It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Friday, February 11, 2022
California sues Tesla over alleged rampant discrimination against Black employees
California is suing Tesla after a three year investigation where the state found racial discrimination against Black workers at its plant in Fremont, Calif. CREDIT: AP
The state of California' Department of Fair Employment and Housing is suing Elon Musk's company Tesla over racism and harassment toward Black employees at their plant in Fremont, Calif., according to a lawsuit filed by the state this week. The company has called the lawsuit "unfair."
The lawsuit follows three years of investigation into Tesla and alleges that Black and African American employees at the company's Fremont plant are "segregated to the lowest levels."
The lawsuit describes multiple instances of racist language and drawings toward Black employees, penalizing Black employees more harshly than white employees, and denying Black employees career advancement opportunities and equal pay for work similar to other employees.
"These numerous complaints by Black and/or African American workers about racial harassment, racial discrimination, and retaliation lodged over a span of almost a decade have been futile," the lawsuit says. "Tesla has continued to deflect and evade responsibility. While it claims to not tolerate racial harassment or discrimination at its factories, Tesla's investigations of complaints are not compliant with law."
Prosecutors describe years of harassment and discrimination
The lawsuit says Tesla "turned, and continue to turn, a blind eye" to the years of complaints from Black employees at the factory. For example, Tesla allegedly is slow to clean up racist graffiti, including ones with swastikas, KKK, the n-word and other hate symbols, that were drawn in common areas and on the factory machines.
The lawsuit says one Black worker saw "hang N[ ]" written next to an image of a noose in the bathroom of the breakroom. The same worker also saw "all monkeys work outside" and "fuck N[ ]" written on the walls of the breakroom. The writing and drawings allegedly remained for months.
Discrimination against Black employees was constant, the lawsuit says, and has been going on as early as 2012, the year after Tesla started production there. Black workers at Tesla complained that managers and supervisors "constantly" used the n-word and other racial slurs towards them and other Black workers.
Some workers at Tesla with tattoos of the Confederate flag would make their tattoos visible to intimidate Black workers, according to the lawsuit. Workers at Tesla also allegedly referred to the factory as the "slaveship" or "the plantation," in addition to other slurs. "One Black worker heard these racial slurs as often as 50-100 times a day," the lawsuit states.
Black workers had to clean the factory floor on their hands and knees while others apparently did not, the lawsuit says, and Black employees were assigned to more physically demanding work.
If Black employees complained about the harassment and discrimination, they were retaliated against, prosecutors say. And Tesla refused to take "all reasonable steps necessary" to prevent the ongoing discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
Tesla says the lawsuit is "counterproductive"
Tesla did not immediately respond to a request for comment from NPR.
The department suing Tesla said they attempted to resolve the dispute without litigation at first, which would involve an internal dispute resolution provided by the department, free of charge. When offered in January, Tesla refused to attend. In February, the lawsuit says the parties were "unable to resolve the administrative complaints at the mediation."
On the day the lawsuit was filed, Tesla issued a public blog post, titled "The DFEH's Misguided Lawsuit," where it called the lawsuit "unfair and counterproductive."
"Tesla strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and has a dedicated Employee Relations team that responds to and investigates all complaints," Tesla writes. "Tesla has always disciplined and terminated employees who engage in misconduct, including those who use racial slurs or harass others in different ways."
"A narrative spun by the DFEH and a handful of plaintiff firms to generate publicity is not factual proof," the blog post says.
Tesla says that they will ask the court to pause the case. [Copyright 2022 NPR]
Lawsuit: Noose drawing, racist slurs etched into walls at Tesla
Tesla has denied allegations of racial discrimination and harassment, calling the California DFEH's lawsuit "misguided."
A lawsuit by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing says it has uncovered a persistent pattern of ongoing racist behavior at Tesla’s Fremont factory.
As previously reported, the agency is suing the automobile manufacturer for alleged racial discrimination and harassment.
