MORE BILLIONAIRES IN SPACE

Japanese duo prepare for first tourist flight to space station since 2009
By Paul Brinkmann


Japanese billionaire and space tourist Yusaku Maezawa trains for his space mission. 

Photo courtesy of Roscosmos

Dec. 6 (UPI) -- Two Japanese businessmen plan to become the first paying tourists to visit the International Space Station since 2009 by rocketing into orbit from Kazakhstan on Wednesday.

Billionaire Yusaku Maezawa, who made his fortune in the fashion industry, booked seats for himself and his production assistant, Yozo Hirano, aboard a Russian Soyuz spacecraft through Virginia-based spacecraft broker Space Adventures.

Cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin will pilot the Soyuz during its flight to the space station and upon its return 12 days later. NASA plans to broadcast live video of the launch planned for 2:38 a.m. EST Wednesday.

The mission is part of a rapid expansion in space travel, Tom Shelley, president of Space Adventures, said in an interview.

RELATED Musk, Maezawa say moon mission is on track for 2023

"The general level of awareness and understanding of what it means to fly to space has increased particularly in the last two or three years," Shelley said.

Space Adventures booked eight private space flights on Russian rockets from 2001 to 2009, but the retirement of the space shuttle in 2011 led to a shortage of such flights.

The U.S. space program bought a large number of seats on Russian rockets since then, but the success of SpaceX Crew Dragon missions made more seats available, Shelley said.

RELATED NASA's SpaceX Crew-3 astronauts name their capsule Endurance

2 / 5From left to right, Soyuz MS-20 crew members Yozo Hirano, Russian cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin and Yusaku Maezawa try on their spacesuits. 

Photo courtesy of Roscosmos

Maezawa, 46, and Hirano, 36, have opened a new chapter in Space Adventure's business and in private space travel, he said.

"[Maezawa] has been fantastic. Some of the stuff he's sharing on social media about his training, and how to wear a spacesuit, I think that's been pretty unique," Shelley said.

For example, Maezawa posted a video of himself donning a Russian spacesuit, outlining many detailed steps that sometimes seemed quite awkward.

"I'll be careful when I go!" he said during the video, according to a translation. "For my actual launch, I'll be wearing my very own spacesuit, not like this one for training."

He added, "I'll be going to space Dec. 8, and I'll be uploading as many videos from the ISS as I can, so please keep an eye out for them."

Maezawa also booked a flight to orbit the moon in 2023 in a SpaceX Starship rocket, which is being developed. He announced in March that he sought, through a contest, eight people to fly with him, but he hasn't named the winners.

Maezawa's space station mission follows the all-private orbital Inspiration4 spaceflight in September, when four civilians circled the Earth in a SpaceX capsule.

That mission, arranged by billionaire Jared Isaacman, drew attention through coverage in a Netflix miniseries and a fundraising campaign for Memphis-based St. Jude Children's Research Hospital.

From left to right, Soyuz MS-20 crew members Yozo Hirano, Russian cosmonaut Alexander Misurkin and Yusaku Maezawa pose for a photo during training. 

Photo courtesy of Roscosmos

Russia also sent two private citizens to the space station in October to film a movie, in a mission that was partly sponsored by its space agency Roscosmos.

Neither Maezawa nor Space Adventures has disclosed how much he is paying for the two seats, but NASA had been paying about $80 million for a seat in recent years.

Despite the cost, such private missions ultimately help to expand the market for spaceflight, which should someday drive down prices, said John Spencer, a space architect and founder of the nonprofit Space Tourism Society.

"Maezawa is serious about pioneering space experiences for people, and also about talking more about the view of Earth from space, how that changes people, and the meaning of humanity moving outward," Spencer said in an interview.

Training with Russia's space program is intense, but necessary, Spencer said, because private space tourists must be able to respond in an emergency.

"If you really freak out during training, during a zero gravity flight or on the spinning chair centrifuge, you're not going to fly," he said.

"So when you have people who step up, like this guy, and they're willing to put their money and lives on the line -- that's important."


The International Space Station is pictured from the SpaceX Crew Dragon Endeavour during a flyaround of the orbiting lab that took place following its undocking from the Harmony module’s space-facing port on November 8. Photo courtesy of NASA

The US Military Can't Be Trusted to Investigate Civilian Casualties

As the Biden administration appears to be ramping up airstrikes in Syria, Congress needs to do a full review of the American role in the country's decade-long civil war.


Search and rescue works continue at debris of collapsed building by civil defense teams after airstrikes hit a chicken farm killing 5 civilians including 3 children in Idlib, Syria on November 11, 2021. 

(Photo: Izzeddin Idilbi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)


KATE KIZER

December 7, 2021 by Responsible Statecraft

U.S. Central Command reported late on Friday a U.S. drone strike in Idlib, Syria against a senior member of al-Qaida, rather than against a member of the self-described Islamic State —the ostensible legal justification the United States is even in Syria. Even more interestingly, CENTCOM claimed it "immediately self-reported" one civilian casualty that it is investigating.

Congress should make the U.S. military publicly refute credible evidence of hundreds of unclaimed civilian casualties caused by the United States and U.S. supported forces since the start of the Syrian war.

But U.S. policymakers should not defer to the military's investigatory promises given its history of covering up or not sufficiently accounting for civilian casualties. In fact, the Associated Press has since reported that the strike wounded a family of 6, including a 10-year-old child.

