carta al presidente Obama porque creo que una mano
del Gobierno está involucrada en la crisis de Venezuela y Obama debe
decir que manera clara que no esta de acuerdo con un golpe de Estado”,
precisó Hayden.
Además, reiteró que “Estados Unidos no debería apoyar a los grupos
que intentan derrocar a Maduro. No ha enfrentado a un movimiento que
quiera derrocar a nuestro Gobierno que fue elegido, si hay personas así,
armadas, son pequeños grupos. Se sabe que esos grupos son manejados por
el FBI pero no se les permite hacer intentos de golpe, pues eso lo
prohíben las leyes”.
Por otro lado, envió un mensaje de reflexión a los estudiantes que
respaldan las protestas impulsadas por sectores de la extrema derecha
venezolana, “ellos necesitan pensar si están tratando de reformar el
sistema político venezolano o si quieren derrocarlo. Si ellos intentan
lo primero, entonces el Gobierno debería satisfacer sus exigencias. Pero
parece que quieren derrocar el Gobierno con una escalada de protesta”,
por eso necesitan tomar una decisión, sugirió Hayden.
Hayden terminó su intervención, recalcando que el mensaje para Obama,
es que recuerde los errores del pasado, y citó el caso ocurrido en
Honduras cuando en el año 2009 hubo un golpe de Estado y el presidente
Obama lo llamó “golpe”, lo cual sugiere que debe dejar de alentar las
protestas y aclarar su posición ante el mundo.
Vale recordar que el pasado sábado, el canciller venezolano, Elías Jaua, rechazó las declaraciones del funcionario estadounidense John Kerry, en defensa de los grupos violentos que han causado destrozos en la capital de esa nación y otras regiones. Jaua destacó los aportes económicos provenientes desde
EE.UU. para mantener a los grupos fascistas en las calles. “Denuncio que
Estados Unidos ha financiado y entrenado; además de alentado con
declaraciones de sus altos funcionarios (Obama y Kerry) a los grupos
violentos que han causado muertos y heridos al pueblo venezolano”.
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in
Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable
government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists
at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington
partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN
sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The
subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which
operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is
formally in power. [1]
During the last five years, the news media has been flooded with
pundits decrying the broken politics of Washington. The conventional
wisdom has it that partisan gridlock and dysfunction have become the new
normal. That is certainly the case, and I have been among the harshest
critics of this development. But it is also imperative to acknowledge
the limits of this critique as it applies to the American governmental
system. On one level, the critique is self-evident: In the domain that
the public can see, Congress is hopelessly deadlocked in the worst
manner since the 1850s, the violently rancorous decade preceding the
Civil War.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is
visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public
and private institutions ruling the country…
As I wrote in The Party is Over, the present objective of
congressional Republicans is to render the executive branch powerless,
at least until a Republican president is elected (a goal that voter
suppression laws in GOP-controlled states are clearly intended to accomplish).
President Obama cannot enact his domestic policies and budgets: Because
of incessant GOP filibustering, not only could he not fill the large
number of vacancies in the federal judiciary, he could not even get his
most innocuous presidential appointees into office. Democrats
controlling the Senate have responded by weakening the filibuster of
nominations, but Republicans are sure to react with other parliamentary
delaying tactics. This strategy amounts to congressional nullification
of executive branch powers by a party that controls a majority in only
one house of Congress.
Despite this apparent impotence, President Obama can liquidate
American citizens without due processes, detain prisoners indefinitely
without charge, conduct dragnet surveillance on the American people
without judicial warrant and engage in unprecedented — at least since
the McCarthy era — witch hunts against federal employees (the so-called
“Insider Threat Program”). Within the United States, this power is
characterized by massive displays of intimidating force by militarized federal, state and local law enforcement.
Abroad, President Obama can start wars at will and engage in virtually
any other activity whatsoever without so much as a by-your-leave from
Congress, such as arranging the forced landing
of a plane carrying a sovereign head of state over foreign territory.
Despite the habitual cant of congressional Republicans about executive
overreach by Obama, the would-be dictator, we have until recently heard
very little from them about these actions — with the minor exception of
comments from gadfly Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. Democrats, save a
few mavericks such as Ron Wyden of Oregon, are not unduly troubled,
either — even to the extent of permitting seemingly perjured congressional testimony under oath by executive branch officials on the subject of illegal surveillance.
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been
so pervasive that they tend to be disregarded as background noise.
