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)
Sunday, May 08, 2022
Deadly ‘wet-bulb temperatures’ are being stoked by climate change and heat waves
While temperatures in the region cooled slightly this week, blistering heat is expected to return in the coming days and spread east, where rising "wet-bulb temperatures" — an esoteric measurement that was little known outside meteorology circles until now — could threaten the ability for humans to survive, according to experts.
It's the type of concern that is becoming more urgent as climate change makes extreme heat events both more frequent and more severe, said Friederike Otto, a climate scientist at Imperial College London.
"If we do one thing to adapt, it really needs to be for heat, because that is where we see the strongest changes everywhere in the world," she said.
Wet-bulb temperature measures the combination of heat and humidity, which can hamper the human body's ability to cool itself down if at too high a level.
Humans, like most mammals, cool themselves through sweating. Body heat is used to convert sweat into water vapor, and as that evaporation process occurs, the body cools.
"It's a very effective means of cooling, but it's crucial that the sweat can actually evaporate," said Tapio Schneider, a professor of environmental science and engineering at the California Institute of Technology. A boy cools off in New Delhi on May 3, 2022.
(Xavier Galiana / AFP - Getty Images)
When the wet-bulb temperature, or the combination of heat and humidity, exceeds the temperature of the human body — around 97 degrees Fahrenheit or 36 degrees Celsius — sweat cannot evaporate and humans can no longer cool themselves down.
“It’s really a hard limit for survivability,” Schneider said. “You can die just by sitting there. You don’t need to move or do anything else. There’s simply no way to cool and you overheat.”
In areas with dry heat, the wet-bulb temperature threshold for human safety will be higher. But in more humid places, temperature and humidity will create a potentially lethal mix at a lower point.
The name itself comes from how meteorologists sometimes calculate wet-bulb temperatures, which involves wrapping a wet cloth around a thermometer and measuring how much the temperature cools as a result of evaporation.
Climate studies have found that as global temperatures creep up, warmer air will be able to hold more moisture. That, in turn, will increase humidity and cause wet-bulb temperatures to rise.
A study published in May 2020 in the journal Science Advances found that heat and humidity in certain parts of the world are already testing the limits of human survivability. The research found that parts of South Asia, including India and Pakistan, coastal and southwestern North America and areas around the Persian Gulf have experienced conditions "nearing or beyond prolonged human physiological tolerance."
Over the past month, temperatures in Pakistan and across northwest and central India soared above 100 degrees Fahrenheit for days on end, with the region posting its highest average temperatures on record for the month of April. With the heat wave expected to expand into more humid, coastal regions, the risk of hitting critical wet-bulb temperature thresholds will increase, Otto said.
The Pakistan Meteorological Department is forecasting severe heat wave conditions for the coming week, with officials there advising people to avoid unnecessary exposure to direct sunlight.
Otto said that without crucial interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow the pace of climate change, oppressive and dangerous heat waves will persist.
"We have seen everywhere across the world that heat records are being broken every year, and this is exactly what we expect in a warming climate," she said. "Climate change has been a real game-changer when it comes to heat waves."
VIEW FROM THE RIGHT ‘We can’t heat our food anymore’: Middle England reveals why it turned against the Tories
Edward Malnick
THE TELEGRAPH Fri, May 6, 2022 Boris Johnson - Daniel Leal – WPA Pool/Getty Images
It is 7.30pm on a Wednesday evening and Donna, a 47-year-old care assistant, is sitting in her Wakefield home, wrapped in a shawl.
Like many across the country, she has become acutely conscious of the rising cost of living. Increasing food, energy and diesel prices are already having a significant impact on her day-to-day life.
Energy tariffs that offer cheaper “off peak” rates allow Donna and many others to shift their use of household appliances to the evening, or night time. Other adjustments, though, are more dramatic, like eating significantly less hot food.
“I have noticed it recently,” she said. “My kids have left home and it’s just me and my partner. I’m washing after six now. We don’t really put the heating on. We wrap. If we put the heating on to take the cold out of the air, it’s after six and it’s only for an hour.”
She added: “We’re eating a lot of cold food, so as not to have to cook.”
Donna’s husband has also begun driving their car to work to save on the additional diesel consumed when she used to drop him off each day and then return home.
She is addressing a focus group of nine working-class voters in Wakefield, all of whom describe their own cut-backs, albeit to varying degrees, to reduce costs.
All voted for the Conservatives in 2019, but the majority indicate a disaffection with Boris Johnson which appears to have contributed to the severe losses suffered by the Tories in the council elections.
A similar sentiment was described by some of the Conservatives’ ousted council leaders on Friday.
Tory MPs know that the disaffection that appeared to play out could be highly dangerous for the Prime Minister in a general election, particularly if they considered Sir Keir Starmer to be a better alternative. Imran Ahmad Khan - Heathcliff O’Malley for The Telegraph
Within weeks, the Wakefield voters will be taking part in a by-election sparked by the departure of Imran Ahmad Khan, the Conservative MP convicted of sexually assaulting a boy.