With such "over-the-horizon" strikes likely to become a key component of Team Biden's rebranded counterterrorism strategy, the national security committees in Congress have a duty to comprehensively review and interrogate the strategic and human costs of this approach.

This latest strike, rather than a one off, appears to be part of a pattern of drone attacks in Idlib in spite of the administration's claimed moratorium on drone strikes during its counterterrorism review. In late September, military officials revealed it had carried out a drone strike in the province earlier that month against another alleged member of al-Qaida, while claiming no civilian casualties.

It's no coincidence the CENTCOM appears to have proactively taken responsibility for this latest civilian casualty. This incident came at the end of a week of rightful public uproar after the New York Times revealed the U.S. military's apparent cover up of an airstrike killing 80 civilians in eastern Syria in 2019. Rather than allowing more exhaustive investigative journalism to uncover its destructive and deadly actions in Syria, it appears CENTCOM is hoping that announcing an investigation will stave off an intense media frenzy like the one following its botched August 29 drone strike in Kabul during the withdrawal from Afghanistan that killed Zemari Ahmadi, a civilian electrical engineer, and his family.

What's new about Friday's Idlib strike is not that the United States is droning Syria and killing civilians without congressional authorization; it's that the U.S. military is now openly engaging a region of Syria —one that's the last stronghold of armed resistance to the Assad regime—that it had previously avoided outside of one-off strikes, due to the risk of entanglement in the broader Syrian conflict. The quick succession of these strikes appears to be a quiet expansion of the U.S. forever wars, and an apparent reflection of this president's desire to make our endless wars primarily remote-controlled moving forward.

You'd be forgiven if you had forgotten the United States is in Syria at all. There is no affirmative congressional authorization for U.S. military operations in Syria despite the United States bombing the country and occupying portions of it since late 2014. After it became clear that he could not get authorization for the use of military force against IS due to congressional opposition, then-President Obama invoked the then-13-year-old 2001 AUMF (passed to invade Afghanistan in 2001).

As the U.S.-led airstrike campaign transitioned into a broader train, equip, and occupy parts of eastern Syria, the United States continued drone strikes in the country. Without any domestic or international legal justification, the United States has been at war with a variety of adversaries in Syria: IS, Iranian and Hezbollah forces, Russian-hired mercenaries, and the Syrian military, not to mention its mission…for a hot minute…to "secure the oil."

For years, #endendless war advocates like myself have feared the expansion of the U.S.war in Syria to the rest of the country—particularly if war powers champions in Congress did little to challenge multiple administrations' made-up legal concept of al-Qaida's associated forces in the 2001 AUMF and dubiously-broad collective self-defense doctrines. That's what we're seeing happen today, and yet another administration is once again risking sleepwalking into more endless war and the associated human costs.

Congress shouldn't let them get away with it, and instead seize the opportunity to launch its own inquiry into U.S.-caused civilian harm in Syria—something Senator Elizabeth Warren, who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has already called for with regard to the 2019 Baghuz strike cover-up exposed by the Times. That inquiry should not just be limited to one strike, however, but instead cover the entire U.S. air campaign in Syria following the rise of IS, and include all of "the uncounted" who have yet to be officially acknowledged, let alone receive justice.

Congress should make the U.S. military publicly refute credible evidence of hundreds of unclaimed civilian casualties caused by the United States and U.S. supported forces since the start of the Syrian war. It should review whether airstrikes there met the requirements of the laws of war, and if flattening residential areas was actually justified by the perceived threat or military objective. It should also seek to understand whether and with what frequency (if any) the United States has offered or given ex gratia or condolence payments to families it has harmed.

Perhaps most importantly, Congress must question whether the U.S. military's strategy of decapitation to undermine the power of non-state armed groups even works. The reality is that the U.S. military campaign in Syria—from arming the very armed groups it is ostensibly at war with, to its massive undercounting and denial of civilian casualties—has been a dismal display of illegality and failure.

© 2021 Responsible Statecraft

Kate Kizer (@KateKizer) is the policy director at Win Without War, which seeks to establish a more progressive U.S. foreign policy and national security strategy. Previously she was the director of policy and advocacy at the Yemen Peace Project, a non-profit that advocates for the rights and interests of Yemeni Americans and for constructive U.S. policies toward Yemen.

Senate Dems Help Torpedo Resolution That Would Have Blocked $650 Million Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

"My simple question is, why in the world would the United States reward a regime that has caused such pain in Yemen with more weapons," Sanders asked after the vote. "The answer is we should not."

A Yemeni girl walks on rubble of a building destroyed in an airstrike carried out by the Saudi-led coalition in the Old City of Sana'a on July 7, 2019. (Photo: Mohammed Hamoud/Getty Images)


BRETT WILKINS

COMMONDREAMS

December 8, 2021

The United States Senate on Tuesday evening voted down a joint resolution that would have blocked the proposed sale of $650 million worth of U.S. armaments to Saudi Arabia, weapons critics said will help exacerbate a war in Yemen that is driving one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.

"The war in Yemen has had devastating humanitarian impacts and we must end it as swiftly as possible. Selling more weapons to a key party to the conflict when there's been no progress does the opposite."

In a 67-30 vote, the upper chamber rejected S.J. Res. 31, which was introduced by Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and would have halted the sale of 280 Raytheon AIM-120C-7/C-8 advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles, 596 LAU-128 missile rail launchers, along with spare parts, support, and logistical services to the Saudi monarchy for use in its war against Yemen.