During the time in 2011 when political warfare over the debt ceiling was
beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the
United States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow
Moammar Ghaddafi’s regime in Libya, and, when the instability created by
that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert assistance
to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate
about continuing meat inspections and civilian air traffic control
because of the budget crisis, our government was somehow able to commit
$115 million to keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay at least £100m to the United Kingdom’s Government Communications Headquarters
to buy influence over and access to that country’s intelligence.
Since
2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways have collapsed due to
inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During
that same period of time, the government spent $1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store ayottabyte
of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists
have coined. A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They
need that much storage to archive every single trace of your electronic
life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is
visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public
and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent
patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently
controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of
this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the
state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators
mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be
accurately termed an “establishment.” All complex societies have an
establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and
perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer
global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class
by itself.
The GOP offensive against public sector unions at the state level
that began in earnest in Wisconsin and Ohio in early 2011 is far from
over. In its more recent manifestation, Republican politicians in
Missouri and Pennsylvania are once again promoting so-called "paycheck
protection" legislation, which they claim will protect the interests of
ordinary workers. Nothing could be further from the truth. In common
with similar legislation that right-wing groups have promoted for the
past two decades, the goal of this legislation is to silence the
political voice of working people and ensure that the wealthy dominate
state elections.
Paycheck "Protection" Has Always Been a Partisan Right-Wing Ploy
Along with legislation restricting public sector bargaining and
right-to-work laws, paycheck protection legislation - which either
restricts unions' ability to raise or spend money on politics - has been
one of the main anti-union initiatives that conservative activists have
promoted at the state level.
Starting with the very first legislation
in Washington State in 1992, a state-level network of right-wing
organizations promoted paycheck legislation through ballot initiatives
and bills. Paycheck legislation has always been a cynical attempt to
tilt the balance of political power in favor of right-wing politicians
who promote that legislation, not an effort to protect individual union
members and non-union employees. In 1998, President Clinton explained
that paycheck is a partisan power solution in search of an imaginary
problem: "This is an attempt to create the impression that workers are
being put upon when they aren't. And it's being done to alter the
balance of power in the political debate."
Union members and non-members already enjoy a well-established legal
right not to contribute to union political spending. Unions cannot force
employees to have money for representation or political activities
automatically deducted from their paycheck without authorization.
Paycheck-protection legislation does not provide workers' with any
rights they do not currently enjoy, but it deprives choice from workers
who want a union with an effective political voice. In the name of
solicitude for workers, disingenuous paycheck measures aim to take
working people out of politics. In common with earlier paycheck
measures, current paycheck bills in Pennsylvania and Missouri are based
on model legislation devised by the ultra-conservative American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).
In the past few years, right-wing organizations and activists have
promoted bills targeting automatic dues deduction in well over a dozen
states. They have succeeded in enacting legislation in Wisconsin, North
Carolina (for school employees), Michigan (for school employees and
child care providers) and have had partial successes in other states.
Whenever they are put to the electorate, however, paycheck measures
almost always lose - they have lost three times in California in the
past 15 years - because voters recognize that they are a cynical ploy.
In a 2013 campaign for protection legislation in Kansas, a right-wing
lobbyist explained that he "needed this bill passed so we can get rid of
public sector unions."
Corporate Political Money Is the Real Problem
The battle over political spending has intensified after the Supreme
Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, which stated that corporations
and unions have a constitutional right to make unlimited independent
expenditures, so long as they are not coordinated with candidates'
campaigns. Although they are vastly outspent, unions are the only
organized group whose political expenditures are anywhere near the level
of spending by powerful corporations and conservative billionaires,
which is why right-wing groups target them.
Moreover, unions are the most transparent organizations in the
country when it comes to spending on politics. Unions file detailed
reports with the Labor Department that disclose a broad range of
activities related to politics, including polling fees, money spent on
internal political communications, and even the cost of bratwursts used
to feed workers protesting Wisconsin's controversial law eliminating
public sector bargaining at the state capitol in early 2011. Powerful
corporations, in contrast, do not disclose a broad range of their
political spending activities. Unlike union members and non-union
employees - whose right to opt out of political spending is protected by
law - employees, customers, and shareholders have no legal right to opt
out of paying for corporate political expenditures. The same groups
that have promoted paycheck protection measures have opposed giving
shareholders opt-out rights when it comes to corporate spending on
politics.