A 2020 aerial view of the Tesla factory in Fremont, California, where the state’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing has uncovered a persistent pattern of ongoing racist behavior. (Photo: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
“After receiving hundreds of complaints from workers, DFEH found evidence that Tesla’s Fremont factory is a racially segregated workplace where Black workers are subjected to racial slurs and discriminated against in job assignments, discipline, pay and promotion, creating a hostile work environment,” Kevin Kish, the agency’s director, said in a statement, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The East Bay Times has reviewed the lawsuit and notes that “As early as 2012, Black and/or African American Tesla workers have complained that Tesla production leads, supervisors and managers constantly use the n-word and other racial slurs to refer to Black workers.”
“They have complained that swastikas, ‘KKK,’ the n-word, and other racist writing are etched onto walls of restrooms, restroom stalls, lunch tables, and even factory machinery,” says its report.
The Jerusalem Post alleges that a noose drawn in a bathroom at the factory remained up for months.
The DFEH suit also alleges that “Black and/or African American workers are assigned to more physically demanding posts and the lowest-level contract roles, paid less and more often terminated from employment than other workers. They have also complained that Black and/or African American workers are often denied advancement opportunities, and more often and more severely disciplined than non-Black workers.”
“A common narrative was Black and/or African American workers being taunted by racial slurs and then baited into verbal and physical confrontations, where they, in turn, were the ones disciplined for being purportedly ‘aggressive’ or ‘threatening,’” the suit claimed. “These written warnings in their personnel files had consequences for later promotional and professional opportunities.”
Tesla has denied the allegations, its officials writing in a blog post that the DFEH’s lawsuit is “misguided.”
The company says it “strongly opposes all forms of discrimination and harassment and has a dedicated Employee Relations team that responds to and investigates all complaints,” adding that management “has always disciplined and terminated employees who engage in misconduct, including those who use racial slurs or harass others in different ways.”
Regional NAACP President Rick Callender applauded the state’s efforts.
“The Department of Fair Employment and Housing should be applauded,” he said in a statement, “for seeking justice against Tesla for their racist behavior.”
On Twitter, Callender wrote, ”Racism is rampant at Tesla. @cahinaacp stands behind DFEH & Tesla employees. We demand a racist free workplace. Business & Gov. orgs should know racist behavior is not tolerated in CA. Who thinks they should own a @Tesla now??”
Mining will profit from supporting carbon tax policies, researchers say
Miners face greater scrutiny from communities at host countries, end consumers and society at large, demanding transparent, ethical supply chains, as well as a lower carbon footprint. (Stock image)
The global mining industry is going to benefit financially from supporting “harmonized” carbon taxation policies, according to a new study released by the University of British Columbia’s mining institute.
Researchers argue that even though the cost of mining metals required for energy transition would increase due to taxes on carbon emissions, the hike would be small in relation to the value of the commodity and that carbon taxes would also compel other industries to shift to cleaner energy, which would further increase demand for metals.
“The mining stance towards carbon taxation policies has been fractured, some mining companies support the policy, a lot of miners have been lobbying against,” Sally Innis, a PhD candidate in mining engineering at UBC who co-wrote the study, told The Northern Miner.
“We thought it would be really interesting to see where these policies intersect, look at the numbers and see how the industry as a whole is impacted by the carbon taxation policies.”
Carbon taxation discourages the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by forcing companies to pay for emissions from their activities. The policy is promoted to fight climate change and limit the rise in global mean temperatures to 2 degrees by 2100, a target set by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
Using data from publicly available sources, the researchers calculated the value of 23 commodities per tonne of carbon dioxide required to produce them. They found that the high value of metals and minerals from mining makes carbon emissions look small by comparison. That isn’t the case for commodities in the energy and agriculture industries.
For instance, the study showed that more than C$1,500 worth of copper, C$1000 worth of nickel and C$9,400 worth of iron ore can be mined for each tonne of carbon dioxide emitted, but the same emissions yield only C$100 worth of coal or C$200 worth of cheese.
The findings show that given any percentage of taxation tested, most mining industry commodities would not add more than 30% of their present product value, whereas commodities like coal could be taxed at more than 150% of their value, which would accelerate the green transition and demand benefits for mined metals.
The researchers used the 2019 prices of the commodities for the study.
Aside from the financial benefit, supporting carbon tax policies can also help the mining industry “find commonalities” with environment activists who have been at “each other’s throats” for decades, Innis says.
