Thursday, March 31, 2022

Turkish economic crisis could exceed 2001 catastrophe says ex-IMF chief economist Rogoff


Levent business and financial district in Istanbul.

By bne IntelIiNews March 29, 2022

Turkey could be in danger of falling into a deeper economic crisis than the infamous 2001 catastrophe that required a bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

That's the opinion of Kenneth Rogoff, a Harvard University economics professor who served as the IMF’s chief economist between August 2001 and September 2003. In an interview with Turkish business daily Dunya, published on March 29, Rogoff noted that the country's Erdogan administration failed to hike interest rates when it should have done to tame inflation, while it has exacerbated Turkey’s economic problems by firing a string of central bank officials, including three governors. Turkish inflation has reached 54% (though some academics who dispute the official data calculate it stands at 124%), while the Turkish lira, which lost 44% of its value versus the dollar last year, is down around 10% in the year to date. For Turkey, the impacts of the Ukraine crisis, including soaring energy prices, additional food inflation and the expected loss of millions of Russian and Ukrainian tourists this year, threaten to amount to the straw that breaks the camel's back. But President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has made much of his political fortune by laying on cheap credit, continues to stick with his unconventional 'Erdoganomic' economics, which bar interest rate increases even in the face of dizzying inflation levels.

“At this point, it is very difficult for Turkey to bring down inflation without a serious interest rate hike. Controlling inflation will indeed be painful, as interest rates were not raised sooner and credibility was damaged by repeated dismissals of central bankers,” Rogoff told the newspaper.

He added: “Turkey may be headed for a worse economic crisis than it had two decades ago, but while global growth and the interest rate environment are still favourable enough despite the war, there is still time to prevent the economy from making a hard landing.”

After the IMF bailout of two decades ago was completed, Erdogan pledged that Turkey would never again go cap in hand to the international finanical institution.

Turkey's official consumer price inflation is expected to move up to 61.5% in March, according to the median estimate of 17 institutions polled by Reuters last week. Inflation may slow to 54% by year-end, the poll also indicated.

“High inflation ultimately stalls real GDP growth over the long term. This is not good for Turkey, long-term,” BlueBay Asset Management strategist Timothy Ash told CNBC in an interview last week. “[Ergodan] is running the economy extremely hot. If you’re not willing to slow the economy down with rate hikes, you may get short periods of very high GDP growth, but, ultimately, the economy’s going to come down to earth with a pretty big bang.”

“What is really worrying at the moment is this level of depreciation, this pressure on inflation,” continued Ash. “The concern is that it will cause a broader lack of confidence in the banking and financial system. The world you see runs on banks, and that’s the game-changer for Turkey… if that happens, then Turkey is heading for a major systemic crisis.
Washington creates nation’s first statewide alert system for missing Indigenous people

BY CHLOE FOLMAR - 03/31/22 7:41 PM ET
Washington state governor Jay Inslee

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) signed a bill into law Thursday that will create an alert system for missing Indigenous people, the first statewide system of its kind.

The bill would put an advisory alert system in place for missing Indigenous people who are believed to be in danger, but who do not qualify for an America’s Missing Broadcast Emergency Response (AMBER) alert.

Washington H.B. 1725 was initially requested by the state Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) and introduced by state Representative Debra Lekanoff (D), the only Native American member of the Washington legislature.

“I am proud to say that the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women’s and People’s Alert System came from the voices of our Native American leaders,” said Lekanoff at the bill signing. “It’s not just an Indian issue, it’s not just an Indian responsibility. Our sisters, our aunties, our grandmothers are going missing every day … and it’s been going on for far too long.”

“This bill brings more justice and accountability to this important issue and will help recovery efforts,” added Inslee.

A 2022 Washington state legislative report on missing and murdered Native American women showed that as of 2019, 56 women, or 7 percent, of the 784 missing women in the state of Washington were Indigenous despite the Indigenous racial group making up only 2 percent of the state’s total population.

Indigenous males accounted for 5 percent of missing males in the state, also as of 2019, per the report.

The bill expands the state’s Endangered Missing Person Advisory (EMPA) system to include missing Indigenous persons.

An EMPA alert may be sent out in Washington state if a missing person is deemed to be a vulnerable adult, to have developmental disabilities or age-related dementia. The EMPA system also includes a Silver Alert designation for missing endangered persons 60 years old and older.

Both AMBER and EMPA alerts are operated by the Washington State Patrol, which is in charge of the Missing Children and Endangered Person (MCEP) Clearinghouse.

Local, state and tribal agencies, as well as radio and television stations and cable and satellite systems, cooperate in the MCEP Clearinghouse to aid in the recovery of missing people who don’t qualify for AMBER alerts.

Jayapal: Federal protections for trans kids ‘cannot wait any longer’

BY JOSEPH CHOI - 03/31/22 
Greg Nash


Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who is a mother to a transgender child, penned an op-ed published by Teen Vogue on Thursday, International Transgender Day of Visibility, calling for federal protections for transgender children.

“Like hundreds of thousands of parents with transgender kids across the country, I want to do everything I can to support my daughter as she strives to embrace who she is and live as her most authentic self,” Jayapal wrote.

“But I also worry deeply that the world we live in now doesn’t receive her in the same way — that she will face violence and barriers that we know are there for too many transgender people.”

The congresswoman noted the higher degree of harassment and mental illness that transgender children face and accused Republicans of worsening these problems by using transgender youth as a “political wedge issue.”

She pointed to the bill recently passed in Texas that classified gender-affirming care for children as child abuse. Jayapal called the legislation “unconstitutional” and “openly discriminatory and hostile to the well-being of these children.” The bill was halted by a Texas appeals court earlier this month.

The congresswoman also noted a similar bill in Idaho that would make gender-affirming youth health care a felony. The measure was passed in the Idaho state House of Representatives earlier this month, but Idaho Senate Republicans declined to vote on it on the basis that it undermined parental rights and allows the government to interfere in parents’ decisions for their children.