As Harvard Law Professor Ben Sachs has pointed out, most public
employees, who have no legal right to opt out, help fund corporate
political speech. Public sector employees are forced to subsidize
corporate political speech through pension contributions - they "cannot
choose stock or avoid compelled speech associated with stock choices" -
but no employee is ever forced to subsidize union political speech. In
addition, corporations spend most of their political funds on external
lobbying, while unions spend more on internal political communications
with their members. This lack of transparency is especially significant
because in recent years, corporations and conservative billionaires have
vastly outspent unions in both state and national politics.
In the past, right-wing supporters of paycheck protection have stated
that this type of legislation will "enable us to break the unions" and
"crush labor unions as a political entity." Paycheck bills are part of a
nationwide assault on public sector unions and a nationwide strategy to
diminish the political voice of working people. Paycheck protection is
bad for Missouri and bad for Pennsylvania and should be rejected.
A few days ago, a diary
was posted explaining that the US Inspector General had recently
endorsed the idea of the United States Post Office offering simple
banking services in addition to its normal mail delivery service.
While this idea might seem foreign to many Americans, in the past the
post office actually offered banking services for over 50 years. Per The New Republic, beginning in 1911:
"...the Postal Savings System allowed Americans to deposit
cash with certain branch post offices, at 2 percent interest. By 1947,
the system held deposits for over four million customers. Though
dismantled in 1967 (after banks offered higher interest rates and eroded
its market share), the post office continues to issue domestic and
international money orders, including $22.4 billion worth in 2011, as
well as prepaid debit cards through a deal with American Express."
Putting aside the sad fact that banks once offered 2% interest rates
(and you would now be lucky to get even half a percent), today post
offices could offer basic banking services such as check-cashing, saving
accounts, and even small-dollar loans similar to payday lenders, yet at
much lower interest rates which could potentially save low-income
Americans thousands of dollars per household per year.
The idea is so good that Senator Elizabeth Warren has now endorsed the idea.
In an op-ed for The Huffington Post,
Senator Warren explains that because of the exorbitant fees that payday
lenders charge, low-income Americans spend roughly 10% of their income
on things like checking cashing and short term loans, which is roughly
the same amount that the average American spends on food.
Having grown up in a low-income family myself, I've experienced far
too many times to recall when my single mother would go to one of these
payday lenders for a short-term loan just to keep the lights at home
from being shut off or to pay the rent and would quickly find herself in
a vicious cycle of more loans, fees, and high interest rates.
Fortunately in my adult life I haven't had to endure that same
hardship, but in today's world of stagnant wages and an increasing cost
of living, many Americans still turn to these payday lenders as they
struggle to stay in the middle class.
As Elizabeth Warren points out, this idea has been done in other
countries around the world and has been proven successful. Furthermore,
not only could it help millions of Americans but it could also prove
beneficial to the postal service's bottom line at a time when USPS -
which employs over half a million people - desperately needs it.
This idea could easily be adopted by the Postmaster General and begin without Congressional approval, but so far he has declined to endorse
the Inspector General's recommendation. But hopefully now with people
like Senator Warren endorsing the idea, public pressure will mount for
this idea to become a reality.
Microsoft, Twitter, Google and Facebook all participate in the NSA's Prism effort. Photograph: Pichi Chuang/Reuters
Tens of thousands of accounts associated with customers of
Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Yahoo have their data turned over to US
government authorities every six months as the result of secret court
orders, the tech giants disclosed for the first time on Monday.
As part of a transparency deal reached last week with the Justice Department, four of the tech firms that participate in the National Security Agency’s Prism effort,
which collects largely overseas internet communications, released more
information about the volume of data the US demands they provide than
they have ever previously been permitted to disclose.
But the
terms of the deal prevent the companies from itemising the collection,
beyond bands of thousands of data requests served on them by a secret
surveillance court. The companies must also delay by six months
disclosing information on the most recent requests – terms the Justice
Department negotiated to end a transparency lawsuit before the so-called
FISA court that was brought by the companies.
In announcing
the updated data figures, the companies appeared concerned by the lack
of precision over the depth of their compelled participation in
government surveillance.
“We still believe more transparency
is needed so everyone can better understand how surveillance laws work
and decide whether or not they serve the public interest,” said Google’s
legal director for law enforcement and information security, Richard
Salgado, in a post on the company’s official blog.
“Specifically,
we want to disclose the precise numbers and types of requests we
receive, as well as the number of users they affect in a timely way.”
In the most recent period for which data is available, January to June 2013 – a period ended by the beginning of whistleblower Edward Snowden’s landmark surveillance disclosures
– Google gave the government the internet metadata of up to 999
customer accounts, and the content of communications from between 9,000
and 9,999 customers.