Another group of comparatively better-off voters in north London, who also backed the Conservatives in 2019, express not dissimilar views about Mr Johnson and Sir Keir. Unfortunately for the Labour leader, he remains less popular than Mr Johnson amongst both groups of voters, however low their view of the Prime Minister has been sinking.
The groups were organised by Public First, the influential opinion research firm that has carried out work for Downing Street, and moderated by James Frayne, a founding partner.
“I don’t know anyone who’s not tightening their belts at the moment and trying to make changes to their lifestyles,” said Imran, a school business manager from Harrow, north-west London, where the Conservatives took control of the local council from Labour on Friday.
Felicity, a manager in the public sector, said: “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. And us who are in the middle, we’re just holding on, we’re just struggling.”
Felicity, whose son is living with her whilst studying at university, said she is spending much of her time switching off lights in their home and, whilst “the food shop can never go down in our house, it’s Lidl and Aldi and less of the Marks & Spencer [and] Waitrose”.
She added that her son will still likely require help from “the bank of mum and dad” when he graduates, even on the basis that he gets a job with the minimum wage.
“The bank of mum and dad are thinking, ‘God almighty, we’re struggling as it is’,” she said.
Deborah, who works in HR operations, is now using her car only “if I absolutely have to” in order to save money on fuel.
Darena, another middle-aged woman from Harrow who cares for her elderly mother, is using her washing machine and oven only when she has a full load of items for each appliance.
Peter, a 51-year-old social housing consultant in the London focus group, said: “My electricity bill for three months is usually £300 and it was close to £800. It’s an incredible uplift in expenses.”
Steve, a porter from Wakefield, said: “We’ve just started, if the kids get cold, reverting back a little bit, like people used to do back in the day [to] ‘put a jumper on, get a blanket’ or something like that. It’s not instantly, ‘I’ll put the heating on and I’ll warm you up’.”
Jasmine, 36, from Wakefield, who works in healthcare and has a young daughter, said: “I’ve made quite a few changes. Because I drive quite a lot, I’m trying to rely more on car sharing or using public transport and I’m also pushing to work from home a little bit more.
“In terms of my heating, I’ve turned it down by degree and I’m also having it on less. In terms of my washing, I’m trying to reduce the number of loads, trying not to use the tumble dryer. And I’m shopping more at budget supermarkets.”
In only one case across the two groups did a participant say they felt optimistic about the economic situation.
“I’m in a bit of a lucky situation where my mortgage is paid off and I don’t have any loans or anything, so I can weather the storm a little bit,” said Michael, a 48-year-old maintenance engineer from Wakefield. His energy bill has, however, doubled, leading him to turn down his thermostat to 20C.
Generally, the voters in these two groups do not blame the Government for the rise in the cost of living – although some express irritation about its approach to tax, including the National Insurance increase introduced last month.
Darena said: “There are so many, many factors. The oil crisis is one factor, the energy crisis then stemming from that.”
Peter commented: “I just find it so depressing, the whole Rishi Sunak scenario of imposing higher taxes on everybody and then his wife’s non-dom status. I’m a Tory voter, but I am incredibly embarrassed by that front bench.”
Imran said he had previously supported the Conservatives having seen the party as supportive of local businesses, with which his family has been involved for a number of decades. Rishi Sunak - Reuters/Toby Melville
However, the Government’s response to the cost of living crisis has suggested they are “out of touch”, he said, with a council tax rebate for millions of households failing to compensate for the National Insurance increase and rise in bills.
Mr Johnson’s standing appears to have slipped universally amongst the voters in Wakefield and the London group.
“I liked him as a person previously, I always thought he was a character,” said Deborah. But she put Covid-19 successes such as the vaccine roll-out down to the NHS, criticised fiascos over personal protective equipment for medics, and described the Prime Minister’s overall performance as “abysmal”.
Darena said: “My mum, whenever Boris comes on TV, starts ranting about his hair, and how scruffy it is and what state he looks. I know that that is so superficial and may seem really shallow, but on the world stage, it does matter.”
However, she added: “I don’t know if there’s anyone better, and that’s always the problem, isn’t it? It’s choosing between the plague and another illness.”
Many of those in the groups believed that Mr Johnson should have quit some time ago over the scandal of illicit parties held at Downing Street during Covid lockdowns.
“I think the fact they had parties is ridiculous,” said Vicky, from Wakefield, who works in financial services. “Don’t put yourself in a position of power that you then abuse. That really upsets me. I won’t trust him. I don’t trust him. I think he’s a bit of a joke, to be honest.
“He doesn’t make decisions, it’s quite clear when he’s on TV presenting he hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about. There’s a lot of people behind him that do all the work.” Ed Murphy and Mohammed Rangzeb - Paul Marriott/PA Wire
But a perceived lack of a convincing alternative to Mr Johnson, whether in the form of Sir Keir or potential Tory leadership rivals, appears to contribute to a view that the time for the Prime Minister to quit has come and gone.
“I think he should have gone, but I don’t think there’s any point in getting rid of him now,” said Vicky. “He’s got away with it. There are other more important things.”