“Both of these bills are fueled by a cocktail of ignorance, transphobia, and malice for trans kids, their parents, and the doctors and the communities who want to help them. The bills are an outrageous violation of human rights,” Jayapal wrote. “That’s why today, as we celebrate Transgender Day of Visibility, I stand with every single trans child and the parents who support them.”

“The suffering of transgender children is not inevitable. It is our job — as leaders, as parents, as legislators — to push back on the attacks and to move us forward again toward true equality and justice,” she added.
USA
House set to pass marijuana legalization Friday

BY CRISTINA MARCOS - 03/31/22 5:54 PM ET

The House is set to pass legislation on Friday to legalize marijuana nationwide, an effort that has unprecedented levels of support in both chambers of Congress.

The bill is likely to pass the lower chamber largely along party lines, with most Republicans expected to oppose it.

Proponents argue that legalizing marijuana at the federal level will simply reflect most states’ existing policies that allow it in some form.

They also frame the effort as a way to end the disproportionate punishment of racial minorities and people in low-income communities for possessing and using weed.

And with an overwhelming majority of Americans — as much as 91 percent in a Pew Research Poll last year — backing marijuana legalization for at least medical purposes, Democrats believe it’s a winning issue for them ahead of November’s midterms.

“This landmark legislation is one of the most important criminal justice reform bills in recent history: delivering justice for those harmed by the brutal, unfair consequences of criminalization; opening the doors of opportunity for all to participate in this rapidly growing industry; and decriminalizing cannabis at the federal level so we do not repeat the grave mistakes of our past,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the House floor on Thursday.

The bill, titled the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, would eliminate criminal penalties associated with the drug and establish a process to expunge previous convictions from people’s criminal records.

It would further impose a federal tax on marijuana sales to fund programs meant to help communities negatively impacted by so-called “war on drugs” policies beginning in the 1970s.

Friday’s vote will mark the second time that House Democrats have advanced legislation to decriminalize marijuana, after previously passing the measure in December 2020.

But the last effort didn’t gain any traction in the Senate, which was controlled by Republicans at the time.

But now, Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said that marijuana legalization is a top priority, and he has been working with fellow Democrats to unveil a bill this spring.

It’s not yet clear, however, if enough Senate Republicans, or even all Democrats, would get on board for the bill to clear a filibuster.

Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), whose states have been ravaged by the opioid epidemic, have both expressed skepticism about broadly legalizing marijuana.

Republicans opposed to the legislation say legalization would do more harm than good.

Rep. Pete Stauber (R-Minn.), a former police officer, recalled having to make “devastating” visits to inform people that their family members had died in accidents resulting from drivers who were under the influence of drugs. He warned that legalizing weed could lead to an increase in people driving while high.

“We can all sit here and pretend that marijuana is a harmless drug, but it is not. It clouds your judgment and inhibits your reaction time,” Stauber said.

A smaller number of Republicans support legalizing marijuana.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) has introduced her own bill to legalize cannabis products. But it currently only has three GOP cosponsors: Reps. Brian Mast (Fla.), Tom McClintock (Calif.) and Peter Meijer (Mich.).

Mace’s proposal would set an age limit of 21 for cannabis use. It would also impose a smaller tax on marijuana sales — 3 percent — than the bill Democrats are bringing to the House floor and establish a 10-year moratorium on any tax increases.

The Democratic bill would first establish a 5 percent tax that would gradually increase to 8 percent over five years.

At least 18 states, two territories and the District of Columbia allow cannabis for adult, nonmedical use, according to the National Conference on State Legislatures. More than twice as many states – 37 – allow pot for medical use.

“Americans have made their support for cannabis legalization abundantly clear, and states across the country have taken the lead on cannabis legalization. Now it is time for Congress to take action and finally put an end to the failed policy of prohibition,” said Toi Hutchinson, president and CEO of the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group.

Before final passage on Friday, the House will consider amendments from two centrist Democrats, Reps. Conor Lamb (Pa.) and Josh Gottheimer (N.J.), to study the impact of marijuana legalization on workplaces and schools, as well as the methods that law enforcement can use to determine whether a driver is impaired by weed.

Another amendment up for debate from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) would clarify that people could not be denied security clearances because of cannabis use.

While Schumer may face an uphill path to securing 60 votes for broad marijuana legalization in the Senate, proponents may have success with more narrow measures.

The Senate passed a bill by unanimous consent last week that would expand scientific and medical research on marijuana and its compounds.

The House has also passed legislation twice in the last year to allow legally operating cannabis businesses to use banking services and credit cards so that they no longer have to be cash-only.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), a co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, predicted that the banking legislation had a shot of securing enough bipartisan support in the Senate to pass. Official review found Jan. 6 White House phone records complete: reportJayapal: Federal protections for trans kids ‘cannot wait any longer’

Unlike the MORE Act, which only won the support of five Republicans in 2020, the measure to allow cannabis businesses to access banking services passed in the House passed handily by a vote of 321-101 just under a year ago.

“We have, I think, probably in the low 60s in the Senate,” Blumenauer said.

Senate leaders promise vote on expanding benefits for burn pit victims
By Leo Shane III
Mar 29, 2022
Entertainer Jon Stewart (left) speaks at a press conference on legislation to benefit burn pit victims while surrounded by lawmakers and other activists outside the Capitol building on March 29. (Mariam Zuhaib/AP)

Senate leaders on Tuesday promised a vote later this year on sweeping military toxic exposure legislation that would dramatically expand benefits for veterans who served near burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite continued Republican concerns about the costly plan.

“It’s our job to make sure we take care of veterans once they come back, and we’re not going to rest until we deal with burn pits and all of the other illnesses that people acquired when they fought for us,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

“Today, we’re here to say enough is enough.”

Schumer’s comments — which included a full endorsement of the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act passed by the House earlier this month — came during the latest Capitol Hill rally from veterans advocates demanding action on the issue of improved care and support for victims of burn pits, massive fires used by the military overseas to dispose of a host of waste materials.