"My simple question is, why in the world would the United States reward a regime that has caused such pain in Yemen with more weapons," Sanders tweeted after the vote. "The answer is we should not."

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), who voted to block the arms sale, tweeted after the vote that "the war in Yemen has had devastating humanitarian impacts and we must end it as swiftly as possible. Selling more weapons to a key party to the conflict when there's been no progress does the opposite.

President Joe Biden's administration had "strongly opposed" the resolution, claiming the missiles would be used for Saudi "defenses." U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin was a member of Raytheon's board of directors prior to becoming Pentagon chief.

Democrats who voted to sink the measure included Sens. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), and Chris Murphy (Conn.).

Murphy—a self-described "leading critic of the Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen"—told The Intercept that he supported the missile transfer because it is "a true defensive sale."

"With the increased pace of Houthi drones coming into Saudi territory, it is actually important for them to have the ability to shoot them," he explained.

Democrats who supported the resolution include Cory Booker (N.J.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Ed Markey (Mass.), Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), Raphael Warnock (Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.).

Only two Republicans—co-sponsors Paul and Lee—voted for the measure.

Prior to Tuesday's vote, Sanders delivered a Senate floor speech urging passage of the resolution.

"Let me be very clear: As the Saudi government continues to wage its devastating war in Yemen and repress its own people, we should not be rewarding them with more arms sales," he said. "We should be demanding that they end the devastating war in Yemen, which has killed over 230,000 people in one of the poorest countries on Earth."

According to a November estimate by the United Nations Development Program, the death toll from Yemen's war will reach 377,000 by the end of 2021, with 70% of those killed under the age of five.

In the House, Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Rep. Ilhan Omar—who has introduced her own joint resolution against the proposed arms sale—also urged their upper chamber colleagues to approve the measure.

Prior to the vote, Omar asked: "Why are we selling weapons to one of the worst human rights abusers in the world?"

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

Weapons Industry Continues to Thrive During Pandemic

Brand new report shows industry giants shielded by government demand for the goods and services of war.


Former President of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Dain Hancock pumps his fist in the air after it was announced that they won a bid to build the Joint Strike Fighter on October 26, 2001 at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, TX. 

(Photo: Ronald Martinez/Getty Images

JIM LOBE

December 7, 2021 by Responsible Statecraft


Major U.S. arms companies accounted for no less than 54 percent of all weapons sales of the world's 100 biggest arms suppliers in 2020, according to a new report, the latest in an annual series published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

The report noted that the new total—an increase of 17 percent over 2015 sales—marked the sixth year in a row of growth in arms sales.

Despite pressure on many countries to divert already-strained budgets to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the subsequent global recession, sales of arms and military services by the 100 biggest companies increased by 1.3 percent compared to 2019 and totaled $531 billion dollars, according to the report.

The report noted that the new total—an increase of 17 percent over 2015 sales—marked the sixth year in a row of growth in arms sales. 2015 was the first year in which Chinese companies were included in what SIPRI refers to as the "Top 100."

"The industry giants were largely shielded by sustained government demand for military goods and services," according to Alexandra Marksteiner, Researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Programme. "In much of the world, military spending grew and some governments even accelerated payments to the arms industry in order to mitigate the (economic) impact of the Covid-19 crisis."

As in the recent past, U.S. companies dominated the top ranks. Lockheed Martin Corp. ranked number one, followed by Raytheon Technologies, Boeing, Northrop Grunmman Corp, and General Dynamics Corp. Together, those five top companies accounted for more than $180 billion in sales during 2020, or about one third of all sales by the biggest 100 companies.

Thirty-six other U.S. companies included on the list added another $100 billion in sales, bringing the total U.S. share to $285 billion, a 1.9 percent increase over 2019's total.

The five Chinese companies that were included in the Top 100 came to $66.8 billion in 2020, or 13 percent of the global total. That marked an increase of 1.5 percent over 2019, according to the report.

"In recent years, Chinese arms companies have benefited from the country's military modernization programs and focus on military–civil fusion," said Dr Nan Tian, SIPRI Senior Researcher. "They have become some of the most advanced military technology producers in the world." NORINCO, said SIPRI, co-developed the BeiDou military–civil navigation satellite system, "deepening its involvement in emerging technologies."

Led by British companies that together sold $37.5 billion in 2020, 26 European arms companies that made the list accounted for 21 percent of total arms sales, or $109 billion. That marked an increase of 6.2 percent over 2019. Britain's BAE Systems, which ranked sixth overall behind the big five U.S. companies, accounted for $24 billion, or nearly two thirds of the Europe's share.

While French company arms sales actually fell by 7.7 percent compared to 2019, sales by the four German in the Top 100 increased by 1.3 percent over the year, reaching nearly $9 billion, or 1.7 percent of total sales.

Russian companies, on the other hand suffered some of the sharpest drops in sales, in part due to delays in delivery schedules caused in major part by the pandemic.

Of the weapons firms based outside the United States, China, Europe and Russia, the three Israeli companies that made the list performed the best with $10.4 billion in sales, or two percent of the total.

Israel was followed by the five listed Japanese companies that together sold $9.9 billion worth of military goods and services and by the four listed South Korean firms whose combined sales came to $6.5 billion dollars.