“Every product that can help us reduce the 36 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide we emit every year involves metals,” said PhD student Benjamin Cox, the study’s lead author said in a press release.
“To get to zero emissions, we need metals. It would be the largest boom the mining industry has seen since the California Gold Rush of 1849. The demand would be infinite.”
The multi-state lawsuit, filed Thursday by the attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, seeks to have a court overturn the mandate that brought contractors' wages up to $15 an hour, arguing that it will cause unemployment, inflation, and a drop in consumption.
The three states and their residents will suffer "significant hardship" from the policy, which was introduced "with little apparent regard for the widespread havoc on the economy that will result," the lawsuit, led by Texas General Attorney Ken Paxton, says.
The minimum wage at federal contractors was hiked from $11.25 to $15 an hour under Biden's April 2021 executive order. The contractors also have to pay staff overtime wages if they work more than 40 hours a week, and tipped employees must be paid a cash wage of at least $10.50 an hour.
The wage increase came into force on January 30, 2022, and will be subject to potential annual hikes based on inflation.
"States will be burdened with higher unemployment benefits claims and a deteriorating economy, and young, less educated workers could bear the brunt of this economic disaster," the lawsuit says.
It referred to a report by the Congressional Budget Office, which found that employment would be reduced by around 1.4 million workers by 2025 and that goods and services would cost more if the federal minimum wage – not just for federal contractors – was hiked to $15 an hour in 2021.
The new wage increase means contractors' staff collectively get paid around $1.7 billion more a year over the next 10 years, the Department of Labor said. The lawsuit says that these costs "would either be passed on to consumers or would lead to companies going out of business."
But some studies show that raising wages would benefit workers. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that raising the federal minimum wage would have a significant impact on reducing the wage gap for women and people of color, and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh told Insider there was "no question" that hiking the wage for contractors would help solve the labor shortage by reducing quit rates.
The Department of Labor estimated that more than 300,000 workers at federal contractors would see their wages rise.
The lawsuit also accuses Biden of "dictatorially" imposing the policy with help from the Department of Labor and called it an "abuse of their authority." It referred to how Congress had voted against raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour, and said that the Department of Labor "did not provide any substantive justification" for the wage hike.
"With full awareness of the negative economic impact of artificially raising the minimum wage, and despite his failure to persuade Congress, President Biden chose to ignore the will of our federal legislators and instead forced a raise in the minimum wage through executive fiat," the lawsuit says.
A SEDITIOUS MINORITY RULE
Thomas Massie says Americans
(WHITE PEOPLE) must own enough weapons to overthrow the government
A U.S. Congressman is calling on Americans to own "sufficient" weaponry to overthrow the government, suggesting they should do so "if 30 to 40 percent agree" the nation is living under "tyranny."
"If 30 to 40 percent could agree that this was legitimate tyranny and it needed to be thrown off they need to have sufficient power without asking for extra permission – it should be right there and completely available to them in their living room in order to effect the change," U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) said in a video (below) posted by Right Wing Watch.
Pool's videos get "millions" of views each day, according to The Daily Beast, which adds he "has racked up more than a billion views and millions in earnings while dangerously whitewashing the far right."
During Pool's show, according to Right Wing Watch, the YouTuber added that he believes the Second Amendment entitles Americans to own nuclear and biological weapons.
MAGA CONFEDERATE REBELS
VS
A10 WARTHOG US NAVY AIRFORCE
Affectionately called the “Warthog” for its aggressive look and often painted with teeth on the nose cone, the A-10 Thunderbolt II is the U.S. Air Force’s primary low-altitude close air support aircraft. The A-10 is perhaps best known for its fearsome GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gatling gun mounted on the nose. The GAU-8 is designed to fire armor-piercing depleted uranium and high explosive incendiary rounds.
The A-10 Thunderbolt II has excellent maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude, and is a highly accurate and survivable weapons-delivery platform. The aircraft can loiter near battle areas for extended periods of time and operate in low ceiling and visibility conditions.
Oath Keepers leader confirms group was expecting Trump to impose martial law on Jan. 6
John Wright February 11, 2022 Stewart Rhodes (YouTube)
In a motion seeking his release from jail filed Friday, attorneys for Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes confirmed reports that members of the militia group were expecting former president Donald Trump to impose martial law on Jan. 6.