Andy, a 54-year-old builder, said: “I think he ought well to have gone. He’s a lucky man.”
However, Imran disagreed, saying: “I don’t see him there very long. People don’t like the fact that he lied.”
There are also signs of Mr Johnson’s Brexit dividend wearing off, with none of the participants mentioning the issue as one of the Prime Minister’s successes, and two of those in the Wakefield group complaining that he had failed to come good on the Vote Leave pledge to redirect £350 million a week previously spent on the EU, to the health service.
For now, though, those thinking of dropping their support for the Conservatives appear put off from doing so by their view of Sir Keir – who also appears to be struggling to gain the admiration and trust of these voters.
“He doesn’t have charisma or much of a personality,” says Deborah, from Harrow. Felicity said she could “either take him or leave him”, and bemoaned the “school playground” of politics in the House of Commons.
Peter adds: “I don’t like him at all. The Labour Party are just as bad.”
LETTER TO THE EDITOR How would men like it if the government fought unwanted pregnancy with their bodies?
Sun, May 8, 2022,
Get proactive against pregnancy
Instead of forcing pregnant rape victims to give birth, let’s give a vasectomy to every boy at puberty and reverse it on his wedding day. It’s still draconian, but less medieval.
- Blake K. Wallace, Arlington
Do Americans Support Abortion Rights? Depends on the State.
Comparing state-by-state support for abortion rights, and where trigger laws would ban abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned. (The New York Times) Nate Cohn Sat, May 7, 2022
A majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. But the story is more complicated in the states where the future of abortion policy is likely to be decided if — as is now expected — the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
In the states poised to put in new restrictions on abortion, people tend to say that abortion should be mostly or fully illegal, based on a New York Times analysis of large national surveys taken over the past decade.
In the 13 states that have enacted so-called trigger laws, which would immediately or very quickly outlaw abortion if Roe were overturned, 43% of adults on average say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while 52% say it should be illegal in most or all cases.
Voters are more divided in the dozen or so states that have pre-Roe bans on the books or that are expected to enact new abortion restrictions if Roe is overturned. In those states — where the fight over abortion is most likely to play out in campaigns or state legislative chambers — an average of 49% of adults say abortion should be legal in most or all cases, compared with 45% who say otherwise.
That is still somewhat less than the national average of 54% who mostly or fully support legalized abortion, compared with 41% who mostly or fully oppose it.
The geographic pattern evident in the results suggests that a national outcry over a court decision to overturn Roe might not carry many political consequences in the states where abortions could be immediately restricted. In some of those states, new abortion restrictions may tend to reinforce the political status quo, even as they spark outrage elsewhere in the country.
But elsewhere, a fight over new abortion restrictions might pose serious political risks for conservatives, perhaps especially in the seven mostly Republican-controlled states that are seen as most likely to enact new restrictions even though a majority of voters tend to support legal abortion.
The public’s views on abortion are notoriously hard to measure, with large segments of the public often seeming to offer muddled or inconsistent answers. Polls consistently show that around two-thirds of Americans support the court’s decision in Roe v. Wade and oppose overturning it. Yet just as many Americans say they support banning abortion in the second trimester, a step barred by Roe. And a more modest majority — usually around 55% in broader sets of data — supports legal abortion in most or all cases, while people split almost evenly over whether they consider themselves “pro-choice” or “pro-life.”
The poll question used here — whether the respondent believes abortion should be legal in most or all cases or illegal in all or most cases — offers only a general sense of a voter’s attitudes on the issue. It may not align exactly with whether a voter or a state electorate would support any particular restriction.
Voters who support abortion in “most” cases might accept a ban on abortions after the first trimester, like the one recently enacted in Florida, which would be at odds with Roe v. Wade but affect only about 8% of abortions. Conversely, voters who believe abortion should be illegal in most cases might still support allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest — or perhaps even without conditions in the first trimester.
The opponents of Roe have long said they wanted to leave the issue to the voters of each state, and the data suggests that abortion restrictions may cut very differently across the dozen or so states where the issue is likeliest to be in play in the months ahead.
In Texas, which has put into action the most stringent abortion restrictions so far, there are few signs of a fundamental transformation of the state’s politics.
Texans roughly split on abortion overall, making abortion rights more popular there than in the typical state with a trigger law. But abortion was almost a nonissue in the state’s primary in March, with candidates staying focused on the pandemic and immigration. Only 39% of Texans said the state’s abortion laws should be “less strict” in a poll in February, several months after the passage of the law, which effectively bans abortion after around six weeks of pregnancy.
Abortion rights advocates might be on more favorable political terrain in the more traditionally competitive Midwestern states. A modest majority of voters say abortion should be mostly legal in states like Ohio, Michigan and Iowa, where evangelical Christians represent a far smaller share of voters than in the South. The figures are similar in other battleground states, like Arizona and Florida.
It is unclear if the abortion issue will be enough to redraw the political map. Perhaps it will fade, as it seems to have in Texas. But the stakes are not small for Republicans in this region: The predominantly white working-class voters who swung from Barack Obama to Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election tended to back abortion rights.
