US tech layoffs: India workers face painful exit from the US

PublishedShare

"It felt like a break-up," says former Meta engineer Surbhi Gupta

Layoffs across the tech industry, including at firms like Twitter, Meta and Amazon, have affected a significant number of Indians working in the US who are on visas like the H-1B. California-based journalist Savita Patel speaks to workers who are facing the prospect of being forced to return to India if they don't find another job.

Surbhi Gupta, an Indian engineer working in the US since 2009, was surprised that she was laid off by Meta this month. "I was performing well at work," she says.

On 9 November, Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp, announced it would cut 13% of its workforce - the first mass lay-offs in the firm's history which resulted in 11,000 employees losing their jobs.

"None of us slept that night," Ms Gupta says. "At 6am, I got the email. I couldn't access my computer, nor the office gym. It felt like a break-up."

Ms Gupta is likely to be a familiar face for Indians. Winner of the 2018 Miss Bharat-California contest, she was featured most recently in the Netflix show Indian Matchmaking.

Now she is among thousands of educated and skilled immigrant workers fired by US tech companies this month.

Most of them work in the US because of the HI-B visa. It's a non-immigrant visa that allows firms to employ foreigners for up to six years in positions for which they have been unable to find American employees.

It also allows holders to apply for permanent residency in the US and buy property in the country.

Ms Gupta says she worked very hard to build a life in the US for "over 15 years".

Her visa now hinges on finding her next job.

Worldwide, more than 120,000 tech workers have lost jobs as a result of cutbacks by US tech companies, according to the Layoffs.fyi website, which tracks tech job cuts.

While companies have not released India-specific numbers, San Jose-based immigration attorney Sweta Khandelwal says "it's hurt the Indian community particularly hard."

"We saw an uptick in calls for consultation," she says. "Everybody is anxious, even those who have not been laid off fear that they might be [fired] later."

For Indian tech workers, the layoffs do not just mean seeking new employment but also finding employers who are willing help them continue with their work and pay for the associated legal costs.

"If a new employer is unable to transfer your visa petition in 60 days, the remedy is for people to leave [the US] and re-enter for work after the paperwork is complete," Ms Khandelwal says.

"But the practical aspect is that people will get stuck in India as there are not many visa stamping appointments available in consulates," she says.

Wait times for a visa appointment at US consulates in India have reached 800 days in some cases.

This is why the layoffs have come as an unwelcome surprise for Indian workers.

Sowmya Iyer, a lead product designer at the ride-sharing app Lyft, says she was part of a team that "had internally taken steps to maintain the fiscal health of the company".

But Ms Iyer found herself among hundreds who were laid off at the company this month. "We had not expected it to hit us," she says.

The mass layoffs feel like a "tech pandemic," she explains. "Both my friend and his wife lost their jobs on the same day. Everyone is in the same boat - reaching out, exchanging condolences."

IMAGE SOURCE,GETTY IMAGES

Image caption,

Meta's mass lay-off resulted in 11,000 employees losing their jobs

Ms Iyer says she has student loans to pay back and hasn't told her parents back home in the western Indian state of Gujarat about her layoff.

In the US on an O-1 visa - granted to individuals with "extraordinary ability and achievement" - Ms Iyer says she is confident of finding work.

Her resume lists degrees from prestigious design schools in India and the US and the O-1 visa allows her to stay on for 60 days after the termination of any job.

America's WARN (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification) Act offers a buffer before the 60-day visa clock starts. WARN requires employers to give a 60-day notice to the affected employees during a mass layoff.

"To ensure my status here and help me find an employer, my former employers have given me a month's notice, so currently I have three months," she says.

But for many Indians, even 90 days is a tight timeline and has upended plans they had. Many have families to support, others have thousands of dollars in loans to pay off.

Naman Kapoor had borrowed money to pay for his masters programme at New York University.

He was hired as an engineer by Meta after multiple rounds of interview only to be laid off seven weeks later. "I got the termination email at 8am [local time] on 9 November," he says.

"The whole idea is that a US education includes work experience," he says. "It is very expensive to study in New York. I worked to support my living expenses."

Mr Kapoor is in the US on an F-1 (OPT) visa which allows him only 90 days of unemployment during his stay in country.

"Meta offered me four months of pay as severance," Mr Kapoor explains. "But I have just three months within which I must find my next job or go back!"

IMAGE SOURCE,PHOTO COURTESY SURBHI GUPTA

Image caption,

Surbhi Gupta says worked very hard to build a life in the US "over 15 years".

Finding a new job in this environment will be tough, Ms Gupta says. "It's almost December - hiring will be slow because of the holidays."

In the wake of the layoffs, Ms Khandelwal says a community has formed to support people in crisis. Colleagues and employers have been spreading information and offering referrals for prospects online.

"I created Zeno, [a platform] to help the impacted (workers) find jobs," says Abhishek Gutgutia, a tech worker based in the Bay Area. "It has seen 15,000 visits so far."

Mr Gutgutia says his LinkedIn post on Zeno has nearly 600,000 views. "About 100 candidates, 25 companies and 30 mentors have signed up. Several immigration attorneys have also volunteered [their services]."

Vidya Srinivasan, a Meta employee, says she saw a "heart-warming outpouring of support from Meta-mates" in her efforts to put together a "Meta Alumni guide" for those whose lives changed overnight. Her online posts were seen by over a million people, she says.