© 2021 Responsible Statecraft

Jim Lobe served as Washington DC correspondent and chief of the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service (IPS) until he retired in 2015. Jim now is an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. He also runs the influential LobeLog website.

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for PERMANENT ARMS ECONOMY 

U.S. should do more for LGBTQ Afghan refugees, advocacy groups say

By Christina van Waasbergen, Medill News Service

Refugees evacuated from Kabul, Afghanistan, wait to board a bus that will take them to a refugee processing center at the Dulles International Airport in Virginia on August 26. Refugee and LGBTQ groups have called for the Biden administration to admit more LGBTQ refugees from Afghanistan to protect them from the Taliban.

 File Photo by Ken Cedeno/UPI | License Photo


WASHINGTON -- The Taliban takeover of Afghanistan has increased the threat to LGBTQ Afghans, according to several human rights groups who are urging the Biden administration to act quickly to allow more LGBTQ refugees from the country into the United States.

Dire warnings from the advocate groups come after the United States and several other countries worked to evacuate vulnerable Afghans from Kabul after the Biden administration fully withdrew U.S. troops from the country in August.

LGBTQ refugees fleeing Afghanistan have been accepted in Britain, and Canada and Ireland have also pledged to help LGBTQ Afghan refugees.

A State Department official said the United States is pressing the Taliban and Afghan leaders to form an inclusive government that respects the rights and dignity of all Afghans.

"Our commitment to the Afghan people remains steadfast," the official said. "This commitment includes supporting at-risk Afghans, including members of the LGBTQI+ community. We continue to explore options to prioritize vulnerable communities and provide assistance and support through all diplomatic and political options available."

According to Lacy Broemel, a policy analyst for the International Refugee Assistance Project, many LGBTQ Afghans have said they now have to live in hiding. In July, a German newspaper published an interview with a Taliban judge who described the punishment for homosexuality: "For homosexuals, there can only be two punishments: either stoning or he must stand behind a wall that will fall down on him."

The International Refugee Assistance Project and five other LGBTQ and refugee advocacy organizations released a 10-point plan in September outlining how the United States could help these Afghans. It calls for the Biden administration to prioritize the resettlement of LGBTQ people and other vulnerable Afghans.

"Unfortunately, LGBTQI Afghans are incredibly vulnerable, and I hope the U.S. will use its refugee program to offer assistance," said Mark Bromley, chair of the Council for Global Equality, one of the organizations that helped put the plan together.

Bromley pointed to President Joe Biden's February presidential memorandum instructing the State Department and other foreign affairs agencies to promote the human rights of LGBTQ people across the globe and protect vulnerable LGBTQ refugees.

"The president signaled as early as last February that support for LGBTQI refugees is an administration priority," Bromley said. "In the case of Afghanistan, there's never been a greater need than there is now."

RELATEDTransgender Day of Remembrance marked in deadliest year on record

The 10-point plan also calls on the Biden administration to expand or lift the 125,000-person cap for refugee admittance for fiscal year 2022.

A senior administration official said Tuesday that the more than 70,000 Afghans admitted to the United States since the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan are not counted against the 125,000-person cap.

"The Biden administration will continue to meet the needs of vulnerable Afghans, LGBTQI+ individuals and other refugees around the world who are in need of resettlement," the official said in a statement.

The advocacy groups' plan specifically calls for the United States to give LGBTQ Afghans "Priority 2" refugee status. P-2 designation, one of the principal ways refugees can gain entry into the United States, is for members of specific groups identified by the State Department as being of "special humanitarian concern."

The Biden administration has given P-2 status to Afghans who worked for the U.S. government, U.S. contractors and other U.S.-based entities such as media outlets and non-governmental organizations, but not to LGBTQ Afghans as a group.

The 10-point plan also calls for the State Department to treat unmarried same-sex partners from Afghanistan the same as spouses in its refugee program because same-sex marriage is illegal in Afghanistan.

For most immigration purposes, a marriage must be legally recognized in the jurisdiction it took place for the individuals to be considered spouses. However, under former President Barack Obama, the State Department began allowing unmarried same-sex partners from countries where same-sex marriage is illegal to come in as P-3 refugees. P-3 status applies to the spouses, parents and unmarried children under age 21 of refugees and asylum-seekers from certain countries, including Afghanistan.

To get P-3 status for a same-sex partner to whom they are not married, refugees must demonstrate that they have been in a relationship for at least a year, that they consider the person to be their spouse or life partner, and that a legal marriage was not attainable due to legal or social prohibition.

A State Department official confirmed this remains the department's policy.

'I'm Asking You To Help': Amazon Employee Describes 'Sheer Brutality' of Work to Senators

"Amazon's high-tech sweatshop caused me to develop plantar fasciitis... I take what little time I have to run to the bathroom just to cry."


Workers pack and ship customer orders at the 750,000-square-foot Amazon fulfillment center on August 1, 2017 in Romeoville, Illinois.

(Photo: Scott Olson/Getty Images)

JESSICA CORBETT

COMMONDREAMS

December 7, 2021

"I'm looking to you to stand up to corporations like Amazon and protect us."

"We are living in a country where machines are getting better treatment than people."

That was Courtenay Brown's message to U.S. senators during a subcommittee hearing on Tuesday. The Newark, New Jersey resident and Navy veteran has worked at an Amazon fulfillment center for more than three years.