In a postelection study, 58% of voters who flipped from Obama to Trump in 2016 said that they would support a law that would “always allow a woman to obtain an abortion as a matter of choice.”
President Joe Biden invited union activists to the White House on Thursday for a symbolically significant meeting that reinforced the president’s bona fides as a union man. The photo-op excited progressives who want the administration to do everything it can to support union organizing and rejuvenate the labor movement.
Starbucks was less thrilled about it.
The group of worker-activists in the Oval Office included Laura Garza, an employee from Starbucks’ New York roastery who is part of the chain’s growing union campaign.
Starbucks executive AJ Jones II penned a letter Thursday to Steve Ricchetti, the president’s counselor, asking that the White House hold a separate meet-and-greet for other representatives from Starbucks.
In the span of just a few months, more than 50 stores have voted to join the union Workers United, making it one of the most closely watched organizing efforts in decades. Starbucks has so far failed to stop the wave of organizing in its corporate-owned stores, despite waging an aggressive countercampaign.
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris meet with Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and labor activists on Thursday in the Oval Office. (Photo: Adam Schultz/White House)
President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris meet with Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and labor activists on Thursday in the Oval Office. (Photo: Adam Schultz/White House)
Jones said in his letter it wasn’t fair that only a union worker was there to share views on the company. (The full letter can be read here.)
“We believe this lack of representation discounts the reality that the majority of our partners oppose being members of a union and the unionization tactics being deployed by Workers United,” Jones wrote.
He ran through a litany of the company’s employee benefits and claimed that Starbucks has a “drastically more positive vision for our partners and our company than Workers United.” He requested that a “diverse, representative group” of Starbucks workers be invited to the White House for a separate gathering.
Starbucks already seems to have good access in Washington, having spent $480,000 on lobbying so far this year, according to Open Secrets.
The union campaign, known as Starbucks Workers United, told HuffPost in a statement that “equal time” was one of the “core principles” it has asked the company to adhere to during the organizing effort: “If Starbucks now believes in this principle, and grants us equal company time to talk to partners for every anti-union meeting they hold, we’d be happy to have them tag along next time we get invited to the White House.”
Biden's photo-op with activists fired up progressives who want the administration to do everything it can to support union organizing.
The group said Garza, who has been with the company for 22 years, shared her story with White House officials about “what it’s like to be intimidated and harassed by a company she has devoted her working life to.”
A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The Starbucks letter shows how workers like Garza have compelled Biden and other Democrats to show their support for unionizing workers even though it may rankle powerful corporations, including those close with the Democratic Party.
The meeting Thursday featured Christian Smalls, president of the Amazon Labor Union, which recently made history by forming the tech giant’s first U.S. union, at a warehouse in Staten Island, New York. In a tweet after the White House meeting, Smalls said Biden told him he had gotten the president “in trouble” with his successful organizing, underscoring the political dynamic at play.
The White House labor get-together also included workers from the gaming company Paizo, the animation studio Titmouse, the Baltimore Public Library and outdoor retailer REI, all workplaces where unions have been organizing. Biden was joined by Vice President Kamala Harris and Labor Secretary Marty Walsh.
The campaigns at Starbucks and Amazon have turned into political stories, as workers and their allies call on lawmakers for public support. The same day workers met with Biden and other White House officials, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) held a Senate Budget Committee hearing in which Smalls pilloried Amazon for its anti-union tactics and sparred with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) over corporate America’s treatment of workers.
The organizing campaign at Starbucks has led to a raft of unfair labor practice charges against the company, with Workers United having accused management of retaliating against union activists and threatening to withhold pay raises and benefits from workers who organize.
Officials at the National Labor Relations Board have found merit in some of the union’s allegations, filing a complaint against Starbucks at the labor board and seeking an injunction in federal court to have fired activists reinstated. Starbucks maintains that it fired the workers because they had violated company policies.
This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.
Laura Garza, a union leader at Starbucks’ New York City Roastery, met with the president, vice president, and labor secretary on Thursday at the White House, and described the event as a huge boost to the nascent unionization movement.
"First and foremost, it was a completely overwhelming and humbling experience to represent partners that are organizing to unionize their stores," Garza told Yahoo Finance in a phone interview. "I think the main goal of the meeting yesterday [with] Secretary Walsh and Vice President Harris, and as well as President Biden, when he jumped in, all recognized everyone's right: a fundamental right to organize and also recognize that all workers across the country have a dignity to work."
Garza said the discussion was a round-table event, giving guests the opportunity to share "our stories of organizing and the success that has come from organizing successfully."
She also said the administration heard "how organizing can be an extremely lonesome and isolating experience, especially with aggressive anti-union busting from our places of employment like Starbucks and like Amazon."
Arizona State University law professor Michael Selmi, who’s written about employment discrimination and civil rights litigation, told Yahoo Finance that "even though these meetings were really symbolically important, it's not clear that there's gonna be much legislative follow up from them. I suspect and in part, because legislation with respect to even changing minimum wage, which every [person] widely supports has gotten nowhere for now a couple decades going back."