Amid such hopes, Indian immigrant workers remain on tenterhooks until they land their next job.

"I am tired of being tested," Ms Gupta says. "How much stronger should I be?".

U$A

HIRING/RETENTION
It’s not just low pay causing retention issues for federal firefighters

Drew Friedman

Although low pay is the challenge most commonly discussed for federal wildland firefighters, it’s not the only factor leading to retention issues with the frontline workforce.

Other challenges, such as poor work-life balance and limited workforce diversity, pile onto the difficulties in retaining these federal employees.

The causes of retention challenges for the workforce are often tied together, too, according to Cardell Johnson, acting director of natural resources and environment at the Government Accountability Office.

“The pay piece is intertwined with the work-life balance piece,” Cardell said in an interview with Federal News Network. “You are working these long hours, you’re getting overtime pay, and you want that pay because you want to be able to afford basic necessities in life. But at the same time, you’re working a lot and you’re not getting that balance you need.”

Overall, there are seven common barriers to recruitment and retention for federal firefighters, a Nov. 17 GAO report said. The report compiled information from the departments of Agriculture and Interior — the two agencies that hire the vast majority of the 18,700 federal firefighters operating around the country — as well as several stakeholders.

Although low pay isn’t the only challenge for the workforce, it is one of the most notable ones, according to agencies and stakeholders in the report.

From Government Accountability Office report, “Wildland Fire: Barriers to Recruitment and Retention of Federal Wildland Firefighters.”

Most entry-level federal wildland firefighters now make $15 an hour, after agencies implemented a raise in August 2021, up from $13 an hour. But the slight pay bump is not enough to significantly improve employee retention, according to the report.


“The pay increase is intended to compensate firefighters for the hazardous work they perform, while improving the federal agencies’ competitiveness with nonfederal entities,” the report said. “However, even with the increase, officials and eight stakeholders said that the $15-per-hour minimum wage for entry-level positions does not reflect the risk or demands of the work.”

Interior, as well as Agriculture, which houses the U.S. Forest Service, created some incentives to try to offset the low pay. For example, agencies can offer $1,000 to all firefighters at or below level 9 on the General Schedule (GS-09), as well as relocation incentives, since many of the areas with the most dense wildfires also have high costs of living. Regardless, the pay issues still deter some firefighters from taking federal positions.

“I actually met some firefighters in California, who work not for the feds, but for the state, [because] they pay a little bit better than the feds do,” Johnson said. “They say that the reason [they work for the state] is the cost of living. They would love to become a federal firefighter, but can’t because of the cost of living in California.”

There’s also a temporary pay raise under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for federal firefighters — an extra $20,000 or an added 50% of base salary, whichever is lower — in locations where it is difficult to recruit or retain wildland firefighters. All locations were determined to have these challenges, meaning all federal firefighters will get the raise. But the temporary pay bump will only last for a couple of years.

The National Federation of Federal Employees, the union that represents federal firefighters, is one of several organizations calling for a permanent pay raise for the employees.

“It is critical that firefighters on the front lines of the wildfire crisis are compensated for the hazardous work they do in protecting our public lands and keeping our communities safe,” NFFE National Communications Director Matt Dorsey said in an email to Federal News Network. “In addition to a permanent pay fix, Congress must allocate resources so that agencies can address problems that are detrimental to firefighter recruitment and retention, such as limited career growth, poor work-life balance, mental health challenges and inadequate housing, among others.”

Career advancement was another significant barrier to recruitment and retention of federal firefighters, according to the report. With extensive field work during wildfire season, many employees find it difficult, if not impossible, to attend the necessary training to get a promotion, GAO said.

As part of another directive under the IIJA, though, agencies are working with the Office of Personnel Management to develop a new occupational series for federal firefighters. The creation of the new occupational series would aim to provide a definitive career path and lay out the requirements for career advancement.

“According to officials, the new series should help the agencies recruit and retain new applicants, as well as current firefighters, because they will be able to clearly identify the steps necessary to advance their careers,” the report said.

Currently, 70% of the Forest Service’s wildland firefighter workforce, and 59% of Interior’s wildland firefighter workforce, are at GS-07 or below.

“Classifying firefighting positions under the forestry or range technician occupational series—as most positions have been since 1972—does not recognize the physical demands of, or expertise involved in, firefighting,” the GAO report said. “This has contributed to low morale, as the individuals in these positions take pride in their work as firefighters and want to be recognized for that work.”


Want to stay up to date with the latest federal news and information from all your devices? Download the revamped Federal News Network app

The discussions among OPM, Interior and Agriculture are currently underway, to determine exactly how much the GS level and pay would increase under the new occupational series. But Johnson said it would likely eventually yield additional benefits for federal firefighters. The agencies have until next June — a year after the new occupational series was announced — to implement the occupational series.

Even though low pay was the most common concern among agencies and stakeholders, other challenges, such as work-life balance and mental health, are also high on the list of recruitment and retention barriers. Wildfire season has grown longer and more severe in recent years, which in turn has worsened many firefighters’ work-life balance. Even with added seasonal employees during peak wildfire season, many employees cannot, for example, attend routine doctor’s appointments in their very limited time off.

“Things that we probably take for granted, [like] taking a day or a few hours to go visit the doctor, that’s really difficult for a lot of firefighters because the fires don’t stop,” Johnson said. “The limited time that firefighters do get off, they’re trying to spend with their family.”

