Thursday, November 18, 2021

 Canada·THE FIFTH ESTATE

WE Charity misled donors about building schools in Kenya, records show

Multiple donors were sent photos of same schoolhouses

WE Charity said each had fully funded

Internal WE documents leaked to CBC show that schools like this one in Irkaat, Kenya, were fully funded by multiple donors. (Ishmael Azeli/CBC)

Marc and Craig Kielburger's WE Charity routinely misled school-aged children and wealthy philanthropists across North America for years as it solicited millions for schoolhouses in Kenya and other projects in its Adopt-A-Village program, an investigation by CBC's The Fifth Estate has found.

Slick marketing videos, congratulatory social media posts and crowdfunding websites across the internet tell the story of two brothers on a mission to change the world, but under closer scrutiny those digital crumbs lead down a trail of contradictions and deception. 

"I don't know how they thought they could get away with it for so long," said a former WE employee. CBC agreed to conceal their identity because they were concerned about legal reprisals from the charity for speaking out. 

Years after Rukshan de Silva and his high school classmates in Oakville, Ont., raised money for WE to build a one-room schoolhouse in Kenya, he travelled there to see the fruits of their labour. 

  • Watch "Finding School No. 4: WE Charity's donor deception in Kenya" on The Fifth Estate Thursday at 9 p.m. on CBC-TV and stream on CBC Gem. 

What he didn't know during his 2013 visit was that four small blue letters displayed prominently above the schoolhouse doorway were a clue that he and the students from Iroquois Ridge High School had been deceived. 

In fact, the letters were a dedication to another group which, online records show, indicated that they, too, had fully funded the schoolhouse.

WE Charity, then known as Free the Children, had collected donations to build two schools. Instead, they built one and told both donors they had paid for it. 

Rukshan de Silva took this photo of the school in Kenya that WE Charity told him he and his schoolmates had fully funded. (Rukshan de Silva/Wandering Feet Photography)

 "We were told that would be Iroquois Ridge's school that we had funded," de Silva said.

The charity was present in classrooms across North America, in part through its Brick by Brick program. School-aged children were recruited to collect small donations from friends and acquaintances — $20 bricks, 500 of which would build a school in an impoverished country.

Now, a months-long Fifth Estate investigation into WE Charity's Kenyan operations reveals that far fewer schools were built than were funded by donors, a fact that leaked internal WE documents show was co-ordinated at the highest levels of the organization.

There was "a strategic decision by senior leaders" to deliberately overfund projects, a former WE employee said. 

The deception resulted in multiple donor groups paying for the same schoolhouses many times over. 

WE denies it has misled donors.

The "claims that multiple donors funded the same school" is "false," WE said a letter to The Fifth Estate.  

"Donors understand that the funds [they give] are not simply going to be used to construct buildings. Donors are told that their donations will be pooled with others to do the most good in a given region or village," they said in another letter. 

"We have always tried our best to be very clear with our donors," said Carol Moraa, a senior WE executive based in Kenya. 

WATCH | How multiple donors received  photos of the same schoolhouse in Kenya:

Multiple donors were sent photos of the same schoolhouse

12 hours ago
0:26
The Fifth Estate's Mark Kelley explains the duplicate photos our team found online. 0:26

In March 2021, the Kielburgers appeared before a parliamentary ethics committee. They were questioned about Reed Cowan, an American broadcaster and WE fundraiser.

Cowan had told the committee that a plaque bearing the name of his deceased son was removed from a school he had fully funded and replaced with a commemoration to another donor.

"We're heartbroken about what happened," Marc Kielburger told members of Parliament. 

"It should never have happened. We made a mistake," said Craig Kielburger. 

WE Charity co-founders Craig Kielburger, left, and Marc Kielburger, take part in a 2014 WE Day event in Toronto. (Hannah Yoon/The Canadian Press)

Cowan went on to ask for $20 million in damages from the charity in exchange for his silence on the issue of donor financing. The charity has called his demands "an attempt to extort." 

The internal WE Charity records, coupled with internet archives, newspaper articles and social media posts, show that de Silva and Cowan were not the only donors deceived.

Such activities were common practice and part of a multi-faceted strategy that brought in funding for more than 900 primary schoolhouses in Kenya, where WE records show only 360 have actually been built since its work began in 2003. 

The Fifth Estate's figure is not complete, as it would not have captured donations that were not made public. 

School 24

When de Silva took a photograph of the schoolhouse he visited, his understanding was that the $25,000 raised by his classmates had paid for it, as well as supplies, teacher salaries and other community benefits. 

Unknown to him was that those blue letters above the doorway, MPCF 24, stood for the Michael Pinball Clemons Foundation, a charitable group started by the former Toronto Argonauts star running back. 

Emblems were placed on many of the schools fully funded by MPCF in Kenya. (Rukshan de Silva/Wandering Feet Photography)

An MPCF webpage states school 24 was funded by the Rotary Club of Courtice, Ont., and a man who would go on to become the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Erin O'Toole. 

"School #24 was supported by our community," O'Toole wrote on his Facebook page. 

The webpage www.pinballfoundation.ca/schooldonors, which documented MPCF's school construction in Kenya, was available online as recently as Jan. 26, 2021, internet archives show. Since then, the page has been taken down. 

The Fifth Estate found the information available at a new URL, www.pinballfoundation.ca /123214fdkfdf4, unlinked to the MPCF site, but still available through a unique keyword search on Google.

The MPCF website displays 108 entries similar to this one for all the schools they fully funded in Kenya through WE Charity. (Michael Pinball Clemons Foundation)

Michael Clemons and his foundation did not respond to emails and phone messages.

When The Fifth Estate travelled to Kenya this September and visited school 24, the MPCF emblem was gone. 

In an email exchange, Moraa said WE hired a company to do repairs and "the company mistakenly painted over the MPCF numerical system." 

However, recent footage taken by The Fifth Estate shows the emblem was removed, not painted over.

Footage shot by The Fifth Estate shows a scarred wall where the MPCF logo previously existed on a school. (Ishmael Azeli/CBC)

The Fifth Estate's research shows de Silva wasn't the only WE donor who had competing claims with the MPCF.

On its Facebook page, H.O.P.E Calgary, a charitable organization, posted a photograph of a schoolhouse built by WE in Kenya. 

"Our schoolhouse is now complete and open to classes," it wrote in 2012.

Using the same photo on its website, MPCF counts the schoolhouse as one of 108 it had built in Kenya through WE. 