Selmi added that "this whole union movement is so hard to analyze at this point it's still so early."
Starbucks 'deeply concerned' by snub
Starbucks (SBUX) criticized the meeting with several union organizers from around the country — including a barista from Starbucks Workers United — as unionization efforts within the coffee giant's stores gain momentum.
In a letter, AJ Jones, Starbucks Senior Vice President of Global Communications and Public Affairs, wrote to White House counselor Steve Ricchetti about how the decision to not invite representatives from the company was "deeply" concerning.
"We are deeply concerned that Workers United, which is actively engaged in collective bargaining with us and trying to organize all our stores and our +240,000 partners (employees), was invited to the meeting while not inviting official Starbucks representatives, to discuss our view on the matter," Jones wrote.
"We believe this lack of representation discounts the reality that the majority of our partners oppose being members of a union and the unionization tactics being deployed by Workers United," he added. "As you know, American workers have the absolute right to decide for themselves to unionize, or not to unionize, without any undue influences."
Jones requested to meet with the Biden administration in order to introduce "a diverse, representative group of Starbucks partners from across the country to the White House so that they can share points of view and experiences that are vastly different from those presented by Workers United."
The White House did not respond to Yahoo Finance's request for comment.
Howard Schultz speaks with moderator Monica Guzman during his book tour in Seattle, Washington, U.S., January 31, 2019. REUTERS/Jason Redmond
'That just doesn't seem like a good business model'
Starbucks workers have been organizing at stores at a rapid speed — over 70 stores have voted in favor of unionization since December, and a flurry of union election filings are added daily. Seven stores have voted against the measure, while five stores remain undetermined, according to the NLRB records.
Starbucks recently announced a $1 billion investment to increase workers' pay, offer additional training, and improve stores. Crucially, these benefits may not apply to unionized stores.
On Friday, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh told Yahoo Finance Live (video above) that three-time Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz should invest "in all of his workforce," not just the stores without unions.
“I don't think he can just invest in the people, the dozen shops that organize. That just doesn't seem like a good business model," Walsh said. "I commend him for investing in their salaries, and I also would recommend that the stores that organize to sit down and have a conversation with them.”
Garza noted she wanted to sit down with Schultz, who took over as interim CEO last month, and other Starbucks executives to work out various issues.
"We want to sit down and have them hear our stories and come to the bargaining table really with an open mind and an open heart," she said. "We believe that we can work together in creating and in the continuation of the whole idea of the third place. Starbucks is a very progressive company and we want to share that vision with them as well."
Dani Romero is a reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter: @daniromerotv
Starbucks asks White House for equal time after Biden met with union leaders
Fri, May 6, 2022, By Hilary Russ and David Shepardson
NEW YORK/WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Starbucks Corp has asked for a meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden's administration after unionized workers talked to White House officials on Thursday, saying in a letter that most of its employees do not want to be members of a union.
Separately, an official with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a complaint on Friday describing allegations of misconduct by Starbucks toward union members that constitute violations of U.S. labor law. Starbucks said the allegations in the complaint are false and lack merit.
In the letter to the White House, dated Thursday and released Friday, Starbucks said it was "deeply concerned" that Workers United, which is organizing hundreds of U.S. Starbucks locations, "was invited to the meeting while not inviting official Starbucks representatives."
The White House declined to comment.
On Thursday Biden met with workers and labor organizers seeking to represent workers at Amazon.com Inc, Starbucks and other employers.
Attendees included Christian Smalls, who heads the Amazon Labor Union, and Laura Garza, a Starbucks employee working with Workers United.
During the meeting, Biden said: "When I ran for president, I made a commitment that I would be the most pro-labor, union president in the history of America," according to video excerpts released by the White House Friday.
Starbucks said in the letter that its lack of representation "discounts the reality that the majority of our partners oppose being members of a union and the unionization tactics being deployed by Workers United." The coffee chain refers to its baristas and other employees as partners.
Workers at more than 50 U.S. Starbucks cafes have elected to join Workers United, while five stores voted against the union, out of roughly 240 altogether that have sought to hold elections since August. Workers United is an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union.
"We have a drastically more positive vision for our partners and our company than Workers United," Starbucks asserted.
Workers United tweeted a statement from Garza who said it was "heartbreaking to read Starbucks' response." She said she was honored to represent all Starbucks partners at the meeting, "union or not."
In a complaint, a copy of which was reviewed by Reuters, the NLRB's regional director for Buffalo, New York, listed allegations brought to the agency by Workers United, including charges that Starbucks threatened, fired and conducted surveillance on union members in the state.
Starbucks' conduct, as described in the allegations, violates the National Labor Relations Act, the complaint by Regional Director Linda M. Leslie said. An NLRB judge will hold a hearing over the allegations on July 11, the complaint added.
Starbucks said in a statement that the complaint involves important issues but "does not constitute a finding by the NLRB."
It added: "It is the beginning of a litigation process that permits both sides to be heard and to present evidence. We believe the allegations contained in the complaint are false, and we look forward to presenting our evidence when the allegations are adjudicated."