Additionally, the disproportionately white and male workforce causes issues specifically for retaining women and people of color in federal firefighter positions. In fiscal 2021, 84% of federal firefighters identified as men, and 72% identified as white.

Agencies are trying to increase diversity in the federal firefighter workforce, including through a wildland firefighter apprentice program. In fiscal 2022, women made up more than 20% of the 420 firefighters that the Forest Service recruited through the apprenticeship program, while underrepresented racial and ethnic groups comprised nearly 50%.

But there are additional issues, too. Some women federal firefighters have experienced sexual harassment, the report said.

“Being in a male-dominated environment, even if the sexual assault hadn’t occurred, that certainly raises flags, particularly for women, and they’re cautious about that, because there’s the potential risk for that, especially being in very isolated parts of the country,” Johnson said.

Agencies are starting to implement workforce trainings on the effects of sexual harassment, but it’s too soon to tell if that has impacted the number of occurrences.

Although agencies are trying to do more to improve retention rates overall, it will take more time to measure how much the changes actually help “move the needle,” Johnson said.

“The problem is very complex. There’s not just one challenge, there are multiple challenges here,” he said. “Once we start to see some of that data in the results from that evaluation, we’ll be able to say whether or not these things help. But based on what folks said, the options being explored by the agencies should really help move things forward.”

Beyond the scope of the GAO report, NFFE has advocated for additional measures to support federal firefighters. Those include more focus on medical issues and illnesses, such as studies on environmental exposure, limiting diseases that affect wildland firefighters, and taking better care of sick or injured firefighters after they leave the workforce.

In an effort to improve retirement for federal firefighters, the Senate also unanimously passed the First Responder Fair RETIRE Act last week, which will now move to the president’s desk for signing. The legislation equalizes retirement benefits for federal first responders — including federal wildland firefighters — who get injured on the job. The House unanimously passed companion legislation earlier this year.

NFFE applauded the passage of the bill, and urged legislators to move quickly to take further steps to support the frontline workforce.

“We hope that Congress will seriously consider the findings of the report and take action to implement the solutions NFFE and wildland firefighters have been suggesting,” Dorsey said. “Any further delay will only cause additional harm to an already untenable situation.”

Drew Friedman
Drew Friedman is a workforce, pay and benefits reporter for Federal News Network.
Follow @dfriedmanWFED

OPINION
PAUL KRUGMAN

How Democrats Can Fight This G.O.P.

Credit...Christopher Lee for The New York Times

Normally, one would expect a political party that suffered severe electoral disappointment — falling far short of typical midterm gains despite high inflation and consumer discontent — to moderate its positions, to seek compromise in order to achieve at least some of its policy goals.

But the modern G.O.P., in case you haven’t noticed, isn’t a normal political party. It barely has policy goals, other than an almost reflexive desire to cut taxes on the rich and deny aid to those in need. It certainly doesn’t have policy ideas.

Republicans spent much of the election talking about inflation. But in a news conference just after securing a narrow majority in the House, top Republicans declared that their top priority would be … investigating the Biden family.

So the G.O.P. won’t help govern America. It will, in fact, almost surely do what it can to undermine governance. And Democrats, in turn, need to do whatever they can both to thwart political sabotage and to make the would-be saboteurs pay a price.

Before I get to ways Democrats might do that, let’s talk about two reasons Republicans are likely to be even more destructive and irresponsible than they might have been if the red wave they confidently expected had come to pass.

First, the very narrowness of the Republican majority in the House means that the next speaker, probably Kevin McCarthy, will need support from nearly every member of his caucus — which will mean empowering extremists and election deniers. As one former G.O.P. congressman put it, McCarthy may hold the title, but Marjorie Taylor Greene may well be speaker in practice.

You might object by pointing out that Nancy Pelosi had only a narrow majority these past two years and nonetheless managed to unite moderates and progressives behind her policy agenda. But McCarthy is no Pelosi — and progressive Democrats are infinitely more serious and interested in getting things done than MAGA Republicans.

Second, the economic environment, which was a headwind for Democrats this year, will probably (although obviously not certainly) begin to look better heading into 2024 — prompting frantic efforts by Republicans to make things worse.

Specifically, inflation seems set to fall substantially, especially because a dramatic leveling off in market rental rates hasn’t yet filtered through to official price measures. And while a recession is possible next year, it will probably be mild if it happens — and over well before the next elections.



So for the next two years we can expect Republican leaders, such as they are, to wreak as much havoc as they can, both to appease their party’s most extreme elements and to undermine what might otherwise look like successful governance by the Biden administration.

Unfortunately, Republicans will in fact have major opportunities to wreak havoc — unless Democrats use the next few weeks, during which they will retain control of Congress, to forestall them. Two issues in particular stand out: the debt limit and aid to Ukraine.

For historical reasons, U.S. law in effect requires that Congress vote on the budget twice. First, it authorizes spending and sets tax rates; then, if that legislation leads to budget deficits, it must separately vote to authorize borrowing to cover those deficits.

It’s not clear why this ever made sense. In the current environment, it allows politicians who don’t have the votes to change policy through normal procedure to hold the economy for ransom, as Republicans did during the Obama years, or simply blow it up out of sheer spite — because failing to raise the debt limit would probably cause a global financial crisis. Does anyone expect the incoming G.O.P. House to behave responsibly?