One former employee told The Fifth Estate that if other donors asked about the MPCF logo on a schoolhouse, the "messaging" was that WE Charity would tell them it referred to the Kenyan Ministry of Education.

'Donors understand'

Clemons was among 70 high-profile WE donors who wrote a letter to CBC's editor in chief in which they disagreed that they "as donors, were misled about the projects in Kenya." 

"It takes funding from multiple donors to ensure schools and school rooms are built," they wrote, echoing WE's position that donors understand their money is "not simply going to be used to construct buildings."

Based on statements from numerous donors found by The Fifth Estate, that does not appear to be the case, with those donors clearly believing their money would fully fund schoolhouse construction.

Teachers Life, a Canadian insurance provider, wrote in 2015 that it had raised $10,000 for the village of "Irkaat, Kenya, where our classroom will be built." 

In the May 25, 2009, edition of Pearson News, the Lester B. Pearson school board in Quebec said it had "raised over $30,000, enough for three one-room schools."

"The schools in Kenya built through Free the Children with our funding are called Enelerai, Olongerin and Pimbiniet Primary Schools," it said.

Building a schoolhouse was not an accomplishment invented by donors. WE employees and prominent fundraisers have been telling donors for years that their donations would go to build schoolhouses. 

For example, a 2014 tweet from a WE Charity account stated that $41,000 raised by the Royal Bank would be used to build four schools.

In a statement to The Fifth Estate, WE Charity said: 'Donors understand that the funds [they give] are not simply going to be used to construct buildings. Donors are told that their donations will be pooled with others to do the most good in a given region or village.' (WE Villages/Twitter)

While setting up a fundraising campaign to commemorate his deceased infant son, North Carolinian and former teacher Watson Jordan reached out to a WE employee by email. 

"Not sure how to confirm the system knows I am building a school," he wrote in an email shared with The Fifth Estate.

"Our system is aware that you are registered as fundraising for a school," the employee replied. 

video posted to a WE YouTube page in 2013 states "$20 provides one brick, 500 bricks builds a school."

Controlling the narrative

Among those who wrote letters to CBC leadership is entertainment executive Berry Meyerowitz. His note to CBC president Catherine Tait shows how close WE is with some of its supporters. 

In the letter, he said: "The Fifth Estate is simply wrong in their narrative."

At the bottom of the email Meyerowitz sent was evidence of prior correspondence with Craig Kielburger. The subject: Draft for consideration. The body: identical to what Meyerowitz sent to CBC's president, aside from changes in the final paragraph.

When asked about the extent to which he collaborated with Kielburger on the email, Meyerowitz said: "I did not collaborate with Craig at all in writing my email. I sent it to him to ensure my facts and timeline was accurate, and for him to add links to share."

He added: "This was a personal email to the president of the CBC. Not part of any editorial effort." 

In internal leaked documents, it is clear a donor's level of involvement with WE affected how projects they funded would progress. WE employees made notes about what construction could be delayed because a donor wasn't paying attention.

"[The donor] is not the kind of partner that expects reporting against each of the line items in the budget, so we should be OK to push this (all the funding is in the door)," one employee wrote.

Regarding another delayed project tied to billionaire Richard Branson's Virgin Group, a WE employee wrote: "I don't see this as being an issue with messaging, as they have not asked us the status of the project." 

WATCH | WE Charity executive says the focus should be on its impact in communities:

WE Charity senior executive on their impact in Kenya

1 day ago
1:44
Carol Moraa says focus should be on WE's impact in the communities, not the infrastructure built. 1:44

Laurie Styron, executive director of CharityWatch, a group that monitors charities for governance and transparency issues, reviewed the leaked documents and said they troubled her.

"They're relying on the good grace of donors to just not ask too many questions? That's just wrong. It's a breach of trust," she said. 

The documents show that schoolhouses were routinely double-, triple- and quadruple-matched to large donors, a practice confirmed to The Fifth Estate by former WE employees. In one example, eight major donors are stated to have funded the same schoolhouse.

When Jordan, the former teacher, received a letter from WE "in loving memory" of his infant son, it included a photo of schoolhouse No. 4 in Irkaat. 

Internal documents show that the same schoolhouse was paid for at least four times over by some of WE's largest donors. 

"I feel deceived,"Jordan said.

"Lying to people who've lost children about doing something good on their behalf," he said, "that doesn't seem like an awesome group of people to lie to."

On Wednesday afternoon, WE Charity released preliminary findings of a forensic accountant it hired to compare contributions made to WE designated for Kenya and spending in Kenya. 

The preliminary findings said in part that all donations to Kenya between April 1, 2012, and August 31, 2020, total $74 million. At the same time, costs for projects in Kenya were $54.8 million, while costs for WE Canada, including administration, were $29 million. The total costs were "$83.8 million or $9.8 million more" than donations designated for Kenya. 

Book by Edmonton author selected as one of Canada's best this year
Dr. Norma Dunning's book Tainna: The Unseen Ones won in the fiction category for 2021 English-language winners. (Source: Canada Council for the Arts)


Erin Bezovie
CTVNewsEdmonton.ca
 Digital Producer
Published Nov. 17, 2021 

EDMONTON -

An Edmonton author's book has been selected as one of the 14 best books published in Canada in 2021, winning the Governor General's Literary Award.

Dr. Norma Dunning's book Tainna: The Unseen Ones published by Douglas & McIntyre won in the fiction category for 2021 English-language winners.

The book brings together six short stories centred on modern-day Inuk characters.

Dunning is a writer, scholar, researcher, and professor at the University of Alberta.

The 14 winners are chosen from the top 70 finalists by peer assessment committees. There are seven categories in both English and French including fiction, drama, poetry, and non-fiction.

Each winner receives $25,000 and the publisher receives $3,000 to promote the winning book. Each of the finalists receives $1,000.

“This year's Governor General's Literary Awards confirm the irresistible evocative power of literature. The health and societal challenges we have undergone have highlighted the renewed importance of imagination, reflection and critical thinking," said Simon Brault, Director and CEO of Canada Council for the Arts.

Winners of the 2020 Governor General's Literary Awards were announced this year as well due to the pandemic. The Canada Council for the Arts expects to return to its regular announcement schedule in 2022.

A full list of this year's winners can be found online.

The Canada Council for the Arts has funded the awards since 1959.

Embarrassing’ lack of Indigenous voices in NWT COP26 delegation

LAST MODIFIED: NOVEMBER 17, 2021

One of the four people who attended the COP26 climate conference on behalf of the Northwest Territories says the lack of Indigenous representation in the group was an embarrassment.