Plan to give new benefits to burn pits victims passes House, faces difficult path ahead
The move comes just days after President Joe Biden urged Congress to provide more help for veterans suffering from the toxic smoke.
By Leo Shane III


Advocates say toxic smoke from those fires spread throughout military bases, leading to respiratory illnesses and rare cancers among the troops who served there.


But because the Defense Department did not monitor air quality or specific exposure to toxic substances, scientifically linking the fires to the veterans’ illnesses later in life has been difficult.

Family and friends of those veterans — some present, some deceased — spoke about their frustration that their loved ones’ injuries still remain unrecognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the public at large.

“I need all of these senators to understand what it is like to lay on the floor [beside] your dying husband for seven hours watching him die,” said Danielle Robinson, widow of Army veteran Heath Robinson, who died in 2020 from lung cancer believed caused by toxic burn pit smoke in Iraq years earlier.

“If you pass this bill, you are going to help so many veterans who are in the same situation right now.”


The PACT Act covers a host of military toxic exposure injuries from multiple generations of combat, including adding hypertension to the list of illnesses presumed caused by Agent Orange exposure during the Vietnam War and includes presumptive status for radiation poisoning for thousands of veterans who served in areas near nuclear testing sites.

RELATED

Biden calls caring for burn pit illnesses a ‘sacred obligation’
In a speech to veterans in Texas, the president continued his push to improve benefits and care for those who served alongside burning waste pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Leo Shane III

But the burn pit provisions have drawn the most attention in recent months.

The legislation would codify that all troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan likely suffered some level of poisoning from burn pits used extensively throughout those countries, even though scientific specifics on the chemical vapors present remain incomplete. That would give them quicker access to medical care and disability benefits, skipping bureaucratic paperwork.

Altogether, more than 3.5 million veterans — about one in every five veterans in America today — could see some benefit change under the scope of the bill. The House approved it 256-174, with support from all of the chamber’s Democrats and about three dozen Republicans.

GOP lawmakers have raised concerns about the cost (about $207 billion over the next decade) and the potential burden it could place on VA’s benefits system. About 240,000 claims are currently backlogged (waiting for final approval for more than four months), a number that has more than tripled in the last few years.

During a Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee hearing a few hours after the Tuesday rally, Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan. and the panel’s ranking member, said he is committed to “creating a law that will withstand the test of time while mitigating disruptions in VA’s work to care for our veterans.”

But so far, support for the PACT Act in the Senate among Republicans is limited. Committee chairman Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., expressed frustration that cost concerns appear to be slowing down progress on a final compromise bill.

“Right now, our veterans are the ones that are paying that cost,” Tester said. “I don’t believe they can wait any longer.”


What are military burn pits? And why are veterans worried about them?
The fires used in combat zones to dispose of waste may have caused serious illnesses in hundreds of thousands of U.S. service members.
By Leo Shane III


The White House and Department of Veterans Affairs have signaled support for the measure. At the hearing, VA Secretary Denis McDonough said he has changes he thinks will allow his department to move faster to help veterans, but sees the measure as the right step forward on the issue.

“We need to ensure that the presumptive process created by this bill allows VA and future secretaries to act with transparency, efficiency and public participation for the benefit of veterans, not create additional administrative burdens that slow things down,” he said.

He said he expects to have additional information on how the PACT Act will impact VA operations later this spring. Schumer said he wants to bring the measure to the Senate floor as quickly as possible, but did not commit to a specific deadline.

Advocates said a vote can’t come soon enough.

“We can’t wait any longer,” said comedian Jon Stewart, who has been an outspoken advocate on the burn pit issue in recent years. “This delay is unconscionable …

“You cannot be America first when you put veterans last.”


About Leo Shane III
Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.

Supreme Court hears case of veteran who lost job as state trooper after returning from Iraq sick from burn pits

Rachel Sharp 2 days ago

The US Supreme Court has heard the case of a 23-year veteran who says he was forced out of his job as a Texas state trooper after returning sick from the Iraq war because of toxic exposure to burn pits.

Le Roy Torres, a US Army veteran and former Texas state trooper, sued the Texas Department of Public Safety (TDPS) for employment discrimination based on his military service.

The state of Texas has argued that it cannot be sued by Mr Torres because of sovereign immunity.

After more than five years of legal wrangling through the state courts, America’s highest court heard the case on Tuesday.

The Supreme Court is now poised to make a decision around whether it is the state or the federal government that has the ultimate power to decide whether Mr Torres can or cannot sue Texas - in a ruling that could impact thousands of other veterans in the state.

Mr Torres’ attorney Andrew Tutt told the Supreme Court that Mr Torres “brought a piece of the war” home with him when he developed a terminal lung condition, and then he lost his job with the TDPS.

“Captain Torres went to war and when he came home he brought a piece of the war with him and if he had been a member of the local sheriff’s department or a US Marshal or worked for any other employer he would have been able to sue to vindicate his rights,” said Mr Tutt.

“But because he worked for Texas he had no cause of action.”

Mr Torres was working as a state trooper for TDPS and was an Army reservist when he was deployed to Iraq in 2007.

He was stationed in Balad where he breathed in toxic fumes from vast burn pits that were used to dispose of military waste on the bases.

He began suffering respiratory issues while on deployment and was hospitalised within a matter of weeks of returning home to the US at the end of his tour.

Mr Torres’ wife Rosie Torres previously told The Independent how her husband returned from deployment and his health deteriorated rapidly.

“He sounded like he was coughing up a lung,” she said, adding that, at one point, he collapsed at home in front of their three children.

They made countless trips to the hospital but doctors could not determine what was wrong with him.

© Provided by The Independent Le Roy Torres was diagnosed with constrictive bronchiolitis and toxic brain injury from his exposure to burn pits overseas 
(Burn Pits 360)

Mr Torres was medically discharged from the Army and, in 2010, he was diagnosed with constrictive bronchiolitis - a rare form of lung cancer caused by toxic exposure - and later toxic brain injury.