As for Ukraine, while the Ukrainians have been incredibly brave and remarkably successful in turning back Russian invasion, they need a continuing inflow of Western aid, both military and economic, to continue the fight against their much larger neighbor. But it’s all too likely that a Republican Party that takes many of its cues from Tucker Carlson will try to block such aid.

The good news is that Democrats can, as The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent puts it, “crazyproof” policy during the lame duck session, raising the debt limit high enough that it won’t be a problem and locking in sufficient aid for Ukraine to get through the many months of war that surely lie ahead. And Democrats would be, well, crazy not to do these things as soon as possible.

Beyond that, Democrats can and should hammer Republicans for their extremism, for focusing on disruption and fake scandals rather than trying to improve Americans’ lives.

Savvy political pundits will no doubt mock such efforts. But these will be the same pundits who insisted that inflation would dominate the midterms and sneered at President Biden for talking about the threat Republican extremists posed to democracy — which turned out to be an important election issue after all.

It’s a given that Republicans will behave badly over the next two years. But Democrats can both limit the damage and try to make bad actors pay a political price.

.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography. @PaulKrugman

A rude awakening for the Republican Party -opinion

The Midterm election has dramatically weakened the Republican Party due to division within the party, which was largely precipitated by the result of the election.

By ALON BEN-MEIR
JERUSALEM POST

US PRESIDENT Joe Biden delivers remarks during a meeting with business and labor leaders at the White House, last week. The result of the midterm election considerably enhanced Biden’s credibility, says the writer
(photo credit: REUTERS)

The final results of the 2022 midterm election demonstrated several critical revelations. First, the majority of the American public still believes strongly that our democracy remains the bedrock of our political system and strongly repudiated political violence.

Second, whether running for reelection or for a new position, the vast majority of those candidates who questioned the results of the 2020 election or promised to overturn future election results, have generally been soundly defeated.

Third, this election has splintered the Republican Party, between those who still believe in the constitution and the principles of democracy, versus those who follow Trump and hold extremist positions, election deniers and white supremacists who are ready and willing to violate the constitution and our democratic form of government only to hold on to power.

Finally, the election has dramatically weakened the Republican Party due to division within the party, which was largely precipitated by the result of the election.

There are those who continue to support Donald Trump, the extremist MAGA Republicans who are out of touch with the American people and those constructive conservatives who view Trump as an albatross on the party and who are abandoning him. They want their party to solidify its footing and redeem itself, especially as we approach the 2024 election.



This month’s results have shown that a great majority of the country will no longer follow Trump, including Republican leaders such as former vice president Pence, who said it’s now time to move on.

Trump 2024

Although many Republican leaders have urged Trump not to run again because the future of the party is on the line, he nevertheless announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election, which has now further increased the pressure on many Republican leaders to decide whether to follow him or abandon him.

The reaction to Trump’s announcement was very lukewarm, from both the public in general and from the media, especially the conservative outlets who blame him for the results of this election and see him as a loser and openly condemn him for what he has done. It made the schism within the party ever greater while emboldening those who oppose him, who fear that following him any further will doom the party perhaps for a generation.

THE CONSTRUCTIVE conservative Republicans who have chosen to stick with democracy must now develop their own agenda as to how to strengthen their anti-Trump wing of the party. They must first begin to systematically deny, defy and distance themselves from the MAGA Republicans, who continue to pose a threat to our democracy.

Those who are seeking authoritarian one-party state rule in practice, along the line of Hungary’s President Viktor Orban, want to politicize the judiciary, manipulate the electoral system, abolish social security and Medicare, make dissidents powerless, control the media and tolerate violence against any opponent.

The question is, will pro-democracy Republicans eventually acquire the upper hand, and what will it take? To do so, they need to develop a constructive conservative agenda, work with Democrats whenever and wherever possible to advance socioeconomic causes and make room for compromises in the service of the national interest.

Constructive conservative Republicans

First, the constructive conservative Republicans will need to campaign against the idea promoted by election deniers of sending new slates of electors to the electoral college should they not like the results of the election.

And to engender more public support they must fight to strengthen American democracy, strongly support the rule of law, and fully abide by the result of fair and free elections, which the American public badly wants and as they have demonstrated by the result of the midterm elections.

Second, they need to show that they are willing to work with Democrats, especially because that party is in control of the Senate and White House.

Obstructionism will not work for much longer and Republicans need to show that they are willing to work for the benefit of the American people. Democrats and Republicans have collaborated on scores of legislation over the years and they can continue to cooperate in areas of critical importance to the national interest.

Third, the American people have shown in numerous referenda that there is majority support for some form of abortion access.

The constructive conservative Republicans must cease trying to implement any further legislation to ban abortion on the state level and drop the idea of a nationwide abortion ban.

Not only is this wholly unpopular across the country, but given that in the lead-up to the Dobbs decision GOP leaders promoted the idea that abortion is a states’ right issue, to turn around and call for a nationwide ban on abortion is the height of hypocrisy.

Fourth, they must not support the call to end Medicare and Social Security, calls that have been echoed for decades yet remain extremely unpopular. They must also discourage others in their party from continuously promoting unpopular ideas which will only cause further harm to the party.

Fifth, instead of merely criticizing Trump for his false statements, which are sure to explode in number and scope during his campaign, they must fact-check him and point out the truth. Refuting his lies publicly and often will restore the public’s trust and also give them an opportunity to promote their own constructive conservative agenda.