Katrina Nokleby, the Great Slave MLA, made the remark at a Wednesday news conference called by the territorial government to discuss the NWT’s participation at COP26, the recently concluded United Nations-backed climate summit in Glasgow.

There was no Indigenous representation in the NWT’s four-person delegation, which was led by environment minister Shane Thompson.

“I don’t think it was ideal,” Nokleby told reporters. “It’s embarrassing, frankly, to be a territory that speaks about Indigenous involvement and not have any Indigenous people in our delegation.

“However, it’s just what ended up happening this time. I think it’s a big lesson that I’m sure the department and EIA is taking back for the next one.”

EIA stands for Executive and Indigenous Affairs, the NWT government branch that oversees relations with Indigenous governments.

Nokleby said she had been approached to join the delegation by Jackie Jacobson, the Nunakput MLA, who chairs the NWT legislature’s committee on economic development and environment, as her engineering career gave her “a lot of the technical background.”

The NWT’s consensus form of government means Nokleby, who is not part of cabinet, was able to accompany Thompson, the minister, in the same delegation.

Declining to directly answer one reporter’s question about whether Indigenous people felt suitably represented at the conference, Nokleby said: “It’s not lost on me, the irony of being a white woman sitting here telling you if Indigenous people felt they were heard at COP.”

Thompson said his government “will support youth and Indigenous voices to be at the forefront of climate change action” even though the delegation did not reflect that.

He said his government had spoken with Indigenous counterparts in the NWT before he travelled to Glasgow, had met with youth activists, and “we were able to get their voices and their concerns addressed.”

The minister said the NWT’s place as part of a larger Canadian contingent had placed constraints on who could make the trip.

“It would have been nicer for us to have more Indigenous people from the Northwest Territories, but I think the messaging we were able to share didn’t do a disservice,” Thompson said.

A regional conversation

Asked if anything specifically would change about the NWT’s approach to the climate crisis following COP26, the territorial government continued to stress its reliance on federal help.

Minister Thompson said the GNWT would keep following its existing plans and strategies and would work with the climate change council it has established with Indigenous governments. A youth advisory group for that council is being created, and the council’s overall aim is to inform GNWT policy with local, Indigenous knowledge.

Thompson did, however, say he had been impressed by the regional approaches adopted in some parts of the globe and wondered whether those could be replicated in the circumpolar North.

“Why aren’t we doing a regional approach to it? I’m talking about the NWT, Nunavut, and Yukon, but also Alaska, Greenland, and Iceland,” he said.

“Some of them have some very unique ways of addressing energy. Why reinvent the wheel? It’s starting the process, it’s having those conversations.

“Are we there yet? No. I’d be lying to you if I said we had 100-percent solutions. But I think we are very much on the right path.”

Cory Doll, the NWT Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ manager of climate change and air quality, said the territory was studying some lessons that could be learned from COP26 and meetings with various governments and agencies.

Nokleby said she had spent time with a Conservative Party representative at COP26, adding there was no reason why the NWT could not “leverage the Opposition in a federal arena” as well as leaning on the government in power.

“One of the biggest things I took was networking with other countries or businesses,” said Nokleby, citing a conversation with representatives of Panasonic about green hydrogen cells and suggesting partnerships between Indigenous organizations and businesses were a way forward.

“Maybe the federal government doesn’t need to be part of that conversation,” she said, “and we can be empowering Indigenous people and employing them in their own companies to address climate change.”


Editor’s note: More detailed coverage of the Indigenous voices that were represented at COP26, including some views from the Northwest Territories, follows later this week.


Indigenous peoples had a clear vision for Cop26, but it has not been delivered


World leaders recognise the importance of indigenous rights, but still haven’t committed enough to supporting our fight


‘It is vital indigenous peoples are able to directly access finance, so when they undertake actions on the climate crisis it is from a position of strength.’
 Photograph: Dominika Zarzycka/NurPhoto/ Rex/Shutterstock


Victoria Tauli-Corpuz
Mon 15 Nov 2021 

Indigenous peoples came to Cop26 in Glasgow with clear goals that we wanted to see reflected in the final results. Now it is over, we don’t see the path forward we were hoping for. There is still too much wrangling between the developed and the developing countries, with the developed nations blocking much-needed agreements on rights and funding. And overall progress towards implementing the commitments made in the Paris agreement is too slow.

We wanted to ensure that the decisions included the need to respect human rights, including indigenous peoples’ rights, in undertaking adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage measures to deal with the immediate effects of the climate crisis.

We also wanted Cop26 to adopt the local communities and indigenous peoples platform, as agreed by the facilitative working group, an initiative that would ensure indigenous peoples and their knowledge would be included in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change process.

It is vital that indigenous peoples are able to directly access finance, so that when they undertake actions on the climate crisis it is from a position of strength, and they are ensured the protection of rights to own, control and manage territories, especially their forests.

It was also our view that article 6 of the Paris agreement on market and non-market mechanisms for emissions trading and offsets should include us when these are designed and implemented, and our rights should be protected. Also that an international grievance mechanism be established which we can use in case our rights are violated in the implementation of article 6.

I am happy to see the preamble of the Cop26 cover decision states that parties “respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples”. This decision also recognises and acknowledges the important role of stakeholders, including indigenous peoples, in “averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change”.

The decision also recognises the “importance of protecting, conserving and restoring ecosystems to deliver crucial services, including acting as net carbon sinks, reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts and supporting sustainable livelihoods, including for indigenous peoples and local communities”.

When several countries and philanthropic donors committed $1.7bn to indigenous peoples to protect their forests, I voiced my hope that these resources would be effectively and directly accessed by indigenous peoples and not go through intermediaries such as states or the big conservation organisations.

A protocol was adopted, which if effectively implemented, means indigenous peoples and local communities will be able to further develop and strengthen the use of their traditional knowledge, practices and innovation on climate-change mitigation and adaptation. That decision emphasised “the important role of indigenous peoples and local communities’ culture and knowledge in effective action on climate change”, urging parties “to actively involve indigenous peoples and local communities”.

Article 6 on market and non-market based mechanisms for mitigation mentions the need to respect indigenous peoples’ rights but does not mention the need to obtain our free, prior and informed consent. We hoped for an international grievance mechanism but that was downgraded.

So some good was done, but there were many inadequacies, such as the agreement to “phase down” rather than “phase out” coal production, even if it was an advance to see coal mentioned for the first time in a Cop decision.