Following his diagnosis, he asked the TDPS to reassign him to a different role due to his condition.

He claims his employer refused to provide any accommodation for him, saying he must return to his original role as a trooper.

Unable to perform his duties due to his serious and escalating health issues, Mr Torres says he was forced to resign.

Mr Torres first sued the TDPS and the state of Texas for discrimination in 2017 under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate against employees over military service.

Under USERRA, employers are required to put individuals back to work in their civilian jobs after military service.

But the suit has stalled for the last five years in state court.

The state of Texas claimed that individual states have sovereign immunity from lawsuits like the one brought by Mr Torres.

In state court, the immunity motion was denied but was then upheld on appeal, meaning the Texas Supreme Court refused to hear Mr Torres’ case.

In December, the US Supreme Court finally agreed to hear his case to decide whether members of the military can bring private lawsuits against states for employment discrimination based on their military service.

Mr Torres’ attorney told the Supreme Court justices that, under federal War Powers, Congress has the power to recruit military members like Mr Torres who was called up from the reserves.

“Rather than create a massive peacetime standing army, the United States instead created a reserve component to train soldiers who would keep their civilian jobs, but would be ready to respond at a moment’s notice to unpredictable global threats,” said Mr Tutt.

Promising soldiers that they will not be discriminated against when they return is part of this ability to raise an army, he said - meaning that the state can be sued by veterans when this is not followed.

“To convince soldiers to join that force, and to ensure that soldiers in it would be willing to risk significant injury without hesitation, Congress promised these soldiers that they would not be discriminated against on the basis of their military service, or service-connected injuries.

“USERRA and the cause of action that makes its rights real is not a tangential or peripheral exercise of the war powers but a core exercise of the United States’ power to raise and support its Army to fulfill its indispensable first task, protecting the national security.”
© Provided by The Independent Jon Stewart speaks at a press conference on Tuesday along with veteran advocates and lawmakers urging to pass a burn pits bill (CSPAN)

Judd Stone, an attorney for the state, argued that, under sovereign immunity, Texas has the power to decide if it can be sued.

“Sovereign immunity never limits the ends that Congress may pursue, only the means that Congress may use in achieving them,” he said.

“Neither precedent nor history show that the states authorized Congress to use the means of subjecting states to private damages actions by delegating the ends of raising an army to Congress.

“Torres’s contrary argument rests on two premises: first, that the Constitution delegates a plenary and exclusive war power to Congress and, second, that the erection of state sovereign immunity impermissibly frustrates the exercise of those war powers.”

It is not clear when the Supreme Court justices will announce their decision.

The oral arguments in the Supreme Court came the same day that a Senate hearing was held over a burn pits bill that will ensure veterans sick and dying from toxic exposure to burn pits on deployment overseas have access to the healthcare and benefits they need.

The Honoring Our PACT Act, newly renamed the SFC Heath Robinson PACT Act, will presumptively link 23 cancers, respiratory illnesses and other conditions to a veterans’ exposure to burn pits, giving them automatic access to VA healthcare and benefits.

The bill passed the House earlier this month, with all Democrats and 34 Republicans voting in favour of its passage, sending it to the Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, TV host Jon Stewart and other lawmakers and veteran advocates gathered for a press conference in DC on Tuesday where they called on lawmakers to send the bill to the president’s desk.

The bill comes after veterans have fought for years to have get access to the healthcare and benefits they need for their illnesses caused by breathing in toxic fumes from burn pits on their deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Thousands of US service members returned home from deployment and developed health conditions including rare cancers and lung conditions caused by the burn pits but their claims were turned down by the VA because the burden of proof was on them to prove a direct link.

Like thousands of other veterans, the VA denied Mr Torres’ claims for service-connected illness due to burn pits exposure for a long time because constrictive bronchiolitis is not a presumptive condition.

Mr and Ms Torres together cofounded Burn Pits 360 to advocate for other veterans also fighting to get access to the healthcare they need.

 

Sri Lankan health care workers plan more strikes as government ignores their demands

The Sri Lanka Federation of health workers (SLFHP) has warned of more island-wide action if the ministry of health continues to ignore their demands.

Trade unions in the state health sector have repeatedly engaged in strikes over the last few months in response to several unresolved issues including salaries and promotions. 

In early March, several discussions were held between the minister of health and the SLFHP. This resulted in the union postponing action. However, following no response from the Sri Lankan government nor any effort to address their demands, the body has begun to plan more strikes and protests.

The SLFHP’s demands centre on the following issues, EconomyNext reports

  • Considering the Sri Lanka Eligibility Framework, the study committee to be appointed as per the cabinet decision to eliminate the salary anomaly has not been appointed for a month yet.
  • The Public Service Commission has not yet approved the issuance of the circular pertaining to the 5/7-year promotion system approved by the cabinet.
  • The health ministry secretary and the Public Service Commission are deliberately delaying in revising the recruitment procedures.
  • Although it was reported that the Director General of Health Services had appointed a committee to create the posts of directors, nothing has happened beyond that.

In October last year, president Gotabaya Rajapaksa had issued a special gazette banning strikes by employees related to essential services after many public services employees, nurses in particular, went on strike to protest against poor working conditions. According to these new rules, they could face two to five years imprisonment, fines, and possibly lose their professional credentials for taking part in such actions.

Further protests have been planned in the coming weeks. 

How the Starbucks Worker Organizing Model Can Accelerate Unionization Across the Country


A Starbucks union drive is sweeping across the country. In an industry that has been all but impossible to unionize, these baristas have created an organizing model that can be replicated at similar corporate chains everywhere.


Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez meets with Starbucks Workers United members who are working to unionize their store in Astoria, Queens, New York, on March 27, 2022. 
(Starbucks Astoria Blvd / Twitter)


BYSHUVU BHATTARAI
JACOBIN
03.28.2022

The Starbucks Workers United campaign, having secured National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) election victories at six out of seven stores, with well over 150 stores filing for an NLRB election as of last week, is one of the most invigorating labor campaigns in recent US history.

The Starbucks workers currently spearheading the SB Workers United drive have charted a way forward for organizing corporate chain stores. Their strategy should be carefully studied and implemented across other corporate chains and adjusted according to context.

The story of SB Workers United begins at the Genesee Street Starbucks near the Buffalo airport in 2019, when some Starbucks workers, some of them inspired by the Bernie Sanders campaign and affiliated with socialist organizations, began discussing the possibility of unionization.

After several months of underground organizing, the campaign went public on August 23, with the workers posting a declaration of the intent to unionize to Starbucks Corporate on Twitter through their own account. The workers chose to call themselves Starbucks Workers United and created a website with basic educational resources for Starbucks workers across the country about why they should form a union, as well as contact information for workers seeking to organize.

With their declaration made public, the union drive drew the coverage of various corporate media outlets and entered into public consciousness. Interest in unionizing Starbucks was sparked across the country, with workers reaching out to Starbucks Workers United and Starbucks customers directly talking to workers about the importance of unions.

With the victory of the first NLRB election at the Elmwood Avenue store in Buffalo on December 6, 2021, the first Starbucks store in the United States was unionized. This generated enormous media attention, and Starbucks Workers United received a flurry of unionization requests from workers around the country. The media attention of the union effort generated mass interest from workers, and the website allowed for this interest to be converted to action.The primary organizers of the Starbucks Workers United campaign are the Starbucks workers themselves.
Baristas Take the Lead

From its beginning to the present, the SB Workers United union campaign has been a worker-driven project. The union staff of Workers United, the union which SB Workers United is seeking to join, have played a critical but supporting role during this drive. Starbucks workers whose campaigns are already underway set up meetings between the union-interested workers and a worker-organizer point person, taking them through the process of charting their stores, preparing themselves for management backlash, and filing for a union election.

In stark contrast to some other union campaigns in fast food in which the staff organizers handle the bulk of organizing activity, in the case of Starbucks Workers United, the staff function as an educational resource for the Starbucks workers. The primary organizers of the SB Workers United campaign are the Starbucks workers themselves. As of this writing, workers in only nine stores have won NLRB elections, but SB Workers United has engagement from several thousands Starbucks workers across the country.

Through the creation of a space that encourages the creative talents and energies of enthusiastic workers, SB Workers United has been able to create a wealth of material, including community support guides, various social media outlets, and pro-union artwork, to build a highly resilient and capable movement that only continues to grow.

Though SB Workers United represents a small minority of all Starbucks workers, it has enough of a force to compel Starbucks to spend millions of dollars in its growing anti-union campaign, announce wage increases to try to head off the threat of a union contract, and even force former CEO Howard Schultz out of retirement. With a recent strike in Denver and the organization of rallies around the country in defense of fired pro-union workers, SB Workers United has already demonstrated that it can use weapons like strikes and community mobilization to win its demands.

A Reproducible Method

If we boil the SB Workers United Campaign down to its essentials, we’re left with a worker organizing method for corporate chains that can be sparked by any organization with sufficient labor and resources. The SB Workers United organizing history is summarized as follows:
A core group of workers reach out to a local union for support.
Workers create Starbucks Workers United, which handles media strategy and creates a central point of contact (a website) to which inspired workers around the country can reach out.
SB Workers United goes public with the notice of NLRB elections, which draws media attention.
Each victory is highly publicized, drawing in new worker leads through the SB Workers United website, which then sends them to professional union staff for training and support in organizing local stores.

The key to the success of SB Workers United is that they have built an independent organization of workers seeking to unionize, so that the workers themselves are the ones who lead the campaign. The critical role of a parent union is to provide Starbucks workers with strategic advice, technical tools, legal counsel, and financial support necessary to win.

How can their strategy be utilized to spark strong union campaigns for other corporate chains?

The answer to this question is that a method must be developed to build a core of class-conscious and militant workers across the corporate chain and to develop those workers to be effective organizers and leaders of the campaign. The greatest barrier to organizing chain stores is that class-conscious workers are isolated from one another. For this reason, developing a central point of contact should be the first step to unionizing, so that the workers who have the greatest interest in organizing will reach out to the central organizing body.

The method to organize corporate chains is as follows:
Build a central point of contact that workers seeking unionization can reach out to (like a website, email address, and social media accounts).
Focus on worker education, arming workers with knowledge of the steps to form a union and methods of creating support for unions within their workplace.
Having gathered and developed a core group of worker-organizers, connect the workers to each other to create the formation of a union outside the bounds of legality. At this stage, the workers must be prepared to take leadership of their union.
Build methods of public outreach for the new union group. Every chance to increase the visibility of the campaign, such as high-profile NLRB election victories, must be seized so that the most militant and inspired workers begin to reach out to the newly formed union.

With these basic steps, a new union will be birthed into existence. The nuances of the organization — its strategy, its ultimate mission, its leadership, its working groups — must be decided democratically by the workers themselves and are always subject to change depending on the changing conditions of the campaign.

Workers Themselves at the Helm


There are practical reasons why workers must be the ones driving and leading the unionization drive. For one, they are the ones who best understand and feel the numerous ways they are exploited by their management and thus are best able to develop tactics to use their shared conditions as a point of unity. Second, the common driving factor for workers seeking unionization is a lack of agency, which manifests itself in numerous forms: management abuse, poor pay, and unstable schedules. By creating a space where the workers are able to exert control over their workplace, through leadership of their unionization campaign, a space of empowerment is created that can bring forward the best from every worker. To create a force of highly motivated worker-organizers, worker control over strategy is an absolute precondition.

The SB Workers United drive is a clear reminder of what a union is in its essence. A union is formed not when the state recognizes it, but when the workers organize it. A union is formed when workers have connected with each other and created an organization that reflects their collective will.