Brown—also a leader at United for Respect, a movement of Amazon and Walmart workers fighting for better labor conditions—said in her "powerful" and "compelling" testimony that she wanted to "raise the alarm about Amazon's business model, its threat to working people, and its threat to our economy."

As a process guide at an Amazon facility in Avenel, New Jersey, Brown sorts groceries for delivery, work she described as "physically and mentally exhausting," before noting that "on top of that, we are monitored every single second as we scan items."

According to Brown:

So pausing even to wipe the sweat off our forehead can lead to a write-up as managers monitor our locations and times we spend doing work. If we fall behind in any way during our 12-hour shift, we risk being disciplined. We are pushed to our limit to the point where we can’t even take regular bathroom breaks. Often we literally have to run to and from the bathroom in under two minutes so we don't get in trouble. The constant pressure and surveillance is one reason why Amazon has twice the level of injuries and turnover compared to similar employers.

Taking aim at Amazon's founder and former CEO—who competes with Telsa's Elon Musk for the title of the world's richest person—Brown detailed her difficulties with the e-commerce giant's bereavement policy in the wake of her mother's death, explaining that she had to take "a month of unpaid time off, while Jeff Bezos made $75 billion last year thanks to me and my coworkers."

"Amazon's multibillion-dollar wealth is made possible by offering one- and two-day delivery," she said, "and the corporation has achieved this speed and scale through sheer brutality—watching, timing, and punishing associates like me and my coworkers for not working fast enough and not allowing associates to take time off to adequately recover, rest, and prevent burnout."

"We are living in a country where machines are getting better treatment than people," she asserted. "The machines at my facility undergo routine maintenance checks to ensure they don't burn out. Meanwhile, research has shown that workplace injury rates are higher at Amazon facilities with more robotic and automated technology."

"Amazon's high-tech sweatshop caused me to develop plantar fasciitis—a debilitating pain in my heel—because I'm having to stand up for long periods of time at work with little to no rest. The burning sensation around my heels is so painful that I take what little time I have to run to the bathroom just to cry," Brown continued, noting that one time she begged doctors to keep her at the emergency room longer because she had to return to work.

The Amazon worker accused the company of setting up facilities "in Black and Brown communities desperate for work" and pointed out that Bezos recently told shareholders he plans to use more automated control of warehouse workers—or what she called "dehumanizing tactics designed to break our bodies."

Warning members of the Senate Finance Committee's panel on fiscal responsibility and economic growth that "Amazon has built an empire on our backs, and now other employers, like Walmart, are racing to copy" its model, Brown implored them to take action.

"I'm asking you to help me put an end to inhumane, exploitative processes that leave America's workers injured, exhausted, and mentally battered each day," she said.

Brown's testimony came during a wide-ranging hearing entitled "Promoting Competition, Growth, and Privacy Protection in the Technology Sector." The subcommittee's chair, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), asked Brown how the Covid-19 pandemic has impacted logistical operations.

Brown also shared her experience working under Amazon's surveillance with The Washington Post last week.

"They basically can see everything you do, and it's all to their benefit," the 31-year-old said. "They don't value you as a human being. It's demeaning."

In an emailed statement to the Post, Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel framed the employee monitoring as beneficial to not only the company but also its workers.

"Like any business, we use technology to maintain a level of security within our operations to help keep our employees, buildings, and inventory safe—it would be irresponsible if we didn't do so," Nantel said. "It's also important to note that while the technology helps keep our employees safe, it also allows them to be more efficient in their jobs."

The newspaper noted that some workers don't agree with Nantel's framing—such as Chris Smalls, a former employee at an Amazon facility in Staten Island who is leading a unionization effort there.

"It's one of the big reasons people want to unionize," Smalls said of the monitoring policies. "Who wants to be surveilled all day? It's not prison. It's work."

Staten Island isn't the only place where Amazon employees are fighting for a union. A regional director for the National Labor Relations Board determined last week that following allegations of unlawful interference by the company in an unsuccessful April union election, workers at a warehouse in Bessemer, Alabama will get to vote again.

The Alabama decision came on Cyber Monday, the biggest online shopping day of the year, and followed a Black Friday that saw Amazon workers walk out of facilities around the world to demand better working conditions.

Amazon's treatment of its workers and opposition to unionization efforts have fueled demands for the Senate to pass the House-approved Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Sanders Applauds Buffalo Starbucks Workers for Union Drive to 'Fight for What's Right'

The senator spoke with employees about their demands for a fair pay structure and the union-busting efforts they've witnessed from the international coffee chain.

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) gestures during a rally for jobs on December 7, 2016 at Freedom Plaza in Washington, D.C. (Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

COMMONDREAMS

December 7, 2021

Calling more than 100 Starbucks employees in the Buffalo, New York area "an inspiration" for their unionization drive, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Monday night gave voice to the workers' concerns about unfair practices at the international coffee chain, talking to several of them at a virtual town hall days before they are set to find out if their efforts will result in a union.

Sanders hosted the hour-long town hall from Washington, D.C., talking with four employees about their experiences working at the company, the deterioration of worker benefits that they've noticed over the past several years, and the union-busting attempts they've witnessed since filing for a union election in August.

"Last year, Starbucks had enough money to pay its CEO, Kevin Johnson $14.7 million in total compensation. That's over 1,200 times what they pay their average employee."

"Let me just say," the Vermont independent senator told the workers, "you're an inspiration to me... Especially after a day at the United States Senate, it is a pleasure to see folks stand up and fight for what's right, for justice, for workers' rights."