SIXTH, IT must henceforth be a given that they make it absolutely clear that they are not election deniers, repudiate those who are, and pledge that they will respect the results of future elections and will never again engage in the falsity that the 2020 election was stolen.

The proof showing that the 2020 election was legitimate is overwhelming, and the vast majority of the American people want the chaos and circus to end. It will only further emasculate the GOP if they continue engaging in this falsehood.

Finally, constructive conservative Republicans in the House and the Senate must pledge to not support any bogus investigations against Biden, Attorney-General Garland, or any other frivolous investigations, as they are solely political in nature and do nothing but distract the country from the urgent issues facing the nation.

The result of the election gave the Democrats some room to breathe and considerably enhanced Biden’s credibility. The administration must now focus on charting a new path for growth and opportunity for all who seek it while continuing to deliver on promises they have made and build on what they have achieved.

This included rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, reversing Trump’s cruel family separation policy at the southern border, and reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act while closing the boyfriend loophole.

And in addition to the $2.2 trillion (NIS 7.63 t.) CARES stimulus bill in the wake of the pandemic, the Biden administration passed a $1 t. (NIS 3.47 t.) infrastructure bill created a plan to forgive up to $20,000 (NIS 69,350) in student loan debt per borrower and passed the most significant gun control law in 30 years, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act.

Most importantly, the Democrats need to continue to aggressively pursue climate change and address its effects are far-reaching and causing an increasing displacement of millions of people, which is fueling a massive influx of immigration.

In that regard, the Democrats also need to continue to address immigration and search for a solution to bring immigration under control while remaining consistent with our culture and history of being a country of immigrants, which made America great and powerful.

Under Trump, the US saw, for the first time in its history, a president who challenged and violated the constitution and refused to accept the results of a legitimate election.

He was willing and very nearly succeeded in burning our democracy to the ground by plotting and executing a violent insurrection to annul the legitimate result of a free and fair election, which is tantamount to treason. And for this, he must have his day in court. This must be a very serious wake-up call for all Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans alike should be united and unequivocal to ensure that America will never again face the likes of Trump. They must commit to preserving, protecting and defending our democracy, which is the most precious value that has defined America since its inception.

The writer is a retired professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at New York University (NYU). He has taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies for over 20 years.

RIGHT TO WORK UNION FREE

LG Chem to build $3.2B battery cathode plant in Tennessee

CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Tennessee officials on Monday announced plans to invest $3.2 billion to develop a cathode materials plant for electric vehicle batteries.

The manufacturing facility will be built in Clarksville and create more than 850 jobs, according to a memorandum of understanding signed by the state of Tennessee and South Korea-based LG Chem.

“LG Chem’s decision to invest $3.2 billion in Clarksville is a testament to Tennessee’s unmatched business climate, skilled workforce and position as a leader in the automotive industry,” Gov. Bill Lee said in a statement.

Officials say the facility will help support the electric vehicle battery value-chain across the United States. Construction will begin next year, with the goal to start mass production in 2025. Once operational, the goal is to produce 120,000 tons of cathode battery materials annually — or enough to power 1.2 million electric vehicle batteries.

“The new cathode manufacturing facility in Tennessee brings us one step closer to becoming the world’s best battery materials manufacturer and fulfilling our corporate vision to become a top global science company,” said LG Chem CEO Shin Hak-Cheol in a statement. “This site will be the North American manufacturing center of excellence for the cathode supply chain and lead to the creation of many well-paying jobs, contributing to the local economy in Clarksville.”

Across Tennessee, companies have invested $12.7 billion in the state through EV-related projects since 2017.

Conservation Communication: Time To Rethink the Word ‘Poacher’?


Killing an endangered species is a heinous crime, but the language around the act requires a refocus away from colonialization.

The Revelator 


By John R. Platt

A man sneaks into a protected forest, where he hunts and illegally kills an animal. He’s later caught and charged with a crime: poaching.

That’s a word those of us in the conservation community need to rethink.

I’m a conservation journalist focusing on endangered species, and I’ve written about wildlife trafficking and used the term “poach” (or “poacher” or “poaching”) hundreds of times, often in headlines. But for a while now, I’ve also found the word … troubling.

You see, it dates back a millennium or so, to the era of William the Conqueror. Back then, many forest animals legally belonged to the king, and the Middle English term pocchen described the punishable-by-death crime of taking/hunting wildlife from the forest and hiding it in a “pouch” or bag.

Centuries later, the term “poacher” has a distinctly colonialist (and therefore racist) feel. It places all illegal hunters and trappers — some of whom are immoral profiteers, others of whom are just trying to feed their families — together at the bottom of the social strata.

It also paints them with a collective brush: The word “poacher” describes them all as criminal — or even evil.

That implication has consequences. It stirs up anger and hate. Anger can be a useful emotion for creating positive change, but hate leads to dehumanization and can result in further violence.

Case in point: Several years ago I wrote an article that asked, “Is it ethical to kill poachers?” It stemmed from the ever-increasing militarization of conservation and looked at the societal cost of asking wildlife rangers to use lethal force. The article didn’t have any easy answers to the headline’s question, but online commenters sure did. Upset at seeing images such as dehorned rhinos and blood-soaked elephants, they screamed a resounding, bloodthirsty “yes!”

In a lot of ways, that response proved the point of my article: Calling people “poachers” puts a target on their collective backs.