The biggest coal producers and users, such as China, the US, Australia and India, also did not sign on to an earlier pledge to end the use of coal power. With this, it is difficult to imagine that the 1.5C goal will be achieved. What we need is for countries who are contributing most to greenhouse gas emissions to be serious in cutting back on fossil fuel production.

For us in developing countries, the capacity of our governments to adapt and mitigate is directly dependent on the provision of finance from the rich world. And yet, the commitment to deliver $100bn every year from 2020 was not reaffirmed.

We indigenous peoples will continue to do our duties and fulfil our obligations to Mother Earth and to our future generations. But we will be able to do these better if our collective rights to our lands, territories and resources, to culture and to our traditional knowledge, practices and innovations are respected and protected. Many lives of indigenous leaders and activists have been sacrificed nurturing the ecosystem the world needs. Cop26 didn’t do enough to set us on a clear path to 1.5C, or to allow vulnerable countries and people to adapt to the ongoing crisis.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz is the director of Tebtebba Foundation (Indigenous Peoples’ International Centre for Policy Research and Education) in the Philippines

The climate talks tokenize Indigenous peoples
Opinion | November 16th 2021
#98 of 98 articles from the 
Special Report:COP26: Uniting the World to Tackle Climate Change

Young Indigenous Land Back protesters march in Glasgow on Nov. 5, 2021
 where the global climate talks were underway. Photo by: Nora Legrand

Among a particular subset of Indigenous leaders, activists and youth — the subset that comprises, I should disclose, a significant share of my professional network and social media feed — the annual United Nations Climate Change Conference has become a more or less yearly fixture on the calendar.

It’s a time when us environmentally concerned Natives consider packing our bags — including, more likely than not, some handcrafted items from our prized traditional regalia — and jetting off to whichever far-flung global city is hosting, feathers, beads and ancestors’ dreams in tow. If I were to plop those talks into my Secwépemc peoples’ traditional calendar, the late summer and fall would look something like: pick berries, fish salmon, hunt deer and the occasional moose, talk climate, move into the pit house, share stories and tell jokes, freeze our collective asses off.

If this sounds a bit flippant, I should say that climate change is deadly serious. The UN describes anthropogenic warming as “code red for humanity.” Its environmental, political, social, economic and cultural consequences fall most heavily on Indigenous peoples, whose lifeways are already threatened by the status quo. In many parts of the world, Indigenous groups are marginalized and persecuted. Our lands have been encroached upon and what remains, is under near-constant threat. Our religions and cultures have been outlawed and, in some places, are still targeted by government policies explicitly designed to bring them to an end. As droughts intensify, seas rise, forests burn and turn to desert and communities are dislodged from formerly habitable patches of earth, igniting new conflicts over resources and power, First Peoples face a grave and uncertain future.

We stand to lose not just our lands and ways of life, but also our languages and very identities. When there’s no Arctic sea ice left in the summer, what will it mean to be Inuit — a people who still hunt sea mammals through the holes in the ice? When the last salmon swims up the Fraser River, how can we still be Salish — salmon people? And when the Marshall Islands are swallowed by the Pacific, what will the Marshallese call themselves? Can you be an islander without an island to call home? You see for the Indigenous, climate change is a matter of life or death.

And so this year, as in years past, many of my friends — and one or two who I’d even dare to call my relations — packed their bags for Glasgow, a Scottish port city in the United Kingdom that once played a prominent role in the ignominious trade of American tobacco, cotton and sugar.

Among them was Fawn Sharp, the first woman elected president of the National Congress of American Indians, the body that represents and advocates for American Indians and Alaska Natives in Washington, D.C. Sharp is the vice-president of the Quinault Nation, a tribe from the west coast of Washington state. The Quinault, like many other Indigenous nations, live with the metastasizing cancer of climate change at their doorstep. Their primary village of Taholah is now being relocated to higher ground because of rising seas. Every summer, their forests are threatened by wildfires. And as the waters of the Pacific warm, their blueback salmon, which once numbered in the millions, return in runs of just a few thousand.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sharp has been one of the most outspoken tribal advocates for policies to address and adapt to global warming as well as for justice for the victims of climate change — especially and specifically for the Indigenous. At COP26, the U.S. State Department gave Sharp diplomatic credentials, making her the first tribal leader to ever serve as part of a United States delegation, giving her — and us — a literal seat at the table. At almost all of her public engagements, Sharp wears a traditional cedar bark hat, the kind worn by members of her tribe’s ocean-going canoe society. I imagine this was the first time one was worn by a delegate at a climate summit.

What people are reading

B.C. dairy farmers struggle to save animals from flood
By Brittany Hobson | News | November 17th 2021

At COP26, Sharp was joined by dozens of other Indigenous leaders and activists. Some, like U.S. Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, hold important policymaking roles in their national governments. Others were tribal leaders and youth activists who see their roles as advocates for their peoples, generations and homelands to world leaders who are quick to overlook us. And while their presence marked a welcome turn towards further Indigenous inclusion and representation at the international level, many participants expressed frustration at what they experienced as a tokenizing dynamic at the climate talks, where world leaders — particularly ones representing liberal regimes — are happy to pose for photos with traditionally garbed Indigenous peoples but are also quick to leave the room whenever one gets on the microphone.

Explicit racism might be out of fashion among the multicultural global elite, but a softer prejudice — one that asks Indigenous peoples to show up as victims dressed in traditional outfits speaking for “Mother Earth,” a representational politics that smacks of the “noble savage” trope — persists.

There’s a rather literal structural reason for this. The United Nations Climate Change Conference is organized a bit like a corporation, a bureaucracy or — maybe if you’re more prone to cynicism — like Dante’s Nine Circles of Hell, with concentric spheres of access, influence and sin. The innermost circle, the global equivalent of the climate C-Suite, belongs to the countries that have signed onto the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. President Sharp was the first tribal leader to formally participate as a diplomat in this space. The second circle belongs to the NGOs, businesses and other organizations with an interest in climate change. (Think: grey-suited technocrats, slick corporate lobbyists and the occasional non-profit leader.) Some particularly wonky and connected participants in this tier may even be invited into the inner circle to observe, but never to formally participate, in negotiations. The third and outermost circle is the domain of the public and, often, of activists. Generally, as you descend into the innermost circles of the climate talks, you’ll find more power and fewer Indigenous peoples and as you move outwards, you’ll find less power and more Indigenous peoples.