Sanders pointed out that the workers are fighting to have a say in wages, pay scales that keep up with seniority, and sufficiently staffed stores at a company which reported a record $29 billion in sales in its 2021 fiscal year.

"Starbucks is not a poor company," said Sanders, who also used the town hall to call for the passage of the PRO Act, which would protect the right to form a union. "Last year, Starbucks had enough money to pay its CEO, Kevin Johnson, $14.7 million in total compensation. That's over 1,200 times what they pay their average employee."

Buffalo-area employees Michelle Eisen, who is leading the unionization effort; Lexi Rizzo; Gianna Reeve; and Maya Panos spoke about what they called "a very clear shift" in recent years at Starbucks regarding how the company values its workers.

"I have a partner who has been with the company for 17 years," Reeve told Sanders. "She is in the same position as me, I'm a shift supervisor. She has almost two decades of experience and she makes a little over a dollar more than me—that is unacceptable."

When the senator asked why Reeve thought Starbucks—which for decades has boasted tuition reimbursement, health insurance, and other staff perks—would structure the pay with few benefits for long-term employees, she said, "Perhaps they want the turnover to be high" so that the company doesn't have to actually provide those benefits to newer workers—a trend that Reeve said leads numerous employees to rely on Medicaid.

Sanders also questioned the employees about the conduct they've witnessed from their employer as the union vote draws near. Last month, as the National Labor Relations Board began sending ballots out to workers, the company attempted to delay the election and sent former CEO and powerful shareholder Howard Schultz to hold an anti-union meeting at a Buffalo hotel.

Panos described smaller weekly meetings taking place in Buffalo-area stores until recently in which corporate employees have explicitly told workers to vote against forming a union.

The company's so-called "support partners" talk to workers about how unionization is "going to ruin our work environment, how it's going to ruin our 'partner experience'," said Panos. "It's a real gray zone between whether [the meetings are] mandatory or not; it's almost like peer pressuring you to go."



Eisen also described the company's union-busting efforts, saying the Buffalo area has been "inundated with corporate from all over the country."

"We know that they're there unfortunately to surveil us and to prevent us from doing the work that we'd like to do," Eisen said.

Sanders' town hall came two days before workers are required to submit their union ballots to the NLRB. Votes are scheduled to be counted on Thursday afternoon.

"It is my very strong view that if a worker wants to join a union, it is his or her constitutional right to be able to do so," said Sanders, "and we've got to change the law to make that a reality."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

UK

Asda facing strike threat as Tesco battles to prevent Xmas walkout disruption

The GMB union argues that distribution workers deserve a better pay increase to reflect their contribution to Asda's profits during the coronavirus crisis to date.

James Sillars
Business reporter @SkyNewsBiz
Tuesday 7 December 2021 

Asda is the UK's third-largest supermarket chain by market share

Asda has joined Tesco, its biggest rival, in facing the prospect of strike action ahead of the key Christmas trading season.

The GMB union said it was launching a consultative ballot - due to close on 20 December - over the supermarket chain's decision not to give distribution staff a "meaningful" pay offer.

It added that with inflation "rampant", the situation was a "kick in the teeth" for its key workers.

The ballot would go to a full vote with any resounding indication of support for strikes, meaning there is no prospect of disruption at Asda until the New Year.

Tesco says that it has plans in place to mitigate any disruption in its separate dispute

The same cannot be said for Tesco.

Members of the Usdaw and Unite unions at 13 distribution centres have already backed strikes in protest at the company's offer of a 4% annual pay increase.

The Usdaw members will strike from 20 December to Christmas Eve - threatening disruption to food supplies.




Asda in talks with bakery staff over redundancy

Asda chief executive Burnley heads for exit after £6.8bn takeover

Tesco has insisted it has plans in place to mitigate any problems.

Nadine Houghton, GMB national officer, said: "Asda workers turned up throughout the COVID pandemic risking their lives to keep the nation fed - as well as helping the company turn a profit of almost £500m.

"Staff who saw colleagues lose their lives to COVID are not having their legitimate demands for a pay rise treated seriously.

"Asda now say GMB members' pay claim is 'unaffordable' and yet their hard work and sacrifice helped directors trouser almost £10m between them.

"It's a disgrace - we urge Asda workers to fight for what they deserve and vote YES for a ballot for industrial action."

An Asda spokesperson responded: "The GMB has recently made an additional pay claim on top of a two-year deal which was agreed with them in May.

"As our annual pay negotiations have just begun and discussions are ongoing, any talk of industrial action is premature.

"In addition, we have responded to the driver shortage by offering all of our existing HGV drivers a £1000 one-off discretionary incentive retention payment."

The company was sold by Walmart to a consortium led by the billionaire Issa brothers for £6.8bn late last year.

The GMB and Asda remain locked in a long-running equal pay claim on behalf of 40,000 Asda workers.

It relates to whether store staff, who are predominantly women, are entitled to compare themselves to distribution staff for equal pay purposes.

Kellogg's strike to continue as workers reject latest proposal
By Simon Druker

Kellogg's cereal boxes are seen on display. Striking workers at four of the company's cereal plants rejected the latest contract proposal on Tuesday. File Photo Monika Graff/UPI | License Photo


Dec. 7 (UPI) -- Already on strike for more than two months, a majority of workers at four Kellogg Company cereal plants rejected the company's latest contract proposal Tuesday.