"They were not there to storm the Capitol, to stop the certification, to takeover (sic) the government," Rhodes' attorneys wrote in the 41-page motion. "They were waiting for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. He did not, so Rhodes and the others did nothing."
New York Times reporter Alan Feuer wrote in response to the motion: "Oath Keeper(s) leader Stewart Rhodes says he was waiting for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act on (Jan. 6) — an order that never came — thus isn't guilty of sedition. A logical question: Why was Rhodes apparently convinced Trump was going to effectively impose martial law that day?"
Rhodes is one of 11 members of the Oath Keepers charged with seditious conspiracy in connection with the Capitol insurrection. Last month, a judge ordered Rhodes to remain jailed pending trial, saying he poses a threat to the public and could evade authorities if he were to flee.
But in Friday's motion seeking his release, Rhodes' attorneys argued that he does not pose a flight risk, in part because he is already on a list that requires federal authorities to be notified before he flies.
"(Rhodes' attorneys) concede that Rhodes summoned Oath Keepers to DC on Jan. 6, but say it was to provide 'defensive assistance to attendees' who might be attacked by 'members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter,'" BuzzFeed News' Ken Bensinger reports. "On Jan. 6, they note, the (Oath Keepers) provided security for Roger Stone & Latinos For Trump."
"The much-discussed Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in Virginia, meanwhile, was 'hardly the commando force the Government is attempting to portray it as' & instead a 'defensive force, called if and only if required to defend members or those with whom they have been charged with protecting,'" according to Rhodes' attorneys.
"There's a lot of stuff (in the motion) on whether the Oath Keepers are anti-government, white supremacists, or sexist (the lawyers say none of the above)," Bensinger reported. "There's also the argument that 'believing that the current political environment will lead to a civil war is protected speech under' (the First Amendment)."
"Processing as I read, but a very large part of the argument is that Rhodes believed Trump was going to invoke the Insurrection Act, at which point it was no-holds barred and he'd unleash the QRF and all its guns," Bensinger added.
Italy’s Mount Etna Lights Up Night Sky in Spectacular Eruption Reuters Feb 11, 2022
General view of an eruption of the South East volcano of Etna, as seen from Nicolosi, Italy, on Feb. 10, 2022.
(Antonio Parrinello/Reuters)
ROME —Italy’s Mount Etna, Europe’s highest and most active volcano, erupted in spectacular fashion late on Thursday, lighting up the night sky with explosions and bright red molten lava.
The eruption centered on the volcano’s southeastern crater, at a height of around 2,900 meters, sent ash and plumes of smoke 8 km into the sky, Italy’s National Institute for Geophysics and Volcanology said.
General view of an eruption of the South East volcano of Etna, Italy, on Feb. 10, 2022. (Antonio Parrinello/Reuters)
There were no reports of any injuries.
The 3,330 meters high volcano can burst into spectacular action several times a year, spewing lava and ash high over the Mediterranean island of Sicily. The last major eruption was in 1992.
This week on CounterSpin: You will have heard many things recently about the supply chain—as the reason you can’t find what you’re looking for on store shelves, or the reason it costs so much. But what’s behind it all? Why has the system broken down in this way? Here’s where thoughtful journalism could fill us in, could educate on a set of issues that affects us all, including discussing alternatives. But corporate news media aren’t good at covering economic issues from the ground up, or asking big questions about who is served by current structures. You could say media’s reluctance to critically break down systems is itself a system problem.
Rakeen Mabud is chief economist and managing director of policy and research at Groundwork Collaborative. She’ll join us to talk about the ideas in the article she recently co-authored for American Prospect, “How We Broke the Supply Chain.”
CounterSpin220211Mabud.mp3
Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look at recent coverage of polling and Israeli apartheid.
CounterSpin220211Banter.mp3
FAIR’s work is sustained by our generous contributors, who allow us to remain independent. Donate today to be a part of this important mission.
Artificial Intelligence and the China-U.S. Rivalry
Developments in artificial intelligence will completely transform government management, economic security, social stability, and global governance. With this, it is safe to say that the country that reaches an artificial intelligence ‘breakout point’ in the coming decades will likely dominate global politics and commerce.