Microsoft received fewer than 1,000
orders from the FISA court for communications content during the same
period, related to between 15,000 and 15,999 “accounts or individual
identifiers”.
The company, which owns the internet video
calling service Skype, also disclosed that it received fewer than 1,000
orders for metadata – which reveals communications patterns rather than
individual message content – related to fewer than 1,000 accounts or
identifiers.
Yahoo disclosed
that it gave the government communications content from between 30,000
and 30,999 accounts over the first six months of 2013, and fewer than
1,000 customer accounts that were subject to Fisa court orders for
metadata.
Facebook disclosed that during the first half of 2013,
it turned over content data from between 5000 and 5999 accounts – a
rise of about 1000 from the previous six month period – and customer
metadata associated with up to 999 accounts.
Microsoft,
Facebook and Yahoo also gave the FBI certain customer records – not
content – under a type of non-judicial subpoena called a national
security letter. Since disclosure of national security letters is not
subject to a six-month delay under last week’s deal, Microsoft revealed
that it received up to 999 such subpoenas between June and December
2013, affecting up to 999 user accounts. Facebook’s National Security
Letter total was the same.
Yahoo received up to 999 national
security letters during the same period, affecting 1,000 to 1,999
accounts. Google received the same total, and disclosed that since 2009,
national security letters have compelled the handover of customer
records from as many as 1999 accounts every six months. Last weekApple disclosed that between 1 January and 30 June 2013 it had received less than 250
national security orders – including national security letters and
other requests – relating to less than 250 accounts.
LinkedIn, the professional networking service, disclosed on Monday that it received the same total of generic “national security requests.”
Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, posted on the company’s blog
that “only a fraction of a percent of users are affected by these
orders”, and argued that “we have not received the type of bulk data
requests that are commonly discussed publicly regarding telephone
records.”
But the disclosures only apply to data requests turned over to the NSA and FBI as the result of FISA court orders.
Documents
that Snowden disclosed to the Guardian, Washington Post and other
outlets show that the NSA also siphons communications and associated
data from information in transit across the global communications
infrastructure – without court orders, under authority claimed under a
seminal executive order known as executive order 12,333.
“Nothing
in today's report minimises the significance of efforts by Governments
to obtain customer information outside legal process,” Smith said,
affirming that the company remained concerned about reports of
clandestine government hacking and would continue to press for more
transparency from the US government and others. Google data shows a significant growth in
internet content collection from its products by the NSA. Photograph:
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The data from Google shows a significant growth in internet content
collection from its products by the NSA. In the first six months of
2009, the company gave the government data from up to 2,999 customer
accounts, a figure that grew to between 12,000 and 12,999 customer
accounts by the second half of 2012 before dipping to under 10,000
accounts in the first half of 2013.
But the data does not provide
any indication of what accounted for the rise, beyond the growth in
popularity of Google email and other internet products.
Similarly,
Microsoft revealed that it gave the US government content information
on more than 12,000 customer accounts in the second half of 2011, a
figure that grew to over 16,000 customer accounts in late 2012 before
dropping to more than 15,000 in the first six months of 2013.
Kevin
Bankston, the policy director for the Open Technology Institute in
Washington, said the amount of information the companies were able to
detail about their roles in US surveillance was “far less than what we
need for adequate accountability from the government”.
“Lumping
all of the different types of surveillance orders together into one
number, then adding obscurity on top of obscurity by requiring that
number to be reported in ranges of one thousand, is not enough to
educate the American public or reassure the international community that
the NSA is using its surveillance authorities responsibly," said
Bankston, who like Google’s Salgado advocated legislation permitting the
additional disclosure of “specific number of requests issued under
specific legal authorities and the number of people affected by each”.
Nate
Cardozo, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said
the new information in the transparency reports was “a good first step”
but added that large questions remained. Cardozo said the national
security letters had all been “lumped together” and it was impossible to
see what legal framework had been used to compel the companies to hand
over information.
“It makes you question the government’s repeated assertions that it welcomes this debate,” he said.
Microsoft’s
Smith lamented that “despite the President's reform efforts and our
ability to publish more information, there has not yet been any public
commitment by either the US or other governments to renounce the
attempted hacking of internet companies.
“We believe the
constitution requires that our government seek information from American
companies within the rule of law. We'll therefore continue to press for
more on this point, in collaboration with others across our industry.”
•
An earlier version of this story stated in error that Google did not
disclose the number of national security letters it had received. This
has been corrected.
It was further revised to remove an unsubstantiated
description of Microsoft being a "major surveillance partner for the
US government".