At #COP26, where #Indigenous people were invited to show up in traditional dress but given no negotiating power, the “noble savage” trope persists, @jnoisecat writes for @natobserver. #IndigenousRights #EnvironmentalJustice

While a few Indigenous leaders, like Sharp, now have some marginal influence on negotiations, most, in reality, do not. And this has real-world consequences. In Glasgow, Indigenous peoples hoped to ensure their rights were protected in the implementation of emissions trading markets — the kind outlined in Article 6 of the Paris Agreement — which will pay governments, corporations and communities to protect forests as natural carbon sinks. Depending on how these markets are implemented, they can either empower or dispossess Indigenous communities.

In coastal British Columbia, for example, First Nations like the Nuxalk have used carbon credit revenues earned through the protection of forests — essential natural sinks that keep carbon in trees rather than in the atmosphere — to fund programs that empower their people as the rightful environmental stewards of their traditional territories. (This, as I reported in a 2018 article for Canadian Geographic, is a good thing for them and the climate.) Elsewhere, however, Indigenous peoples have either been excluded from carbon markets or seen themselves locked out of their own lands because of them.

In Peru, for example, the government has sold carbon credits created by conserving the forested homelands of the Indigenous Kichwa to corporations like Shell, Ben & Jerry’s and British Airways. The Kichwa say they have never been consulted about this and do not benefit from the arrangements. In California, to cite a different example, the Yurok have protected their forests in an effort to receive carbon credit revenues only to discover that the stringent rules attached to those credits prevent them from using their ancestral lands for traditional uses. As the global fight against climate change picks up momentum, it’s not hard to imagine the emergence of emissions trading schemes that look a lot like the more sordid chapters of the land-grabbing colonial past.

In Glasgow, Indigenous peoples secured language calling on parties to the COP26 agreement to “respect, promote and consider their obligations on human rights, the right to health and the rights of Indigenous peoples” in the implementation of climate solutions, but, crucially, we did not secure the creation of an international forum to protect those rights if and when they are violated.

At the end of the day, the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the text wasn’t all that different from the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in the talks themselves. You can’t say we’re not there, but then again, our presence still feels more symbolic than substantive. The textual equivalent of a photo-op, perhaps.

“Indigenous peoples had a clear vision for COP26,” wrote United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Victoria Tauli-Corpuz in The Guardian. “But it has not been delivered.” It seems that this year, like many before, an awful lot of Indigenous peoples travelled to the climate talks to plead for world leaders’ attention by performing a combination of traditional culture and social victimhood, only to be patted on the head. There’s a fine line between having a seat at the table and being a lap dog.

As I write this column, the entire city of Merritt, B.C., population 7,000, is being evacuated after flooding overwhelmed its wastewater system, filling the streets with sewage. Merritt isn’t in my peoples’ homelands, but it’s not far from them. It’s a place where many of our community members end up looking for a job, a home or a relationship. While part of me wouldn’t mind if Indigenous peoples turned our back on these hypocritical world leaders’ “climate talks,” like the Native guy in Lawrence Paul Yuxweluptun’s aptly titled 1990 painting Red Man Watching White Man Trying to Fix Hole in the Sky, I know that with everything going to shit, that’s not really an option.

Next year, I’m sure many of my friends will pack their bags with their finest Indian clothes for another climate summit where they will mostly be denied a seat at the table and paid little more than lip service. There’s something incredibly brave in their act but there’s also something absurd in a system that creates that imperative.

November 16th 2021
John Deere union workers ratify new deal to end strike

Phil Helsel
NOV. 17,2021

More than 10,000 striking John Deere workers will go back to work after approving a new agreement that union leadership called a landmark deal.


© Provided by NBC News

Workers at 14 Deere & Co. locations have been on strike since Oct. 14 after the union overwhelmingly rejected a contract offer that would’ve delivered 5 percent raises to some workers and 6 percent to others.

On Wednesday, members ratified a new six-year agreement that includes 10 percent increases in wages this year, and a total increase of 20 percent over the life of the contract, the United Auto Workers said.

"UAW John Deere members did not just unite themselves, they seemed to unite the nation in a struggle for fairness in the workplace,” union President Ray Curry said in a statement.

Deere CEO John C. May said the agreements give workers “the opportunity to earn wages and benefits that are the best in our industries and are groundbreaking in many ways.

In addition to the wage increases, the newly ratified deal includes an $8,500 signing bonus, more retirement options and makes no changes to healthcare, the union said.

“It’s been good for us,” Tony Long, a worker in Ottumwa, Iowa, told NBC affiliate WHO of Des Moines. “I’m glad it worked out like this.”

The agreement was ratified by union members by 61 percent to 39 percent, the UAW said.


“Our members courageous willingness to strike in order to attain a better standard of living and a more secure retirement resulted in a groundbreaking contract and sets a new standard for workers not only within the UAW but throughout the country,” said UAW Vice President Chuck Browning in a statement.

Union members rejected a previous agreement on Nov. 2, staying on strike.

Deere reported record profits this year. It has said its net income is projected to be $5.7 to $5.9 billion.


There have been a number of strikes or threatened strikes across the country this year as workers demand better conditions.

Around 1,400 Kelloggs workers went on strike Oct. 5, and have not returned to work. Nabisco workers also went on strike for weeks before ratifying a new deal in September.

In the entertainment industry, around 60,000 International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees threatened to strike, with members citing long hours, no weekends off and no rest periods between shifts. Union membership voted this week to ratify a deal, ending the strike threat.

IOWA VIEW

Opinion: As John Deere employees vote, farmer and worker unity is building our communities

Striking workers have little to do with any delays farmers are experiencing to finish the harvest.


Aaron Lehman
Guest columnist
NOV. 17,2021

As a central Iowa farmer, I have a lifelong attachment to John Deere equipment. As a 3-year-old, it is the brand of toy tractor that I deviously unwrapped the day before Christmas. And today, as a fifth-generation Iowa family farmer, our most recent John Deere tractor purchase has made almost all jobs on our farm easier.

When I was a young man, our family was invited to the Waterloo John Deere tractor factory to take a tour and to watch my father’s new tractor being manufactured. He was so proud as he drove the impressive machine off the assembly line.

What impressed him most was the conversations with the workers. Even though their jobs were busy and sometimes difficult, the men and women took the time to share their expertise about the new machinery and to ask how it might fit into our farm operation. The dedication and innovation of those workers made my father extremely proud of the purchase.