Artificial intelligence is incredibly useful for civil and military applications, which often eliminates a clear distinction for usage. Any AI model that is developed for civil purposes can quickly become appropriated for military use. China recently submitted a position paper to the UN Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons requesting increased regulation of the military applications of AI. However, an international framework for AI is yet to emerge.
An example of civil and military synthesis of AI technology is face-detecting technology which can be used for security checkpoints or for personal devices like mobile phones, but can also be used to identify and eliminate key individuals in a war or battlefield scenario. Chinese satellites can already take photos three times faster than that of their U.S. counterparts.
The Beijing-3 satellite can snap photos of extensive areas and identify any military vehicle or weapon while rotating up to 10 degrees per second. The Chinese military is also quickly ‘catching up’ in tactical applications such as unmanned shooting systems, robot combatants, and airspace simulators. While the U.S. began this type of research and development nearly 20 years ago, the CCP is quickly closing the gap with developments in AI and machine learning systems.
Both the CIA and the PLA are actively working to develop AI systems that will be able to deploy hundreds, if not thousands, of drones at the push of a button. They are also examining the possibilities of creating robotic warriors that could be more effective than human soldiers in the future.
In the U.S., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) found that when a fighter jet flown by AI went up against a human controlled jet, the AI flown jet won every single time.
Therefore, in wartime scenarios, artificial intelligence will be able to speed up decision-making, increase precision, and reduce reaction times, though the possibility of miscalculation also becomes a concern in the event that the AI is wrong.
In terms of AI implementation in the civil space, China, for better or for worse, has significantly outpaced the West.
The CCP launched its Social Credit System back in 2014 to monitor the behavior of ordinary citizens and use it for offering benefits or limiting privileges. The entire social credit system is founded in facial recognition and big data analysis technology ultimately fueled by AI algorithms.
Similar projects have not yet been implemented in the West, at least not overtly. The coming months and years will reveal whether or not similar AI innovations will serve as a central pillar in the European and American visions for the ‘Great Reset.’
Advanced technologies like artificial intelligence will likely have the greatest impact on economic and security. China outperforms the U.S. in key indicators like product market tests, financial market tests, research publications, patents, and results in international competitions.
Also, U.S. capital supports almost all large tech companies in China, specifically Baidu, Tencent, Alibaba, and ByteDance – TikTok’s parent company.
Regardless of the civil or military application, China has become the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of data because of its massive consumer base and the increased usage of applications by almost all of China’s citizens. Quality data has become as important as any other commodity in the AI race.
This importance will only continue to grow as the AI market size continues to increase by USD 17.29 billion from 2020 to 2025, with an accelerated CAGR of 35%. North America will likely register the highest growth during this period. North American supremacy could last until 2027. However, Asia-Pacific will likely register the highest CAGR over this period, mostly because of invention launches and increases in requests for products and development expenditures.
The device market is already driving innovation, most notably in smartphones, cameras, robots, wearables, smart speakers, automotive, smart mirrors, and computer processors. However, AI is also quickly disturbing smart home, government, healthcare, industrial, aerospace and defense, and the construction industries.
With respect to U.S.-China competition in the artificial intelligence space, many U.S. officials, including Nicolas Chaillan, the former chief software officer of the U.S. Air Force, fear that the U.S. might lose the ‘AI race’ against China because Washington is not aggressive enough in its funding or support of crucial AI projects. In contrast to the centralized nature of Chinese R&D, most innovation in the U.S. happens in the private sector, which is not always developed or facilitated by the U.S. government. This ‘decoupling’ between the private and public sectors often creates delays and information gaps between important parties. The U.S. still leads in the military aspect of AI, but this could quickly change since China is fueling its innovation with big data, digital surveillance, and cloud computing.
Until recently, the U.S. held solid leads in talent, research, development, and hardware, while China excelled in adoption and data quantity and quality. However, China has managed to leapfrog ahead of the U.S. slowly and will likely overtake America in the coming years. The first country to acquire an artificial intelligence ‘strategic weapon’ will have a massive edge in security and the global economy.