It is important to note that Workers United has only a handful of staff to help assist the Starbucks workers. With the ongoing success of the SB Workers United drive, volunteer- and resource-rich organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) could take it upon themselves to apply this model to other unorganized chains. Through initiatives like the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee (EWOC) and numerous successful electoral campaigns, as well as DSA’s presence throughout the United States, the organization’s skilled members could help create a central point of contact for aspiring pro-union workers, provide education for the workers to organize and protect themselves from retaliation, fundraise for the workers, help workers with legal issues, and use its media expertise and connections to make sure the workers’ voices are heard far and wide. DSA could thus help workers organize across corporate chains, as EWOC has already begun to do.

The stunning growth of the SB Workers United movement has attracted support from labor unions, socialist organizations, community activists, and progressive forces throughout the country and has inspired numerous workers to challenge their bosses and reclaim their dignity. As this movement gains momentum, we can and should put our foot on the gas. Who knows where it could lead?

Correction: This article previously stated that Starbucks Workers United is independent of the union Workers United. Starbucks workers are organizing under Workers United, so that Starbucks locations that win union elections are winning the right to be represented by Workers United.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Shuvu Bhattarai is a Nepali-American labor organizer and a member of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America in Queens.

The Starbucks Union Drive in Calgary May Have Failed, but the Larger Battle Is Just Starting

The union drive at a Starbucks in Calgary, Alberta, was defeated by both the anti-union tactics of the company and the province’s ruling party. Successful votes elsewhere, however, indicate the Starbucks unionization wave is only just beginning in Canada.

The union drive failure in Calgary is yet another demonstration of the $24 billion company’s hostility toward unionization. (kevser/Unsplash)

BYJEREMY APPEL
JACOBIN
03.26.2022

A union drive by Starbucks workers at the Chinook Centre food court in Calgary, Alberta, has fallen short of the votes needed to certify a bargaining unit. The failure of the drive is yet another demonstration of the $24 billion company’s hostility to the labor movement.

Starbucks Canada was quick to file an appeal when it caught wind of the union bid. Because Starbucks employees can be loaned out by one location to another, the company argued that only “home” employees of the Chinook Centre location should be able to vote. On March 16, after a week of ballots sitting unopened due to the company’s delay tactics, the Chinook Centre workers learned that their attempt to unionize with United Steelworkers (USW) was unsuccessful.

Reached for comment, USW organizer for western Canada and the northern territories Pablo Guerra said:

This was quite a lengthy process for these workers as they faced multiple delays with the Alberta Labour Relations Board and union-busting tactics from their employer. The actions from Starbucks shows why these workers need a union now more than ever. We will continue fighting for Starbucks workers across Canada as every worker deserves better.

Guerra laid blame at the door of Alberta’s governing United Conservative Party (UCP), which, since forming out of the ashes of the populist right Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, has made no secret of its anti-labor animus.

Guerra is calling on the government to bring back card check, which doesn’t require a vote if more than 65 percent of employees sign union cards. Restoring the card check system would allow workers to organize without fear of intimidation from the employer.

In 2017, the left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) was in power and reintroduced card check union certification to the province. The return of the practice brought about a substantial increase in unionization in Alberta. Card check was eliminated by the UCP — in its second piece of legislation once in power — thereby keeping a campaign trail promise made by Premier Jason Kenney.

Bob Barnetson, an Edmonton-based labor studies professor at Athabasca University, writing for the Parkland Institute, notes that “card-check certification eliminates the opportunity for employers to interfere in what should be a free choice by employees.” Starbucks workers in Alberta are thus caught in the pincers of, on the one hand, the company’s union-busting techniques and, on the other, an aggressively anti-union provincial government.
From One Union-Busting CEO to Another

In the midst of a pandemic-fueled wave of Starbucks union drives across the United States, the company has bid farewell to its CEO Kevin Johnson. As the New York Times reports, the abrupt departure of Johnson was explicitly tied to the company’s declining image as a result of efforts to halt unionization.

The reason for the changing of the guard was spelled out in a letter sent to Johnson before his resignation by a group of Starbucks investors representing more than $1 billion in company stock. “We believe that Starbucks’ reputation may be jeopardized due to reporting of aggressive union-busting tactics,” the investors wrote.

But Johnson’s replacement is not a young Turk from whom we can expect significant changes in company policy. Starbucks has elected to choose Howard Shultz as interim CEO — a man who’s own deep-seated hostility toward organized labor is well documented. Starbucks stores and the Seattle roastery were union shops when Schultz purchased the company in 1987. Schultz made it clear that union organizers weren’t welcome at his Starbucks.


“He went ballistic screaming at me, telling me to get out of the plant,” Pam Blauman-Schmitz, the local union rep for the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), told the Times of her first roastery visit under Schultz’s ownership. “He followed me all the way out.”

Over the next few years, workers would vote to decertify — first at the stores and then the roastery — a move Schultz claimed in his autobiography was the initiative of one lone worker who “did some research on his own.” Schultz has summarized his philosophy regarding unionization by complaining that “if [workers] had faith in me and my motives, they wouldn’t need a union.”

Blauman-Schmitz said she believes that the lone anti-union worker instrumental to Starbucks’ decertification campaign was “handpicked” by Schultz. Dave Schmitz, who was a UFCW organizer at the time, told the Huffington Post that the company used strong-arm tactics during negotiations over a second contract. Schmitz recalls efforts to reduce health benefits, remove protections against arbitrary firing, and give the company the ability to change working conditions without consulting the union. Schultz, for his part, recalls surmising that the need to crush the union was a necessary precursor for Starbucks’ readiness to grow into the international brand we know today.
Workers Fight Back at the NLRB

A2004 effort from the Wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World) to organize Starbucks locations was unsuccessful, but it did result in several National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) hearings. Evidence presented at the hearings revealed the company’s anti-union tactics and confirmed that executives worked in a coordinated fashion to stymie organizing efforts. These coordinated efforts included interviewing workers to determine whether they were anti-union — or, in the company’s terminology, “pro-Starbucks” — so as to stack the decks against organizing efforts by assigning them to stores undergoing unionization.