More:UAW members weigh consequences as they consider whether to reject John Deere's third offer

More:Rekha Basu: Do the John Deere strike and others signal hope for workers' rights post-COVID?

I am still very proud of our John Deere equipment. But I feel far more connection to the striking United Auto Workers men and women than to the culture of the global company that builds the green equipment I spend countless hours a year operating to make my living.

As I read accounts of why the workers are on strike, I appreciate their willingness to think into the future about new workers and their communities and not just about their own current comfort and the security of a modest raise. This is what community looks like. And out here in rural Iowa, I still feel connected to the kind of community these strikers represent.



As Iowa farmers and Iowa workers, we share the desire to better the fate of our families and communities. These UAW members aren’t just striking for better benefits for themselves; they represent all of us who work with our hands and our backs to make a living, to support our families and to invest in our communities.

As an Iowa farmer who shares those values, I don’t want others to use me to help turn public opinion against these workers. Supply chain issues have been a long-standing issue made worse by a massive concentration in the industry with just a very few manufacturers. The pandemic has made all these issues even more apparent.
Your stories live here.
Fuel your hometown passion and plug into the stories that define it.
Create Account

It may be hard to fathom for those of us whose families grew up repairing equipment, but many farmers struggle with legal issues that limit their “right to repair” their own equipment. Many farmers like me join the striking workers in our belief that there are simply too few in the industry that hold too much control.

Simply put, striking workers have little to do with any delays farmers are experiencing to finish the harvest.

Our rural values inform our knowledge that our communities require unity among farmers and workers. The only way to level the playing field in agriculture and agribusiness is by working together. Sometimes that means prevailing through tough labor negotiations. Sometimes that means insisting on fair public policy like tight anti-trust enforcement.

There was a day when it worked to pit farmers against unions. There was a day when farmers might have felt more connected to the equipment and its color than we did to the workers who build it. But those days have long since passed. Farmers have far more in common with those workers on the picket line than with global companies that make massive profits at the expense of both of us.



Aaron Lehman, a central Iowa farmer, is president of the Iowa Farmers Union.


RAF makes world's first flight using pure synthetic fuel
By David Szondy
November 17, 2021

The Ikarus C42 microlight was fueled by a pure synthetic fuel

Ministry of Defence

The Royal Air Force has set a new record by completing the first ever aircraft flight powered entirely by synthetic fuel. On November 2 in the skies over Cotswold Airport in the UK, Group Captain Peter Hackett piloted an Ikarus C42 microlight aircraft fueled by a synthetic UL91 fuel made by British energy company Zero Petroleum from water and carbon dioxide

Synthetic fuels from basic carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen are not new, nor is their use in aircraft, but the normal practice is to produce a blend of synthetic and fossil fuels with under 50 percent synthetics. This means that if one is using synthetics to reduce the use of fossil fuels, making military bases more independent from supply lines, or reducing carbon emissions, the results fall far short of the goal.

For this reason, the RAF and Zero Petroleum are seeking a way to produce purely synthetic fuels that can be burned by high-performance aircraft under normal operational conditions. In other words, fuels that can be produced at forward bases or aboard aircraft carriers in a closed cycle that is independent of shipped-in raw materials, while reducing carbon emissions by up to 90 percent.

For the test, the Ikarus was fielded with Zero Petroleum's ZERO SynAvGas, which is a synthetic UL91 fuel produced from water and carbon dioxide, which are broken down and then subjected to the Fischer-Tropsch process. This process is a series of reactions that turn the hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon into methane and then into increasingly complex organic molecules like polyethylene, ethanol, ethylene, methane, polypropylene, and in turn jet fuel.

Zero Petroleum likens this to photosynthesis and says its process is run on renewable energy like solar, wind, or hydroelectric. Before the demo flight, the new fuel was tested by the CFS Aero aircraft overhaul and repair facility, which found that the Ikarus' engine ran cooler, suggesting the synthetic fuel could extend engine life.

In line with the government's Net Zero goals, the RAF plans to have its first carbon neutral base by 2025 and the entire service will be carbon neutral by 2040.

"This unique project with the Royal Air Force demonstrates the validity of our synthetic fuel and the potential it has to eliminate fossil CO2 emissions from a number of difficult but critical sectors, including transport which currently accounts for 23 percent of the global total," says Zero Petroleum's CEO, Paddy Lowe. "We are particularly proud of the fact that our high-grade aviation gasoline ZERO SynAvGas was developed in just five months and ran successfully in the aircraft as a whole-blend without any modification whatsoever to the aircraft or the engine. The engine manufacturer Rotax’s measurements and the test pilot’s observations showed no difference in power or general performance compared to standard fossil fuel."

 Kelowna  

Kelowna radio on-air host sues station for 'misogynistic' and 'toxic' workplace

Radio host sues employer

Suzanne Milne claims Kelowna radio station CKLZ (formerly Power-104) fostered and promoted an environment that was both toxic and misogynistic.

Milne, who spent more than six years at the station under the pseudonym "Sue Tyler," made the claims in court documents filed in BC Supreme Court in Kelowna this week.

She is suing station owner Jim Pattison Broadcast Group and Pattison Media, along with multiple employees, including general manager Karl Johnston.

In the suit, Milne contends she was hired in April of 2014 to portray her Sue Tyler character on the station.

She says the character, crafted over 30 years, was designed to appeal for a male demographic aged 18 to 40.

The character, she says, portrayed as confident and empowered, fun and outgoing. The character pushed the envelope on women's sexuality and dressed provocatively during public appearances.

Milne claims male staff "did not differentiate between the character and her, and accordingly deemed it appropriate to speak and treat her in a belittling and sexist manner simply because the Sue Tyler character was overly sexual and confident," documents stated.

She says she made complaints to Johnston about the culture of the workplace, but added those complaints had fallen on deaf ears, stating Johnston supported, fostered and participated in the inappropriate workplace culture.

She cited several examples of what she terms misogynistic behaviour on behalf of staff members.

In one instance two years ago, while suffering with shingles, she states her manager publicly suggested she instead had gonorrhea. When confronted, she said the manager laughed and continued to make fun of her condition.

Milne is on long-term medical leave triggered by the workplace environment for the "intentional infliction of mental suffering."

Court documents claim their actions contributed to depression, anxiety, PTSD, the inability to perform her duties, loss of enjoyment of life, hypertension, insomnia, suicidal thoughts and a racing heart rate.

She claims the company breached its duty to provide a workplace free from harassment, sexual or otherwise, and its duty to treat her with civility, decency and respect by failing to make a timely, prompt, appropriate or remedial response to her informal and formal complaints.