Artificial intelligence innovation will continue to rapidly change the landscapes of all of these sectors, while simultaneously transforming security and civil life.
If the U.S. plans to retain its leadership, it should empower the Department of Defense (DOD) to make more of an effort to drive innovation through research and development funding. The U.S. government should actively expand its partnerships with the private sector, academic, and non-governmental institutions to improve its ability to drive innovation in AI. Otherwise, China’s strengths will continue to propel it forward as an AI leader.
On January 6, 2022, U.S. President Joe Biden made the uncharacteristically blunt accusation that his predecessor Donald Trump has been “holding a dagger at the throat of America.” He further added, in his comments timed to mark the first anniversary of a mob-led attack on the U.S. Capitol, that Trump was waging an “undemocratic” campaign not unlike the actions of autocrats and dictators far from home.
The details of the January 6 attack, linked closely to the machinations and scheming of the then lame-duck President Trump make for chilling, fascinating reading, with the very stakes of America’s future as a democracy in the balance. The die-hard Trump supporters who could not countenance their leader losing came close, perhaps closer than most people realize, to destroying America’s hallowed tradition of a peaceful transfer of power after elections and threatened to make a mockery of America in the eyes of the world.
How ironic that America, struggling to keep alive its tarnished, idiosyncratic and much-diminished political system known as “democracy” at a tender juncture where political violence is lurking its head in the shadows, should continue to wag the finger at China and other countries for not being “more like us.”
Maybe this would be a good time for the U.S. State Department, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, to call a time-out on the time-tested U.S. penchant for hectoring and belittling China and other countries for not doing things the American way.
Maybe this would be a good time to reset U.S. diplomacy and rhetoric to reflect the reality that we live in a multipolar world in which the U.S. standard is no longer the gold standard.
Maybe this would be a good time to stop sowing hatred against China and other countries that dare to disagree, dare to do things differently, and call a moratorium on the righteous bully pulpit hectoring.
The veteran diplomat Chas W. Freeman recently spoke about how the U.S. is not only tone-deaf in dealing with China, but at risk of damaging itself, and even more ominously, at risk of creeping into a self-destructive state of war. He deplores the lack of depth of Biden’s diplomatic picks, including Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland, both of whom have outsized roles in dealings with China and Russia, and both of whom he characterizes as demagogues without serious diplomatic experience, trained instead in the hot house of U.S. domestic politics as boosters for the Democratic Party.
He described the Summit on Democracy, hosted by Blinken, to be ironic, “because our own democracy is clearly in bad shape.” He goes on to say the U.S. is “evaluated internationally as having a partially failed democracy. So, this is an odd moment to be attempting to trumpet the virtues of the system we ourselves are abandoning.”
As a witness to history as the translator for Nixon during his 1972 trip to China, Freeman is thoroughly intimate with the complex and nuanced policy challenges that the Cold War posed for keeping the peace. But the peace was kept, and peaceful rivalry flourished, and the U.S.-China relationship eventually became the anchor for the global economic order. Ambassador Freeman concludes that it is a fool’s errand to attempt to go out and start banging the drum for democracy and thus “reorganize the world along ideological lines—democracies versus authoritarian regimes or non-democracies” and he condemns the whole conceit in a word: “ridiculous!”
Freeman knows that diplomacy is not easy, but as a seasoned diplomat he sees no reason for the world’s democracies to make things more difficult for themselves by provoking conflict with countries which, according to U.S. diktat, don’t qualify. The Republic of the Congo was invited to the democracy summit, Thailand and Singapore were not. While this might curry favor with a particular leader in Africa, it sets back U.S. diplomacy in Southeast Asia.
Freeman notes that autocratic regimes have a hard time building coalitions—they are primarily concerned with self-preservation and survival—so it doesn’t make sense for the U.S. to push them closer together, as it is currently doing with China and Russia. What’s more, in this age of embattled democracy, even within U.S. shores, it would be prudent and circumspect to stop trying to whip the world into an ideological line, and instead focus on fixing the broken system at home.
President Biden is known to be a conciliatory man, but with a fifty-fifty split in Congress and an opposition party that will go to absurd lengths to oppose and sabotage cooperation, these are not conciliatory times. The situation is grave and there is serious work to be done at home.