(Reporting by Hilary Russ; additional reporting by David Shepardson; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama, Rosalba O'Brien and Cynthia Osterman)
'Dancing Monkey' Lindsey Graham Performs For Donald Trump In 'Extraordinary' New Audio
Lee Moran Fri, May 6, 2022,
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) sucks up to former President Donald Trump just weeks after the U.S. Capitol riot in new audio released by New York Times reporters Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns.
Graham condemned Trump for inciting the violence on Jan. 6, 2021, but quickly flip-flopped and devoted himself to groveling. The audio that Martin and Burns shared on “The Daily Show with Trevor Noah” on Thursday shows how his denunciation of Trump had a “pretty fast expiration date,” said Burns.
In the audio, Trump takes a telephone call from Graham while being interviewed by the reporters in the lobby of his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for their book “This Will Not Pass,” which was released Tuesday.
Trump puts Graham on speakerphone and asks him to tell the journalists if he’s actually any good at golf. Graham proceeds to extoll Trump’s skills on the course, saying Trump even started to help him with his own game.
“I think just hearing in real-time in front of us, this sort of dancing monkey routine was really an extraordinary moment,” Burns told host Noah.
Bernie Sanders invited the Amazon union to testify in Congress. Lindsey Graham says Sanders 'determined Amazon is a piece of crap company.'
Juliana Kaplan
BUSINESS INSIDER Thu, May 5, 2022, Sen Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
Bernie Sanders held a hearing Thursday on whether companies accused of skirting labor law should get federal contracts.
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sanders has "determined Amazon is a piece of crap company."
Amazon Labor Union founder Christian Smalls testified about his experiences.
On Thursday, Sen. Bernie Sanders held a hearing on whether the government should provide federal contracts to companies accused of skirting labor laws — something he's called upon President Joe Biden to stop.
Sen. Lindsey Graham said Sanders was taking the Senate Budget Committee on a "dangerous turn."
"Every time I turn around, you're having a hearing about anybody that makes money is bad," Graham, who would chair the committee if Democrats lose their majority, said of Sanders.
He added: "You can have oversight hearings all you like, but you've determined Amazon is a piece of crap company. That's your political bias."
Sanders brought the Amazon Labor Union (ALU) to Washington for a Senate Budget Committee hearing titled "Should Taxpayer Dollars Go to Companies that Violate Labor Laws?" Sanders, who chairs the committee, invited ALU founder Christian Smalls to testify. Sanders also invited Amazon founder Jeff Bezos to speak in front of the committee. Bezos was not in attendance.
The independent Amazon Labor Union pulled off a historic victory in Staten Island. Workers at the JFK8 warehouse voted to unionize with the ALU, becoming the first unionized warehouse at the tech behemoth. Sanders, a long-time labor advocate, has rallied with ALU.
Amazon did not immediately respond to Insider's request for comment.
"Let me begin my questioning by responding briefly to Senator Graham. I think he suggested that a hearing like this is radical," Sanders said during the Budget hearing. "You know what, I think he's right. In a Congress dominated by corporate lobbyists and wealthy campaign contributors, the idea that we would actually hear from the working class of this country is in fact radical. But I make no apologies for that."
Smalls also responded directly to Graham.
"You forgot that the people are the ones who make these companies operate, and if we are not protected and if the process for when we hold these companies accountable is not working for us, then that's the reason why we're here today," Smalls said. "That's the reason why I'm here — to represent the workers who make these companies go."
The hearing comes after Sanders called upon President Joe Biden to implement an executive order banning union-busting companies from receiving federal contracts, one of Biden's campaign promises. Sanders sent Biden a letter in late April asking the president to fulfill his promise.
Sean O'Brien, the general president of the Teamsters, said in his testimony that the federal government has a "mandate to encourage worker organizing and collective bargaining" under the National Labor Relations Act.
"But our government ignores that mandate with every dollar that it puts into the pockets of Jeff Bezos and his organized crime syndicate known as Amazon," O'Brien said.
Amazon union leader hits back at Lindsey Graham in Senate hearing: ‘You should listen’
Alex Woodward
THE INDEPENDENT Thu, May 5, 2022
Amazon Labor Union president Christian Smalls, addressing a panel in the Senate Budget Committee on union-busting among large corporations, responded to Senator Lindsey Graham’s opening remarks accusing committee chair Bernie Sanders of using the committee to advance his political agenda.
“This committee is taking a very dangerous turn under your leadership,” the Republican senator said.
“Senator Graham, you forgot that the people are the ones who make these companies operate,” Mr Smalls said from the panel on 5 May. “If we’re not protected, the process for holding these companies accountable is not working for us – that’s the reason why we’re here today.”
He stressed that federal protections for union organising are “not a left thing or a right thing” or a “Democrat or Republican thing” but a “worker’s issue.”
“We’re the ones suffering,” added Mr Smalls, wearing a red, black and yellow jacket with the words “Eat the rich” on the front. “That’s the reason why I think I was invited here today. You should listen because we represent your constituents as well.”