Milne is seeking unspecified damages from all defendants.

The defendants named in the suit have not yet filed a response to the allegations, which have not yet been tested in a court of law.

The Jim Pattison Broadcast Group declined comment.

Leaked Audio: Amazon Workers Grill Managers at Anti-Union Meeting

"We are putting the company on our back 10 hours a day...They’re taking time away from our breaks. There is no voice here."


By Lauren Kaori Gurley
17.11.21
On the Clock

On the Clock is Motherboard's reporting on the organized labor movement, gig work, automation, and the future of work.

“We’re here to share facts, opinions, and experiences,” Ronald Edison, a senior operations manager at Amazon told warehouse workers in Staten Island in a mandatory anti-union meeting last week.

“[Amazon Labor Union] is a newly formed group that wants to represent workers at all four Staten Island campuses even though it has no experience,” he continued.

Last week, Amazon began holding mandatory anti-union meetings at JFK8, its largest New York City warehouse, and three neighboring warehouses, where workers recently filed and withdrew a petition for a union election in Staten Island. This particular meeting, which roughly 50 workers attended, turned contentious. Workers pushed back against management on what workers said were misleading talking points about unions, and spoke about grueling and dangerous working conditions that they believe a union can help improve.

Unionfacts.com (IS ANTI UNION)


Motherboard is publishing excerpts of the audio, recorded at what is known in the organized labor world as a “captive audience meeting,” to show how Amazon takes advantage of its direct access to workers to discredit union drives at the company. The recording has been cut down to 15 minutes and has been edited to protect sources. Across all sectors, these types of sessions have historically been very successful in scaring workers out of voting for a union. This is the first time audio from a captive audience meeting at Amazon has been published.

The recording is a direct look at the type of messaging that Amazon management is sending workers about unions, which is particularly notable because Amazon successfully thwarted a high stakes unionization effort in Bessemer, Alabama earlier this year. To date, no Amazon facilities in the United States have successfully unionized.

Amazon workers in Staten Island are unionizing with an independent union, known as Amazon Labor Union (ALU), that was formed by current and former employees earlier this year after the election in Bessemer.

“We continue to be a target for third-parties who do not understand our pro-employee philosophy and seek to disrupt the direct relationship between Amazon and our associates,” Edison, the operations manager, told workers at the outset of the meeting. “It would charge its members dues, fees, fines, and assessments in exchange for their representation.”

“Hey, you mind if I jump in real quick?” a worker, who self-identified as a leader of the union, said. “Now you said ‘third party.’ So the ALU is a third party? Allow me to correct you because I actually started the ALU. ALU is full of all Amazon associates. You say a ‘third party,’ but they’re all Amazon associates trying to form a union.”

Throughout the meeting, Amazon representatives repeatedly described the Amazon Labor Union as a “third party” that could take money from workers, a common argument made by companies to discredit unions and distract from the fact that many unions are made up of and led by workers.

“We regularly hold meetings with our employees as our focus remains on listening directly to them and continuously improving on their behalf,” Barbara Agrait, a spokesperson for Amazon told Motherboard. “It’s our employees’ choice whether or not to join a union. It always has been. And it’s important that everyone understands the facts about joining a union and the election process itself. We host regular information sessions for all employees, which includes an opportunity for them to ask questions. If the union vote passes, it will impact everyone at the site so it’s important all employees understand what that means for them and their day-to-day life working at Amazon.”

The November 11 meeting started as many captive audience meetings do, with the positives about working for Amazon. Edison and someone who introduced himself as an Amazon human resources employee who has worked at the company for 11 years, outlined a series of mechanisms at workers' disposal to raise concerns about their working conditions, including an internal comment board called “Voice of Amazon,” an opportunity to share workplace concerns on your birthday month called, “Birthday Roundtables,” as well as mechanisms for contacting the general manager of their warehouse, or even higher level managers beyond the warehouse.

“Birthday roundtables is another way we pull associates in during their birthday month. It’s your chance to get a nice treat, do a fun activity, but it’s also a communication time where we can talk about what’s going well, what are some opportunities, and what you want to see more of, and what can we do to create a great culture,” said Edison. (Promising to listen to workers’ concerns is a typical tactic of employers looking to convince workers that they don’t need a union.)

But the meeting quickly turned into a lecture about the Amazon Labor Union. “Let’s talk about Amazon and third parties,” Edison said. “We have an amazing workforce, and our direct relationship with associates like you has been a key factor to our ability to deliver the best possible services globally to our customers.”

Do you work for Amazon and have a tip to share? Please get in touch with the reporter Lauren Gurley, via email, lauren.gurley@vice.com or on Signal 201-897-2109.

“You may be approached by an ALU representative or an associate wearing a vest who could ask you to sign something,” the Amazon human resource representative said. “That’s perfectly fine. They’re legally allowed to do that but just make sure you’re reading the fine print of what that authorization card is implying. By signing you could be authorizing the ALU to speak on your behalf or you could be obligated to pay union dues so just make sure you read everything closely.

This statement is false. While collecting signed union cards from employees is what allows the National Labor Relations Board to determine whether there is enough support from workers for a union to qualify for an election, it does not give unions the right to extract union dues from workers. Workers are only legally required to pay union dues in New York if and once a majority of their workforce votes to join a union and a contract is ratified.

“Not to call you guys out,” one worker at the meeting said. “But you guys are always open and honest with us? I find that very false especially during COVID? I mean come on man, people get COVID here everyday.”

Last month Amazon Labor Union filed for a union election at four Staten Island facilities, submitting more than 2,000 union authorization cards with the National Labor Relations Board. But last week, Amazon Labor Union withdrew their petition for the election because they didn’t get enough signatures to qualify for a union election. (Typically a union needs authorization cards signed by a third of a company’s workers to qualify for a union election.)

In a tweet, the union blamed the situation on Amazon’s high turnover and firing union organizers and said they planned “replace those few cards and resubmit shortly.”

If Amazon workers in Staten Island vote to unionize they’d be the first to do so in the United States at the vehemently anti-union company, which is on track to become the largest employer in the country within the next year or two.

For decades, mandatory anti-union meetings have been a common tactic employers use to crush support for union drives. In fact, 89 percent of employers use captive audience meetings during union drives, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Employers typically present these meetings as “educational,” lay out anti-union arguments as fact, and spread fear among workers by focusing on what they could potentially lose by joining a union.