Approximately 1,400 workers have been on strike since Oct. 5.

BLAMING THE STRIKERS FOR HIRING SCABS
They rejected the latest five-year offer negotiated by their union, forcing the multinational food manufacturing company to hire some permanent replacements.

Temporary replacements have already been working at the four affected plants, which are located in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Michigan, where the company's head office is also located.

The company says that no further bargaining is currently scheduled.

"We have no plans to meet. Given that the strike will continue, our focus must continue to be on executing the next phase of our contingency plan," reads a statement on the company's website.

Kellogg's has approximately 34,000 workers worldwide.

Kellogg to permanently replace striking workers as union rejects new contract

1,400 union members went on strike on Oct. 5 as contracts expired and talks over payment and benefits stalled

Author of the article:
Reuters
Praveen Paramasivam
Publishing date:Dec 07, 2021 • 

A group of union workers from Kellogg's picket outside the cereal maker's headquarters as they remain on strike in Battle Creek, Michigan, U.S., October 21, 2021. 

PHOTO BY EMILY ELCONIN/REUTERS FILES

Kellogg Co. said on Tuesday a majority of its U.S. cereal plant workers have voted against a new five-year contract, forcing it to hire permanent replacements as employees extend a strike that started more than two months ago.

Temporary replacements have already been working at its cereal plants in Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Tennessee where 1,400 union members went on strike on Oct. 5 as their contracts expired and talks over payment and benefits stalled.

“While certainly not the result we had hoped for, we must take the necessary steps to ensure business continuity,” Kellogg said in a statement.

The company said “unrealistic expectations” created by the union meant none of its six offers, including the last one that proposed wage increases and allowed all transitional employees with four or more years of service to move to legacy positions, came to fruition.

Union members have said the proposed two-tier system, in which transitional employees get lesser pay and benefits compared to longer tenured workers would take power away from the union by removing the cap on how many lower tier employees it could have.

“They have made a ‘clear path’ — but while it is clear — it is too long and not fair to many,” Jeffrey Jens, a union member, said.

Several politicians including Democratic senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have voiced their support for the union, while many customers have said they are boycotting Kellogg’s products.

Kellogg is one of the several major U.S. firms that has faced worker strikes in the recent past as the labour market tightens. The company has also warned of a hit to profit from the strike, but was yet to quantify it.

Last month, farm equipment maker Deere & Co reached an agreement with striking workers.

'Unbreakable Solidarity': Kellogg's Workers Reject Contract That Would Leave New Employees Out of Benefits

"We're not willing to sell our souls for our future employees that are going to work side by side with us but not get the same pay or benefits."

Kellogg's Cereal plant workers demonstrate in front of the plant on October 7, 2021 in Battle Creek, Michigan. Workers at Kellogg’s cereal plants are striking over the loss of premium health care, holiday and vacation pay, and reduced retirement benefits. (Photo: Rey Del Rio/Getty Images)

JULIA CONLEY

December 7, 2021

Labor advocates applauded 1,400 Kellogg's cereal plant workers for "courageously" rejecting the company's latest contract offer and demanding an end to the two-tier pay structure they say divides workers and disempowers their union.

"Removing the two-tier language in general is what we're after. That's our fight."

The contract would have classified all employees with four or more years experience at Kellogg's as "legacy" workers, while newer workers would still be classified as "transitional" employees. Legacy employees would have received a 3% pay increase in the first year and cost of living raises in subsequent years, and all employees would have gotten raises upon ratification—but veteran plant workers rejected the continuation of the two-tier structure, which would have left newer employees out of some benefits.

A veteran plant worker in Battle Creek, Michigan told More Perfect Union, a progressive media organization focused on labor rights, that the two-tier system is the union's "big sticking point"—even though legacy employees would have gotten increased pension benefits with the new contract.

"Removing the two-tier language in general is what we're after," said the employee. "That's our fight... We're not willing to sell our souls for our future employees that are going to work side by side with us but not get the same pay or benefits."

The Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), which represents the workers, said Tuesday it supported the workers' decision.

"The members have spoken," said BCTGM President Anthony Shelton in a statement. "The strike continues. The International Union will continue to provide full support to our striking Kellogg’s members... Solidarity is critical to this fight."

More Perfect Union said the vote demonstrated "unbreakable solidarity" among the workers.

Related Content

'Kellogg's On Strrr-ike': 1,400 Workers Walk Off Job to Protect Benefits
Kenny Stancil

The workers voted against the contract despite Kellogg's plan to begin hiring permanent replacement employees—a strike-breaking tactic that would be outlawed by the PRO Act—and send jobs to Mexico.

"The company made $3.6 billion this year," More Perfect Union noted on Twitter. "Its CEO was given a $11 million paycheck last year."

Progressives urged supporters of workers' rights to boycott Kellogg's products and donate to strike funds to help workers and their families as the strike continues through the holiday season.

Noting that Kellogg's is struggling to produce its cereals amid the strike, despite its hiring of non-union members, More Perfect Union said, "The Kellogg’s strike is working."


"Every single worker deserves safety and dignity," tweeted Ismail Smith-Wade-El, a member of Lancaster, Pennsylvania's city council. "Solidarity forever."

Kellogg's union WORKERS rejects deal with 3 per cent raises to extend strike

Kirk Peters waves to passing cars as they honk in support of Kellogg's workers on strike along I Street in Omaha, Neb. on Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2021.