Amazon workers at the JFK8 warehouse facility in Staten Island, New York won a union election on 1 April, the first successful US union election within the world’s largest online retailer. A majority of workers at the LDJ5 facility next door voted against unionising, according to preliminary results on 2 May.
The labor union represents 8,300 workers at the JFK8 facility, following a months-long union campaign against the company’s alleged anti-union efforts, including so-called “captive audience” meetings encouraging workers to reject the union and attempts to undermine Mr Smalls and other union leaders, who have filed several complaints with the National Labor Relations Board over federal labor law violations.
“The notion that people united in this democracy will unite against tyranny is the oldest American ideal,” Mr Smalls said on Thursday. “Our victory in Staten Island was lauded as newsworthy and inspirational for hundreds of thousands of workers.”
The union has demanded that Amazon recognise the victory and agree to a collective bargaining agreement between the company and the union, “but Amazon is refusing to do so,” Mr Smalls said.
“To me it sounds like the corporations have the control, and they control whatever they want,” he added.
Later, Senator Graham challenged Mr Smalls on whether he has relied on the existing legal process to issue complaints against Amazon over alleged labor violations.
Mr Smalls replied by saying that the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a complaint on his behalf after he was fired from Amazon, adding that the existing process is “not working”.
“That’s your opinion,” Senator Graham replied.
“That’s a fact,” Mr Smalls said.
Senator Bernie Sanders joined Amazon Labor Union president Christian Smalls and union organisers and supporters at a rally outside Amazon’s Staten Island facility on 24 April. (AFP via Getty Images)
Senator Sanders – who has routinely sparred with Amazon and its founder Jeff Bezos over the company’s massive federal contracts and tax obligations – has pressured the White House to cut the company’s government contracts until it agrees to cease what he called “illegal anti-union activity” alleged by workers pushing for union recognition.
“Should federal taxpayer dollars go to companies that violate labor law and illegally prevent workers from exercising their right to organize a union?” the senator asked on Thursday.
On Wednesday night, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected a motion from Senator Sanders to push House legislators to ensure that semiconductor manufacturing companies that receive federal aid are prohibited from blocking their employees from union efforts.
That motion failed by a vote of 6-87.
Vice President Kamala Harris is scheduled to meet with Mr Smalls and other union leaders on Thursday
The Independent has requested comment from Amazon.
Amazon fires senior managers from unionized Staten Island warehouse
Amazon fired a number of senior managers from its JFK8 warehouse in Staten Island on Thursday, only a month after workers voted to unionize. The New York Times reported that the company axed more than half a dozen senior-level workers on Thursday, many of who were involved in union organizing. A number of anonymous employees told the NYT that they believed the firings were retaliatory. JFK8 is the first and currently the only unionized Amazon warehouse in the US.
In a statement to Engadget, Amazon said the workers were fired as a result of “management changes.” “Part of our culture at Amazon is to continually improve, and we believe it’s important to take time to review whether or not we’re doing the best we could be for our team. Over the last several weeks, we’ve spent time evaluating aspects of the operations and leadership at JFK8 and, as a result, have made some management changes.”
Other Amazon workers have recently gotten the pink slip, allegedly due to their union involvement. Just a couple of weeks ago, four recently terminated Amazon employees filed charges with the NLRB, alleging that they were being punished for supporting a union. Last month the NLRB ordered Amazon to reinstate Gerald Bryson, a worker at the JFK8 facility who was fired due to what Amazon alleged was his violation of a company language policy. But the NLRB’s judge was not convinced by this argument, and accused Amazon of performing a “skewed investigation” of Bryson and retaliating against him for his union work.
Just yesterday, Amazon Labor Union president Chris Smalls testified before the Senate Budget Committee and met with President Joe Biden. The Biden administration has expressed reserved support for unionization efforts by Amazon, Starbucks and other workers.
In his testimony before the Senate, Smalls argued that the federal government should avoid awarding Amazon contracts due to its labor practices. “We cannot allow Amazon or any other employer to receive taxpayer money if they engage in illegal union-busting behavior and deny workers’ rights,” said Smalls.
Amazon reportedly fires at least six New York managers involved in labor union Maya Yang
THE GUARDIAN Fri, May 6, 2022 Photograph: Kathy Willens/AP
Amazon has reportedly fired over half a dozen senior managers who were involved in a New York warehouse union.
The firings, which took place outside the company’s employee review cycle, was regarded as the company’s response to the Amazon Labor Union which formed in Staten Island last month in a “historic victory” against the country’s second largest employer, the New York Times reported, citing former and current employees who spoke on the condition anonymity.
Most of the managers who were fired were responsible for carrying out Amazon’s response to the unionization efforts, the New York Times reported. According to their LinkedIn profiles that were reviewed by the Times, some of the managers were with the company for more than six years.
Amazon said the changes were made after evaluating the warehouse’s “operations and leadership” for several weeks.
“Part of our culture at Amazon is to continually improve, and we believe it’s important to take time to review whether or not we’re doing the best we could be for our team,” the spokesperson said.
The managers were being fired due to an “organizational change”, two employees told the Times. One said that some of the managers had recently received positive performance reviews.