Under current labor law, employers can fire and retaliate against employees who refuse to attend captive audience meetings, but a bill known as the Protect the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, which passed the House of Representatives and parts of which are included in President Biden’s Build Back Better Act, would attempt to level the playing field by prohibiting employers from mandating workers to attend captive audience meetings.

“We continue to be a target for third-parties who do not understand our pro-employee philosophy and seek to disrupt the direct relationship between Amazon and our associates.”

Over the past six months, Amazon employees who formed Amazon Labor Union have set up a tent outside of JFK8, where workers can sign union authorization cards. The union has also provided hotdogs, hamburgers, and mac and cheese for workers at these events, and in recent days, has been giving out free marijuana.

During the meeting, Amazon suggested that these barbecues are intended to deceive workers into signing union cards.

“The ALU can say or promise anything. It’s important to read closely anything the ALU gives you to sign,” the Amazon human resources said. “They may tell you it’s for free food or other things, but you may be giving up your voice and you may be obligated to dues ...If you’re being promised something—more pay, better benefits, a voice, whatever that may be—the thing I’d challenge is a ‘promise’ versus a ‘guarantee,’ and in legal terms, they mean two completely different things. So if you’re being promised something, ask for that in writing and see if the ALU can give you that in writing.”

It is true that unions cannot guarantee raises, benefits, or perks to workers who vote to unionize, because these terms are negotiated in a contract at a bargaining table with management once a union is formed. But statistics show that on average workers who are part of unions earn 11.2 percent more than their non-union counterparts in the same industries, and are significantly more likely to be covered by employer-paid health insurance, according to the Economic Policy Institute. Data shows that Black and Latinx employees are paid 13.7 percent and 20.1 percent more than their non union counterparts, respectively.

“If you don’t want a union, you have to start treating people better instead of turning them over at a rate that’s just insane.”Unionfacts.orgunionfacts.com

Following the information session at JFK8, the Amazon representatives leading the meeting opened up the floor for questions—and workers challenged the session’s leaders intentions, and brought up workplace concerns.

“What state are you all from? Where ya’ll from?” one worker asked. “Seriously, I’m asking you.”

“Indiana area,” one of the representatives said.

“Chicago area,” another representative said.

“Connecticut,” another representative said.

“Okay so you guys aren’t from New York,” the worker said. “They are flying you out here from Indiana, Connecticut and all that. Got ya’ll staying in hotels, paying y’all’s bread and we are putting the company on our back 10 hours a day, 11 hours a day. They’re taking time away from our breaks. There is no voice here,” the same worker said earlier.

“So the union [negotiates] for your salary, respect, seniority, your retirement?” another worker asked the meeting’s leaders.

“What I’ll say to that is the fact is that nothing is guaranteed,” the human resources representative said. “Your health benefits and the premiums you pay could be more, they could be the same, or they could be less.”

“See you’re dodging it,” another worker interrupted, raising his voice. “A lot of [members] get better benefits when they join a union. That’s the whole point of this. Why would Amazon workers decide to form a union if Amazon was doing everything they wanted it to do?”

The representatives attempted to cut the worker off, but the worker continued, “No, I’m going to talk….You mentioned all these [mechanisms] that workers have to speak out. And what has Amazon done? Nothing. I’ve been at Amazon for six years, bro. What are we talking about here? The issues that were occurring in 2015 are occurring now. So you talk about using your voice? There has been no change at all. The same amount of personal time. The same amount of vacation time. The same amount of [unpaid time off]. People get fired left and right. People get sick. Amazon didn’t even want to tell nobody about COVID. What are we talking about?”

“You can leave if you like. Don’t get mad at me,” the human resources representative said.

Another worker then spoke up. “I’ve been here three years and I only make $21.50,” he said. “After that three years, they got no incentives for anybody. This is not a long term job and you treat it like that when you turn people out so quickly. Your turnover rate is like 120 percent and that was in The New York Times, and you guys turn over people so much that you’re literally running out of people to hire because no one wants to stay here for long because you’re not making it an environment that people want to stay here and work for years at a time.”

(The New York Times reported in June that prior to the pandemic turnover at Amazon was roughly 3 percent a week, or 150 percent a year.)

“If you don’t want a union, you have to start treating people better instead of turning them over at a rate that’s just insane,” the worker continued. “I work with a 60-year-old woman. Don’t get me wrong. She busts her ass here. She puts in work. This workload is not easy. But what happens when she’s 62 and has terrible back issues because she’s been working a 10-hour day for three years? Are you guys going to pay her medical bills? No, because the second she can’t meet ‘rate’ or doesn’t work for the company, she doesn’t exist for you guys. There’s no medical care after you stop working here even though people sacrifice their legs and their backs. How many people here have gotten terrible injuries from working here? Back issues. Knee issues. They’re coming in for braces all the time, and you guys make all that stuff so incredibly hard. A friend of mine just recently, while she was here, pulled a muscle in her hand, went to a doctor and went to Amazon. They said ‘oh, it’s not that big of a deal’ and she went back to work. Turns out she tore ligaments in her hand but Amazon was like ‘oh, you can go back to work.’”

(“Rate” is the productivity quota that Amazon sets for its warehouse workers.)

The human resources representative said he could not comment on the specific situation “because of HIPAA laws.”

“You guys always hide behind the loopholes,” the worker retorted. “You guys work in a complete grey area.”

Another worker chimed in about recently being in the hospital for nine days with COVID-19, and having lost two close family members to COVID-19 last year, noting that “nothing has changed” at the facility.

“Extremely sorry for your loss,” the human resource representative said.

The worker also noted it was “ridiculous” that Amazon sometimes didn’t notify workers for up to a week when they had been exposed to someone who contracted the virus.

After 29 minutes, the meeting’s leaders abruptly brought the meeting to a close while workers continued to express their anger over working conditions at the facility and talk over the meeting’s leaders.

It is unclear whether Amazon will continue to hold captive audience meetings now that the petition has been withdrawn but the company has spent months spreading anti-union messages, including in fliers on bathroom stalls, text messages, and on TV displays visible to workers at the Staten Island facilities. In August, Motherboard reported that the National Labor Relations Board found that Amazon illegally confiscated union literature from the Amazon Labor Union.

Amazon workers in Bessemer, Alabama, are also organizing toward a second union election this year, after the National Labor Relations found that Amazon had interfered so thoroughly with election proceedings earlier this year to scrap the initial results for the defeated union election in April. Amazon warehouse workers in Alabama, too, have been forced to sit through captive audience meetings.