As recently as March 15, 2022, an NLRB prosecutor determined that Starbucks’ firing of two workers at a unionizing Phoenix store was retaliatory in nature. The board issued a formal complaint against the company — the first since the unionization wave began in December 2021.

According to the complaint, one employee, Laila Dalton, who raised concerns to management about wages, hours, and short staffing, was written up and then suspended. Another employee, Alyssa Sanchez, was denied scheduling preferences and then fired, solely because of her support for unionization. If the complaint is successfully prosecuted through an administrative judge, Starbucks will have to advise their workers that complaining about work conditions is a protected activity.

The NLRB is also slated to hear charges related to the rights violations of Starbucks workers at a Memphis store that fired seven employees in February. The dismissals occurred after the workers allowed a journalist into the store after-hours to document their union drive.
The Case of Victoria

If the Chinook Centre Starbucks had been successful in its union bid, it would not have been the first Canadian location. That distinction belongs to the Douglas Street drive-through in Victoria, British Columbia, which inked its first union contract in June 2021 after voting to unionize in August 2020.

Although BC is run by a New Democratic Party government that successfully ran on a pledge to introduce card check, it abandoned that promise in 2017, when it came to power in a coalition with the neoliberal BC Green Party. This meant that the Starbucks workers had to hold a vote, running the same risk of losing as the workers in Calgary.

According to USW, the three-year contract includes provisions guarding against workplace violence and aggression, permits up to ten days paid leave for workers facing domestic violence, and offers up to $2.47 an hour in pay increase based on seniority. The Globe and Mail, Canada’s national newspaper of record, called the agreement “a rarity in a sector that traditionally has minimal union representation.”

Izzy Adachi, a barista who was involved in the union drive, told the Globe that workers would face abuse from certain customers “for weeks and weeks and weeks” without receiving any meaningful support from management. Adachi called a provision that allows workers to file grievances against management the “biggest win” of the contract.

Stephen Hunt, director of USW Canada, told the Globe that coffee shops are generally tough to unionize because of their small staff size and frequent turnover. This fact seems borne out by the events of the Calgary location election, where there were only seventeen members, one of whom didn’t even vote.

High turnover, however, also means that one failed union vote isn’t the end of organizing efforts. For workers at the Chinook Centre Starbucks, it is the beginning of a long process of challenging a massive corporation that is willing to put its full weight on the scale against unionization.

Although card check is a valuable tool for unionizing, the successful votes in Victoria and elsewhere show that employer intimidation can be overcome. With increasing numbers of Starbucks workers joining unions in the United States, the Canadian Starbucks unionization wave is only just beginning.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jeremy Appel is a Calgary-based independent journalist and author of the Orchard newsletter on Substack. He cohosts the Forgotten Corner and Big Shiny Takes podcasts.
MARXIST LENNINIST LEFT
New cold war neocolonialism: West threatens Solomon Islands over China alliance

The Solomon Islands, a sovereign country in the Pacific, broke ties with Taiwan and allied with China. So the US backed a failed violent coup attempt. 

Australia now calls the area its “backyard,” and media moguls demand an invasion to prevent the nation from signing a security pact with Beijing.

By Benjamin Norton
Chinese President Xi Jinping meets with Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare in October 2019 (Photo credit: Xinhua)


The Solomon Islands is a sovereign nation in the Pacific, near Papua New Guinea and Australia, with a population of nearly 700,000 people (making it larger than EU/NATO member Luxembourg, NATO members Iceland and Montenegro, and EU member Malta).

As Western powers heat up their new cold war on China, they are increasingly treating the Solomon Islands as a colony, sponsoring a violent coup attempt and threatening the country for seeking to sign a security agreement with Beijing.

Top Australian government officials have referred to the sovereign nation as part of their “backyard,” and a media mogul has publicly called for the Australian military to invade and overthrow its government.

For decades, Washington used its economic leverage over the Solomon Islands to pressure the country to recognize Taiwan as an independent state.

Taiwan is part of the People’s Republic of China, a fact recognized by 93% of UN member states. Just a dozen small countries still claim it is a separate nation.

The Solomon Islands was one of them until 2019, when its democratically elected prime minister, Manasseh Sogavare, stood up to US pressure, ended diplomatic recognition of Taiwan, and formed an alliance with China.

The United States and Australia responded aggressively, seeking to sow chaos internally, and even backing a violent coup attempt in 2021.
When the central government of the Solomon Islands recognized China in 2019, the US pressured the local government in Malaita, the country’s most populous island, to reject federal policy and to maintain its ties with Taiwan.

Washington essentially bribed Malaita to continue recognizing Taiwan, pledging the province $25 million in US government aid.

Then in November 2021, violent rioters attempted to overthrow the democratically elected central government, attacking the parliament and setting fire to police stations, while also burning down Chinese businesses and assaulting ethnic Chinese.

Australia took advantage of the violence to send troops to the Solomon Islands.

Journalist Vijay Prashad noted that Washington “built a coalition of anti-communists and pro-Zionist Christians” to try to overthrow the pro-Chinese government. The flag of apartheid Israel could be seen in photos of the violent protests.
The putsch failed. But the Western efforts to destabilize the Pacific nation have continued.

This March 25, an Australian media mogul published an article openly calling on his nation’s military to invade the Solomon Islands, “capture” its islands, and “engineer regime change,” while also using “soft power” to advance Western interests.

The author, David Llewellyn-Smith, is the founding publisher and editor of the website MacroBusiness, and the founding publisher and global economy editor of the prominent political magazine The Diplomat.