And they don’t necessarily deserve that. In truth, while illegal hunting and trapping remain crimes, and the slaughter of an endangered species is especially heinous, the reasons behind these acts vary widely, as should our responses to them. Some “poachers” — the victims of oppression, racism, forced displacement, income inequality, climate change, colonialization and cultural disruption — deserve our compassion and assistance, not our condemnation.

So what do we do about this? Replacing the word “poachers” with “illegal hunters” or “illegal trappers” is one solution to righting the language, although even that has colonial overtones and ignores factors such as traditional practices and income inequality.

Another angle extends the language of human law. In her 2019 book The Crimes of Wildlife Trafficking, criminologist Ragnhild Aslaug Sollund looks at things through the perspective of victimology and uses the terms “abduction” for taking animals from the wild and “theriocide” (the equivalent of homicide) for taking their lives.

One other solution involves looking at the reasons for the behavior before naming it. In his 2020 paper “Poaching Is Not One Big Thing,” ecologist Robert A. Montgomery said we should ask if the plants or animals were illegally collected or killed to address the need for food (consumption), health (medicative) or financial gain (trophy poaching). If we do that, then we can also approach the behavior appropriately, both in our language and our mitigative measures.

No matter what choice we make here, the lesson is that language matters and the choices we make can affect public perception and even conservation outcomes. If we tell people they’re criminals for feeding their families or engaging in ages-old cultural practices, they’re likely to respond negatively to anything else the conservation community or government says or does about it.

There’s no easy answer or single word to replace “poach,” “poacher” or “poaching.” To me, though, there’s a need to be specific when describing these actions and make distinctions between things like subsistence hunting — which could be a social justice issue — and the for-profit illegal wildlife trade, which remains worthy of full condemnation … as well as a few choice words.

—

This story was originally published by The Revelator. Reprinted under a Creative Commons License

Mexico to boost minimum wage by 20% in 2023

By Kendal Blust

Published: Thursday, December 1, 2022 - 

Mexico has announced it will raise minimum wage nationwide by 20% next year.

This week, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced he had good news: his government reached a deal with business and labor representatives to implement a 20% minimum wage hike starting on Jan. 1.

That will increase the pay for the lowest-paid formal-sector workers from about $9 a day to just under $11 — a monthly increase of nearly $55. Along the border with the U.S., where the minimum wage is higher, it will reach about $16 a day.

According to Labor Secretary Luisa Maria Alcalde, some 6.4 million workers are expected to benefit from the wage boost. López Obrador said will address inflation and the increasing cost of basic goods.

This administration has raised the minimum wage annually since the president took office at the end of 2018. The wage increased by 16% in 2019, 20% in 2020, 15% in 2021 and 22% in 2022.

MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Taylor Swift tour debacle: Ticketmaster and Live Nation may need breakup, Democratic senators say
Story by Julia Musto • Nov 22

Democratic senators are urging the Justice Department to hold Ticketmaster and owner Live Nation accountable for "failing consumers" following the controversy surrounding Taylor Swift's U.S. leg of "The Eras Tour."

Tennessee AG Skrmetti investigating Ticketmaster over Taylor Swift presale problems
Duration 4:53
View on Watch

In a letter on Monday, Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., said the ticket sales and distribution company should be broken up if any misconduct is uncovered in an ongoing investigation.

"An investigation alone does nothing for the stakeholders already harmed by Live Nation’s market dominance and seemingly ongoing anticompetitive behavior," the lawmakers said.

The senators said authorities should consider the "strongest possible remedies," as well as investigate the state of competition in the market for live entertainment.

TAYLOR SWIFT TICKET FIASCO: TICKETMASTER CANCELS PUBLIC SALE OF 'THE ERAS TOUR' DUE TO HIGH DEMAND

Taylor Swift poses in the press room at the American Music Awards at Microsoft Theater on Nov. 20, 2022, in Los Angeles, California. 

Sarah Morris/FilmMagic via Getty Images

"If the investigation reveals that Live Nation has continued to abuse its dominant market position notwithstanding two prior consent decrees, we urge the department to consider unwinding the Ticketmaster-Live Nation merger and breaking up the company," the group added. "This may be the only way to truly protect consumers, artists and venue operators and to restore competition in the ticketing market."

Blumenthal, Klobuchar and Markey said reports of site crashes, hours-long wait times, fluctuating ticket prices and an inability to access refunds indicated that "the department’s past enforcement efforts have failed to protect competition."

Live Nation and Ticketmaster merged in 2010 after a Justice Department-brokered settlement officials said would encourage competition and send ticket prices down.

The senators wrote the company controls an estimated 60% of the market for the promotion of major concerts and events.

They assert that Live Nation's dominant position has "repeatedly harmed consumers," with Ticketmaster prices "more than tripling" over the past two decades.


Sen. Amy Klobuchar speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, Aug. 4, 2022. Alex Wong/Getty Images© Alex Wong/Getty Images

"Put simply, artists, venues and consumers should no longer be at the mercy of a single seller. The department must act to help consumers and the market shake off the effects of this monopoly," the senators concluded.

The Justice Department has proven in recent years much more willing to file antitrust lawsuits against giant companies.

Ticketmaster Faces The Music

The online ticketing giant is now reportedly up against an antitrust investigation after enraging Taylor Swift fans.

Taylor Swift. (Evan Agostini/Invision/AP)

•Jordan Uhl

The online ticketing giant Ticketmaster has been using its monopoly power for years to abuse artists, fans, and venues alike — but now, thanks to a perfect storm of political and cultural factors, not to mention an army of Taylor Swift fans, it could face a long-overdue government thumping now that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is reportedly conducting an antitrust investigation into the company.