Instead of decrying the Belt and Road Initiative, the U.S. needs to get real about rebuilding its own broken, antiquated infrastructure. Instead of attacking Huawei for its potential market dominance in 5G and hampering its ability to sell phones, it should promote domestic industry to come up with rival products that will win in a free marketplace. Instead of chasing Chinese scientists and scholars out of the U.S. under blanket accusations of espionage and theft, the U.S. would be wise to build on its excellent system of tertiary education to continue winning the hearts and minds of the world’s scholars as it did in the past.
The tasks confronting the broken U.S. system are many, but its broken democracy is making diplomacy difficult, and real communication is getting as challenging at home as abroad. In ideological terms, the U.S. shows signs of veering into a destructive civil war, in which each domestic faction adopts a “my way or the highway” approach to civic discourse.
The attitude is quintessentially American, but also self-destructive.
America’s rugged individualism, which has contributed to so much that is good and creative about the U.S., is not without its toxic side, as anti-vaxxers and Trump “truthers” demonstrate with abject lack of concern for others during the depths of a pandemic which requires social cooperation to stem.
It’s time for a time-out on touting U.S. democracy as the best system of governance bar none. Even though the U.S. system has great merits it’s also a great mess right now.
Protecting people from exposure to toxic “forever chemicals” will be a top priority for new state regulations throughout the U.S. in 2022, according to a new analysis.
The analysis, published by the Safer States network, found that at least 32 states will consider more than 210 bills related to PFAS (per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances), making regulation of the chemicals one of the most prevalent issues in state policy making this year.
PFAS are a class of more than 9,000 compounds with similar properties. They’re used in everything from clothing and carpeting to nonstick pots and pans, furniture, cosmetics and personal care products, and food packaging containers. PFAS don’t readily break down once they’re in the environment, so they accumulate human bodies over time. Exposure to PFAS is linked to cancer, thyroid disease, high cholesterol, pregnancy-induced hypertension, asthma, and ulcerative colitis.
“State legislatures recognize the severity of the toxic PFAS crisis we’re facing and they’re taking action,” said Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, in a statement. “States continue to lead the way in addressing these serious problems with urgency and innovative solutions.”
States Step Up on PFAS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has promised to regulate PFAS more strictly at the federal level. Efforts to do so are underway, but many health advocates say the process is moving too slowly. In the meantime, states are taking action to protect residents from harmful exposures.
The 32 states considering policies related to PFAS in 2022 include Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
According to the Safer States analysis: At least 19 states will consider policies to regulate the use of PFAS, like restricting their use when it’s avoidable, requiring disclosures when the chemicals are found in consumer goods, or restricting their use in specific categories like cosmetics, textiles, and food packaging (AK, CA, CO, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, MI, MN, NH, NC, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, WA, and WI). At least 17 states will consider policies related to PFAS cleanup, management, and accountability, such as designating the chemicals as hazardous, restricting their disposal, or allocating resources toward cleanup (AK, CA, FL, IL, IN, MA, ME, MD, MI, MN, NH, NC, OK, RI, VT, WA, and WI). At least 19 states will consider legislation related to PFAS in drinking water, groundwater, or soil (AK, AZ, CT, FL, IA, IN, KY, ME, MN, NC, NH, NY, OH, RI, SC, VA, VT, WV, and WI). At least three states will consider policies that ban PFAS in products labeled as recyclable (HI, MD, and NJ) At least 6 states will consider policies that strengthen existing safe chemical policies for cosmetics or children’s products (CA, MA, MI, NY, VT, and WA)
“In Michigan, PFAS and other ‘forever chemicals’ have impacted my community for decades,” said Michigan State Senator Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids) in a statement. “We’ve made significant strides in assessing the scope of the problem statewide and filtering PFAS out of drinking water.”
“However, there’s still so much to be done to stop contamination at its source, to require businesses to find alternatives to these harmful chemicals, and to create fair timeframes during which people who’ve been harmed can seek justice,” Brinks added. “We also need stronger laws that send a message to corporate polluters that profits never come before public health.”