Llewellyn-Smith used neocolonial rhetoric, referring to the Solomon Islands as part of Australia’s “backyard,” warning that “the CCP [Communist Party of China] occupies our backyard.”
Western governments and media pundits have ironically claimed that China is trying to turn the Solomon Islands into a puppet, while they back violent coup attempts and threaten a military invasion.

In reality, the Solomon Islands was historically colonized by the British, Germans, and Japanese, and it deeply values its hard-earned independence.

Faced with these Western threats, the Solomon Islands decided to draft a security agreement with China.

This enraged Australia, whose Prime Minister Scott Morrison said “there is great concern across the Pacific family.”

Australia’s home affairs minister, Karen Andrews, resorted to familiar neocolonial rhetoric, fuming, “That is our backyard, this is our neighbourhood, and we are very concerned of any activity that is taking place in the Pacific Islands.”

Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne implied the alliance would “undermine the stability and security of our region.”

The government of New Zealand made similar comments, claiming it could “destabilise the current institutions and arrangements that have long underpinned the Pacific region’s security.”

Many Western media outlets echoed this neocolonial rhetoric.

British state media giant the BBC warned, “China gains a foothold in Australia’s backyard.”

CNN said the region is “regarded by Canberra as its backyard.”

German state media DW wrote that “Australia and New Zealand have for decades seen the Pacific islands as their ‘backyard.’
In a speech this March 29, Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare criticized Western governments for this neocolonial attitude and for meddling in his nation’s internal affairs.

Sogavare called it “insulting” to “be branded as unfit to manage our sovereign affairs or have other motives in pursuing our national interests.”

He also revealed that the Solomon Islands security deal with China was “ready for signing.”

Opposition politicians in the Solomon Islands had conspired with the Australian government to leak a copy of this proposed security agreement. Prime Minister Sogavare blasted them as “agents of foreign interference.”

For its part, the Chinese government, which has helped lift 800 million citizens out of poverty since its 1949 revolution, said it “is ready to share its experience in poverty reduction and deepen development cooperation with Solomon Islands and other Pacific island countries, so as to help them find a path of poverty reduction and development that suits their national conditions, better cope with major public health events and natural disasters, and enhance their capacity to cope with climate change.”

EDMONTON ANARCHIST JOURNAL / BLACK CAT PRESS






CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M
TurboTax promised free tax filing — then hit customers with hidden charges, feds say


Hayley Fowler, The Charlotte Observer 

TurboTax is touting its online tax preparation services as free to millions of consumers before hitting them with hidden costs when it comes time to file, the Federal Trade Commission has said in a new civil lawsuit.

The FTC, a federal agency tasked with protecting consumers from unfair and deceptive business practices, accused TurboTax’s parent company — Intuit Inc. — of deceptive advertising in a federal complaint filed on Monday, March 28, in the Northern District of California.

In addition to the lawsuit, the FTC has asked for a temporary restraining order that would block Intuit from continuing to advertise TurboTax as free.

“TurboTax is bombarding consumers with ads for ‘free’ tax filing services, and then hitting them with charges when it’s time to file,” Samuel Levine, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a news release. “We are asking a court to immediately halt this bait-and-switch, and to protect taxpayers at the peak of filing season.”

Intuit denied the allegations, saying in a statement that the FTC has painted an inaccurate picture of its advertising practices.

“The FTC’s arguments are simply not credible. Far from steering taxpayers away from free tax preparation offerings, our free advertising campaigns have led to more Americans filing their taxes for free than ever before and have been central to raising awareness of free tax prep,” Kerry McLean, executive vice president and general counsel of Intuit, said in a statement.

According to the FTC’s 31-page complaint, TurboTax lets customers with “simple” tax returns file for free but requires other customers to upgrade for a fee using what the FTC referred to as “hard stops.”

TurboTax asks customers a series of questions about their finances when they begin the filing process to determine if they are eligible for the free version, the FTC said.

For example, if they indicate the need to report certain types of income using a 1099 form, TurboTax will display a “hard stop” telling the customer they need to pay for an upgrade to accurately report that income. Some examples of taxpayers who use a 1099 form include independent contractors, ride-share drivers and food delivery workers.

About two-thirds of people who file taxes couldn’t use TurboTax’s free product in 2020, the FTC said.

Yet TurboTax promotes its services as “free” in television commercials and online, according to the complaint. Intuit aired at least six different advertisements during its “Free, Free, Free, Free” campaign “in which ‘free’ is essentially the only word spoken,” the FTC said. The TurboTax homepage has also boasted various promises about “free” filings over the years, according to the agency.

“Intuit continues to bombard consumers with the message that they can file their taxes for ‘free,’” the lawsuit states. “Intuit baits consumers with deceptive ads and then compound the deception with more false claims and buried disclosures.”

In response, Intuit has pointed to its status as a “founding member of the IRS Free File program,” which was formed in 2002 between the IRS and several online tax preparation companies.

Intuit said it has helped the IRS Free File program “far exceed its stated goals of making free tax preparation available to 70% of filers.” As a participant in the program, the company also said it had to follow certain marketing requirements set by the IRS.

“The fact that Intuit complied with the rules and regulations of one government agency, but is now being targeted by another, demonstrates a significant disconnect,” McLean, Intuit’s general counsel, said in the release.

Intuit left the Free File Program last year, the FTC said.

The company has since filed a notice of its intent to oppose the FTC’s bid for a temporary restraining order, saying the agency waited until just before taxes are due on April 18 to lodge a complaint based on alleged deceptive advertising practices it claims to have known about for years.

Intuit’s lawyers also said the company has already pulled some of the advertisements in questions — which the FTC allegedly knew before filing its lawsuit. Company officials reportedly told FTC on March 24 that they would remove the “free, free, free” television ads for the remainder of the tax season, court documents state.

The FTC, meanwhile, has said consumers “continue to suffer substantial injury” from Intuit’s TurboTax advertisements and called on a federal judge to issue the temporary restraining order.

©2022 The Charlotte Observer. Visit charlotteobserver.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.