Ticketmaster operates as a monopoly in the concerts and live events industry, controlling every stage of the business — from ticket sales to event promotions to venue operations — ever since its merger in 2010 with event promoter and venue operator Live Nation, which the DOJ approved.

The new parent company became Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. One of the conditions in the DOJ’s consent decree for the newly-formed company was a prohibition on retaliating against venues for using other ticketing servicers. Despite this, venues have alleged for years that’s exactly what Live Nation has done. Through this merger, as well as their aggressive tactics, Live Nation Entertainment now controls more than 70 percent of the live event market.

Along with penalizing independent venues and frustrating music fans, Live Nation has also set its sights on the few remaining ways live musicians make money, including demanding cuts of merchandise sales, leaving artists with few options left.

“In typical let-no-tragedy-go-to-waste fashion, Live Nation used the pandemic to scoop up even more clubs who couldn’t afford to keep the lights on,” Max Collins, frontman for rock band Eve 6, told The Lever. “The artists touring the club circuit are lucky if they break even, and this monolithic corporation is putting its scaly claw in their pocket to grab for more. You have them demanding 20 cents or more of every dollar a band makes from selling their own T-shirts and hoodies. The degree to which this company scales artist and fan exploitation would be funny if it wasn’t so fucked up.”
From Ticketer To Sprawling Industry Monopoly

Founded as a ticketing system computer company in 1976, Ticketmaster became the market leader in the ticket industry by buying up competitors like Ticketron and pushing for laws that restricted ticket resales to authorized companies like itself.

As the company has become the dominant ticketing operation, concerns have grown over its monopolistic practices — including how it treats consumers. Event-goers have criticized the ticket retailer for years, arguing the fees tacked onto sales were exorbitant and often disproportionate to the ticket’s face value. A class-action lawsuit, originally filed in 2003, taking aim at these excessive fees was eventually settled in 2014 for $400 million, without Ticketmaster or its parent company Live Nation admitting wrongdoing.

Since then, the company has continued what many believe to be the same predatory practices. Earlier this year, Last Week Tonight with John Oliver reported it had found tickets for events on Ticketmaster with fees ranging around 70 percent of the ticket’s face value and one with fees totaling more than the ticket itself.

Since 2020, Live Nation has spent more than $3 million on federal lobbying, according to OpenSecrets, including on efforts to beat back attempts in Congress to better regulate event ticket markets. Forbes Tate Partners, one lobbying firm employed by Live Nation, has also led the health care industry’s campaign to defeat reform proposals like Medicare for All and a public health insurance option, as well as efforts to lower the Medicare eligibility age. The firm’s work for Live Nation has included lobbying on “issues related to transparency and accountability to ticket sales pricing” and “issues related to antitrust enforcement.”

Live Nation’s leadership and investors have deep ties to the Republican establishment and the conservative billionaire class. Its largest shareholder is Liberty Media Corporation, which also controls a 75 percent stake in the satellite radio company Sirius XM.

At the helm of Liberty Media sits John Malone, a multi-billionaire media mogul, director emeritus and former board member of the right-wing think tank Cato Institute, and prominent donor to Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration as well as various other conservative politicians and causes.

In addition to serving as chairman of Liberty Media, Malone is a major shareholder and sits on the board of directors at Warner Bros. Discovery, now the parent company of CNN. Last year, Malone called for CNN to model itself more like Fox News. In its reporting on Live Nation and Ticketmaster last week, CNN did not disclose this relationship.

As Live Nation has become a major venue operator, it has also worked to rig the venue industry in its favor. Live Nation now owns, operates, or leases at least 165 venues in North America, according to an annual financial report the company filed earlier this year.

As live events were ground to a halt at the onset of the pandemic, independent music venues sought assistance from the government to remain in operation. Congress set aside $15 billion in aid meant for smaller venues, but Live Nation spent lobbied aggressively in order to gain access to those funds, despite being on a much more solid financial footing than small, independent venues.

Around $19 million ended up being allocated to Live Nation subsidiaries as a result of the lobbying effort, according to reporting by The Washington Post. Around the same time, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund funneled around $500 million into Live Nation in exchange for a 5.7 percent stake in the company, making it the company’s third-largest shareholder.

“How Is This Not Extortion?”

Caught in all of this consolidation are smaller artists who already struggle to make a living wage, due to the decline in record sales as fans opt for streaming services. Spotify, the largest music streaming platform owning more than a third of the market, only pays artists between $0.003 and $0.005 cents per stream, and royalties are split among a much broader group than just the performers.

This arrangement pushes artists to tour more, because it’s one of the few remaining ways to be compensated and make a living as a musician. But while on the road, performers are subject to Live Nation’s cuts from ticket sales, as well as additional profiteering by venue owners and promoters.

Artists typically must fork over 20 percent to 30 percent of revenue on all merchandise sales after the show to the venue owner, which is often Live Nation, despite this being one of the last remaining avenues for bands to make money. Few fans even realize they’re handing over more money to companies like Live Nation when they’re buying a T-shirt after seeing their favorite band — and some may complain when asked to tip.

Artists who try to evade venues taking cuts from merchandise sales could potentially face backlash from promoters and venue owners. With Live Nation’s expansive reach throughout the industry, such actions could potentially be a career-killer.