In April, Amazon workers at the Staten Island warehouse voted in majority to form a union. The victory marked the first successful American organizing effort in the company’s history. Organizers have faced an uphill battle against Amazon, which now employs more than one million people in the US and is making every effort to keep unions out.
Christian Smalls, who heads the Amazon Labor Union, said on Twitter he had met with Joe Biden shortly after he harshly criticized Amazon during his testimony at a Senate hearing on Thursday.
Pro-union workers were seeking longer breaks, paid time off for injured employees and an hourly wage of $30, up from a minimum of just over $18 an hour offered by the company. The estimated average wage for the borough is $41 an hour, according to a similar US Census Bureau analysis of Staten Island’s $85,381 median household income.
Amazon has said they invest in wages and benefits, such as health care, 401(k) plans and a prepaid college tuition program to help grow workers’ careers.
“As a company, we don’t think unions are the best answer for our employees,” a spokesperson said following the union win. “Our focus remains on working directly with our team to continue making Amazon a great place to work.”
Earlier this week, Amazon warehouse workers at a second Staten Island warehouse overwhelmingly rejected a union bid, dealing a blow to organizers who pulled off the Staten Island union last month.
Organizers said they had lost some support at the warehouse after filing for an election in February because they directed more energy to the nearby facility that voted to unionize last month. There were also fewer organizers who worked in this facility – roughly 10, compared with the nearly 30 employed at the Staten Island warehouse.
The same obstacles that plagued the effort the first time, including Amazon‘s aggressive anti-union tactics, were at play again. In the lead-up to the election, Amazon continued to hold mandatory meetings to persuade its workers to reject the union effort, posted anti-union flyers and launched a website urging workers to “vote NO”.
“Right now, the ALU is trying to come between our relationship with you,” a post on the website reads. “They think they can do a better job advocating for you than you are doing for yourself.”
KANSAS
Wolf Creek cost $3 billion. Now they want us to pay to send nuclear power out of state
Dion Lefler Sat, May 7, 2022 A Florida company wants to build an $85 million power line to carry electricity from the Wolf Creek nuclear plant at Burlington to Missouri.
And they want Kansas electric customers to pay for part of that.
We shouldn’t have to pay anything.
If anything, they should be the ones paying us. The proposal now at the Kansas Corporation Commission would allow NextEra Energy, based in Palm Beach County, to build a 94-mile high-voltage line linking Wolf Creek to the Blackberry Substation in Jasper County, Missouri.
From there, the electricity generated would flow to other states through the Southwest Power Pool, which distributes electricity to utilities in 14 states.
The SPP initially proposed the project as part of a plan to more efficiently distribute Kansas wind energy across the power pool.
It was SPP that bid the project out and picked NextEra as the company to build, own and operate the Wolf Creek-Blackberry transmission line.
That benefits SPP and NextEra, but whether it’s a fair deal for Kansas consumers is highly questionable.
There’s a ton of history here being ignored.
Wolf Creek was originally a project of three utilities: Wichita-based Kansas Gas and Electric and Kansas City Power & Light each owned 47% and the much smaller Kansas Electric Power Cooperative owned 6%.
Construction started in 1977 and Wolf Creek was supposed to cost $1 billion. But it had to be rebuilt after the 1979 Three Mile Island nuclear disaster and it cost $3 billion by the time it opened in 1985.
Those costs were repaid over decades by customers of KGE and KCP&L. It was particularly egregious for KGE customers.
After KGE merged in 1992 with Topeka-based Kansas Power and Light to create Western Resources, later Westar Energy, the commission kept the rates separate so the former KPL customers wouldn’t have to share the cost of the nuclear plant.
Over 17 long years, former KGE customers in southern Kansas paid an estimated $750 million in higher rates because of Wolf Creek.
Then in 2009, when the Wolf Creek debt was finally paid and southern Kansas started enjoying lower electric rates than their northern cousins, the commission reversed course and decided Westar was all one big happy company after all and should have the same rates across both divisions.
That ruling came just in time for the ex-KGE customers to help pay for required environmental upgrades to what had been KPL coal plants.
And now, after years of higher rates to pay off Wolf Creek debt, the customers who were KGE and KCP&L — now under the Evergy umbrella — are expected to share in the cost of a new transmission line to more efficiently ship Wolf Creek power out of state. That’s a travesty.
Several of Kansas’ largest industrial power users are asking the right questions: Is this really necessary? and Does this comply with state policy requiring that such projects actually benefit Kansas ratepayers?
But the commission is limiting their input, so it’s up in the air whether those questions will be asked and if SPP and NextEra will have to answer under oath.
The economic study that NextEra provided on purported benefits to Kansas is laughable.
After an initial construction period, the project is expected to create six new jobs.
During construction, the project estimate is 988 jobs for two years. But those won’t be Kansas jobs.
NextEra has already contracted with a South Dakota construction company to build the line.
They’ll no doubt bring in their own crew from out of state, who will stay in motels and trailers along the route for a couple years and move on to the next project as soon as this one’s done.
Meanwhile, NextEra will be laughing all the way to the beach.