PFAS in Consumer Goods
The analysis comes on the heels of novel testing from EHN.org and wellness community Mamavation that found evidence of PFAS in makeup, sports bras, and yoga pants and leggings.
And just last month the non-profit Toxic-Free Future found that almost three-quarters of 47 pieces of outdoor apparel, bedding, and kitchen linens that were marketed as stain- or water-resistant contain one or more PFAS.
“I’ve seen first-hand how the market is impacted by state policies on toxic chemicals,” said Mike Schade, director of Toxic-Free Future’s Mind the Store program, in a statement. “It’s wise for retailers to get ahead of the curve and mitigate potential risks by taking action right away.”
Kristina Marusic Kristina covers environmental health and justice issues in Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Environmental Health News, Kristina covered issues related to the environment and social justice as a freelancer for a wide range of digital media outlets including The Washington Post, Slate, Vice, Women’s Health, MTV News, The Advocate and Bustle.
Labor Caucus Calls for Passage of PRO Act to Stop Starbucks’s Union Busting
Rep. Donald Norcross speaks during a press conference advocating for the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act in the House of Representatives on Capitol Hill on February 5, 2020, in Washington, D.C.
The Congressional Labor Caucus has called on the Senate to pass a sweeping bill that would strengthen U.S. labor laws in response to Starbucks’s increasingly brazen union-busting tactics over the past weeks.
The House representatives are demanding the passage of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, a bill championed by the labor movement that would make it easier for workers to organize and form unions.
“We have had it with corporate spokespeople and lobbyists saying they’re pro-worker when asking for meetings on Capitol Hill, while at the same time using every trick in the book to stop unionizing efforts cold in their tracks,” the caucus said in a statement. “Workers have the right to organize – it’s time they had a level playing field to do so.”
The House passed the legislation last March, but due to uniform opposition from the GOP and several Democratic holdouts in the Senate, including Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Arizona), it currently stands little chance of passing into law.
Lawmakers in favor of the PRO Act have lamented the weak state of the country’s labor laws.
“There hasn’t been any real meaningful change in labor law in over half a century,” Labor Caucus Co-Chair Rep. Donald Norcross (D-New Jersey) told Truthout. When it comes to union-busting moves like Starbucks’s mass firing of what the union says was the entire organizing team at a Memphis store, “there is no real recourse in terms of punitive damages,” he went on.
Starbucks Workers United has filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over the terminations, calling the firings the company’s “most blatant act of union-busting yet.” Norcross called the company’s move an “amateur error,” especially considering that the company has been working with at least 30 lawyers from one of the country’s most notorious union-busting law firms.
“It’s ridiculous. You know, you’re paying eight bucks for a cup of coffee. The CEO made $20 million last year and [the company] won’t even talk to them about organizing to give their employees a voice,” Norcross said. “Stupid is probably the nicest thing I can say about Starbucks right now.”
But even if the NLRB finds that Starbucks violated federal labor laws mandating that companies can’t retaliate against workers for organizing, the punishment for the $100 billion company would be little more than a slap on the wrist. The only liability for Starbucks would be that they would have to give the fired workers back pay, which is no more than the usual cost of operations.
The PRO Act would implement harsher penalties for companies that violate labor laws and would place further restrictions on the actions that companies can take to union bust. Many of its provisions would directly make Starbucks workers’ union campaign easier – among other things, the bill would outlaw captive anti-union meetings, which Starbucks has been conducting in stores across the country.
Despite the current state of labor laws, however, the company’s attempts to break up organizing efforts may still backfire. The firing is “more empowering than anything for those workers,” Norcross said.
Indeed, the day after the terminations, workers in Oklahoma City said in their union campaign announcement letter to CEO Kevin Johnson that the firings only added fuel to the fire of their movement.
“This termination was blatant retaliation, and while it was meant to discourage the formation of the committee we are announcing today, it has only emboldened us and highlighted the need for this union even more,” the workers wrote. Several stores have filed to unionize since the termination, bringing the current total to about 80 locations.
The more attention the union campaign gets, the more support it seems to pick up. On Thursday, four New York City area stores filed to unionize – and with their campaign announcements, 76 New York lawmakers, including members of Congress like Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D), signed a letter to Johnson asking the company to adhere to non-interference principles laid out by the union.