“We have been told by our team many times in the past that we better pay our merch cut and pay it honestly, or we will mess up future opportunities for ourselves. How is this not extortion?” said Jesse Barnett, singer in the hardcore band Stick To Your Guns. “We will show up to a venue and many places will physically count the amount of items we are bringing in and then count us out because they don’t trust that we will give them a ‘correct number.’ Why would we? Why do you deserve a piece of our merch? Did you come up with the designs? Did you get it printed? Did you haul it from show to show? No. Bottom line.”

Several musical artists spoke to The Lever on the condition of anonymity, out of fear of retaliation from Live Nation. All of them expressed frustration with merchandise cuts, but say they had been told there was nothing they could do to challenge them.

With artists and fans alike being nickeled and dimed by industry titans, Collins of Eve 6 worries about a future where upcoming artists won’t be able to tour.

“We really are moving toward a future — if we aren’t already there — where the only artists who can afford to tour are at the Taylor Swift-, Harry Styles-position on the hierarchy,” he said. “Eve 6 did a month-long tour in May and June of this year, and when we looked at the profits and expenses afterwards we were like, ‘Welp, we won’t be doing this again.’”

Swifties On The Attack

But now, finally, Live Nation might have messed with the wrong fan base. Swifties — the moniker for Taylor Swift’s army of strident fans — were roiled last Tuesday when Ticketmaster’s site buckled under the weight of millions of fans trying to snatch up tickets during a limited pre-release for fans chosen at random for her upcoming tour.

The public release was initially scheduled for Friday, but was ultimately postponed due to what Ticketmaster claimed were “extraordinarily high demands” and “insufficient remaining ticket inventory.” This pushed the remaining fans to the secondary, resale market where they were subject to prices upwards of $28,000.

This debacle comes on the heels of Ticketmaster’s “Dynamic Pricing” controversy, a practice where prices for tickets are fluid and driven by demand, resulting in fans attempting to attend the most popular tours being charged rates much higher than face value. While Dynamic Pricing started in 2011, it drew ire at multiple points this year when fans of Bruce Springsteen and Blink-182 were flabbergasted by the astronomical ticket prices and the site’s infrastructure cratering.
Tip Jar

Mark Hoppus, the bassist and co-lead vocalist for Blink-182, acknowledged he tried to buy tickets to two of his shows after hearing what fans were enduring and said his tickets were “yoinked” from his cart and he had “the whole thing crash out.” Conversely, Bruce Springsteen defended the Dynamic Pricing model in an interview with Rolling Stone published last Friday.

Thanks to the Swifties’ ire, calls for Ticketmaster, and ultimately Live Nation Entertainment, to be broken up grew on social media last week and were echoed by prominent political figures.

“Daily reminder that Ticketmaster is a monopoly, its merger with LiveNation should never have been approved, and they need to be reigned [sic] in. Break them up,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted last week.

“Fans of Taylor Swift are learning firsthand about the Ticketmaster horror show and it’s not pretty Swifties. Break up Ticketmaster,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said in a tweet. Pascrell introduced a bill in the 116th Congress aimed at regulating live-event ticket sales and ticket resale markets, as well as providing more transparency in pricing and fees. That bill stalled in committee.

Gregory Maffei, chairman of Live Nation’s board, is a prolific Republican donor who has given more than $900,000 to conservative candidates and causes since the start of the 2016 election cycle. He blamed Taylor Swift’s touring hiatus over the last several years for Ticketmaster’s issues.

“Building capacity for peak demand is something we attempt to do but this exceeded every expectation. And the reality is Taylor Swift hasn’t been on the road for three or four years and that’s caused a huge issue,” said Maffei.

Fans weren’t convinced.

“Obviously it was disappointing to see the way Ticketmaster had chosen to handle things — knowing there were other Swifties who, like me, waited for hours in line and then were unable to get tickets,” said Ellie Schnitt, host of the Taylor Talk podcast on Spotify. “There’s no excuse for it, they knew the demand would be insane and said they could handle it and there was literally no other option.”

The outcry comes at a moment of growing demands for consumer rights in the face of predatory corporate behaviors. The Biden administration, along with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have made it a priority to crack down on companies and institutions that engage in unscrupulous pricing practices or levy hefty and unnecessary “junk fees” on purchases. The industries range from the financial sector to airlines to the live event ticketing world.

Last week, Pascrell and 31 other Democratic members of the House released a letter calling on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate Live Nation for its business practices and demanding the corporation be broken up.

“There is overwhelming evidence that the merger between the world’s largest concert promoter and the largest ticket provider strangled competition for ticketing in the live entertainment marketplace,” wrote the lawmakers. “While the harm consumers and artists have endured for over a decade cannot be reversed, ticketing and venue competitors, fans, and local music communities would breathe a collective sigh of relief if the merger were undone.”

That same day, the New York Times reported that the DOJ has launched an antitrust investigation into LiveNation Entertainment. In a statement published Friday evening, the company issued a statement claiming it “does not engage in behaviors that could justify antitrust litigation, let alone orders that would require it to alter fundamental business practices.”

In its annual financial report earlier this year, the company acknowledged that antitrust investigations may pose substantial risk to its business.

“In the case of antitrust (and similar or related) matters,” the company wrote, “any adverse outcome could limit or prevent us from engaging in the ticketing business generally (or in a particular segment thereof) or subject us to potential damage assessments, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.”