 (Lily Smith/Omaha World-Herald via AP)

Josh Funk
The Associated Press
Published Dec. 7, 2021

U.S. Kellogg's workers rejected a contract offer Tuesday that would have provided 3 per cent raises, so 1,400 workers at the company's four U.S. cereal plants will remain on strike.

The Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union said an overwhelming majority of workers voted down the five-year offer that would have also provided cost of living adjustments in the later years of the deal and preserved the workers' current health care benefits.

The workers have been on strike since Oct. 5 at plants in Battle Creek, Michigan; Omaha, Nebraska; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; and Memphis, Tennessee. They make all of the company's well-known brands of cereal, including Apple Jacks and Frosted Flakes.

"The members have spoken. The strike continues," union President Anthony Shelton said. "The International Union will continue to provide full support to our striking Kellogg's members."

Kellogg's said it will now move forward with plans to start hiring permanent replacements for the striking workers. The company has already been using salaried employees and outside workers to keep the plants operating during the strike.

"While certainly not the result we had hoped for, we must take the necessary steps to ensure business continuity," said Chris Hood, president of Kellogg North America. "We have an obligation to our customers and consumers to continue to provide the cereals that they know and love."

Rutgers University professor Todd Vachon, who teaches classes about labor relations, said he's not sure the company will be able to hire enough workers to replace the ones who are out on strike in the current economy, and Kellogg's may have a hard time finding people willing to cross a picket line.

"By voting `no,' the workers are making a strong statement that they are not satisfied by the agreement, but they are also signaling they believe they have the leverage that's needed to win more," Vachon said.

One of the sticking points in the negotiations has been the company's two-tiered system of wages that givers newer workers at the plants less pay and fewer benefits. As many as 30% of the workforce at the cereal plants have been receiving those lower wages. The Battle Creek-based company said the new contract will allow all workers with at least four years of experience to move up to the higher legacy pay level immediately and some additional workers would move up in the later years of the contract.

Dan Osborn, who is president of the local Omaha union, said the company's offer wouldn't let enough workers move up to the higher pay level quickly, so some newer workers might have to wait as much as nine years to reach the higher legacy pay level. The proposed contract would have limited the number of workers who could move up in pay each year to 3% of a plant's total headcount.

"Ultimately, we don't want to leave anyone behind. And we want a secure future," Osborn said.

Union members would also like to see the company offer bigger raises to its mechanics and electricians so Kellogg's can better compete for those workers, Osborn said.

Victor Chen, a sociologist at Virginia Commonwealth University who studies labor, said he understands why the union is taking a stand against the two-tiered wage system because it is a divisive issue within its ranks.

"A union depends on the solidarity of its members," Chen said. "When you have two-tiered systems -- which have become popular in corporate America -- you're weakening that solidarity. It turns workers against each other."

At times during the strike, the disagreements between the company and the union turned bitter.

Kellogg's went to court in Omaha in November to secure an order that set guidelines for how workers behaved on the picket line because the company said striking workers were blocking the plant's entrances and intimidating replacement workers. Union officials denied any improper behavior during the strike and said police never cited workers for causing problems.

But the workers have been holding out for higher wages because they believe the ongoing worker shortages across the country give them an advantage during the negotiations. Workers at the cereal plants have said they believed they deserve significant raises because they routinely work more than 80 hours a week, and they kept the plants running throughout the coronavirus pandemic.

Earlier this year, about 600 food workers also went on strike at a Frito-Lay plant in Topeka, Kansas, and 1,000 others walked off the job at five Nabisco plants across the U.S. At meatpacking plants across the country labor unions have been successfully negotiating significant raises for employees.

In another recent strike, over 10,000 Deere workers secured 10% raises and improved benefits but those gains came after the workers remained on strike for a month and rejected two offers from the company. The offer that Kellogg's workers rejected was the first one they have voted on since the strike began.

Rohingya refugees sue Facebook for $150 billion over Myanmar genocide

The class-action suit alleges Facebook turned a blind eye to hate speech.

J. Fingas
@jonfingas
December 7th, 2021

REUTERS/Beawiharta


Facebook has been repeatedly accused of enabling Myanmar's genocide against the country's Rohingya minority, and now it will deal with those accusations in court. A Rohingya woman has filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of refugees against Facebook parent company Meta, alleging the company both amplified anti-Rohingya hate speech through its algorithms and failed to remove content fostering violence. The refugees ask for over $150 billion in damages.

The plaintiffs argued that Facebook only took meaningful action against pro-genocide factions after it was pushed. The Myanmar military launched its purge of Rohingya in 2017, with officials and nationalist monks spreading slurs and misinformation on Facebook to either justify or cover up atrocities. Facebook only started cracking down in August 2018 following a UN report linking unchecked behavior on the social network to real-world violence. The company requested an independent audit at the same time that reached a similar conclusion. This was too little too late, according to the refugees — the company admitted it "should and could have done more" only after mass displacements and deaths.

Meta has already declined to comment on the lawsuit. A similar complaint is expected in the UK in 2022.

The firm was quick to clamp down on the Myanmar military following its February 2021 coup, and went so far as to pull the military's main page. However, that swifter response won't help much with a lawsuit over past actions. While it's too soon to say whether or not the lawsuit will succeed, let alone obtain the hoped-for damages, the company may have a difficult time defending itself.