Iranian authorities release a French national who was imprisoned for over 20 months

Associated Press
Updated Thu, June 13, 2024


 People hold portraits of French detainees in Iran including Louis Arnaud, top left, during a protest in Paris, Saturday, Jan. 28, 2023. French national Louis Arnaud arrived in France Thursday, June 13, 2024 after he was released by Iran where he was imprisoned for over 20 months. Arnaud was greeted at Paris-Le-Bourget airport by his family in the presence of France's Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Séjourné. 

(AP Photo/Thibault Camus, File)

PARIS (AP) — French national Louis Arnaud arrived in France on Thursday after he was released by Iran, where he was imprisoned for over 20 months for allegedly taking part in nationwide protests.

Arnaud was greeted by his family in the presence of French Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Séjourné.

French President Emmanuel Macron posted on the social media platform X on Wednesday that “Louis Arnaud is free” and thanked Oman, an interlocutor for the West with Iran, and “all those who helped bring this happy outcome.”


Arnaud was arrested in September 2022 along with other Europeans.

French media reported that Arnaud, a consultant in his 30s, was accused of having taken part in nationwide protests sparked by the death of Mahsa Amin, a young woman who died after being arrested for allegedly not wearing her headscarf, or hijab, to the liking of security forces.

Macron expressed his concern for three other French nationals still imprisoned in Iran, including Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris, who were arrested in May 2022.

French authorities identified Kohler and Paris as a teachers’ union official and her partner on vacation in the country. Iranian authorities accused them of protesting with Iranian teachers and taking part in an anti-government rally.

The third French national detained in Iran has only been identified by his first name, Olivier.

“I call on Iran to release them without delay,’ Macron wrote on X.

“We're still working” for them to be freed, Séjourné said Thursday. "Our diplomacy is still mobilized. ... That will be the next victory for tomorrow. But here we must be satisfied with a great diplomatic victory for France.”

French hostage Louis Arnaud returns home after two years' imprisonment in Iran

Euronews
Thu, June 13, 2024 

French hostage Louis Arnaud returns home after two years' imprisonment in Iran


French hostage Louis Arnaud has returned home after being released from imprisonment in Iran, where he languished in prison for almost two years.

The French national arrived back in his home country on Thursday. His family and French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné greeted him at the Paris-Le-Bourget airport.

Local media report that the consultant had embarked on a world tour in July 2022 that had taken him as far as Iran when he was arrested in September of that year.

He was accused of taking part in demonstrations following the death of Mahsa Amini, a young Iranian woman of Kurdish background who had been arrested for allegedly not wearing the hijab in accordance with government standards.

Amini died in suspicious circumstances while in custody, and her death sparked massive protests across Iran.

Arnaud's parents previously spoke with Euronews about the shock, worry and anxiety they felt after hearing Louis had been arrested.

"We knew this was not just any country, but Iran we are dealing with," said his father.

French President Emmanuel Macron called for the release of three other French nationals held in the country “without delay”.


The three include Cécile Kohler, Jacques Paris and a man named Olivier, whose surname has not been made public.

French authorities identified Kohler and Paris as a teachers’ union official and her partner on vacation in the country. Iranian authorities accuse them of protesting with Iranian teachers and taking part in an anti-government rally.

French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné said on Thursday that the government is "still working" to secure their freedom.

"Our diplomacy is still mobilised," he said. "That will be the next victory for tomorrow. But here we must be satisfied with a great diplomatic victory for France."


French citizen returns home after Iran prison ordeal

AFP
Thu, June 13, 2024

Frenchman Louis Arnaud returned to Paris on Thursday after his release from a more than 20-month prison ordeal in Iran, but a dozen Europeans are still detained in the Islamic republic.

Activists and some Western governments, including France, accuse Iran of exercising a strategy of taking foreign nationals as hostages to force concessions from the West.

Arnaud was held in Iran from September 2022 and sentenced last year to five years in jail on national security charges. He was described by his family as a traveller who wanted to see the world, and who was innocent of all charges.

Emerging from a small plane at Le Bourget airport outside Paris, a visibly tired but smiling Arnaud shook hands with Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne before embracing his parents, according to images aired on television.

Arnaud, 36, linked arms with his relatives as they entered a private room at the airport out of view of the cameras.

"I am very glad to welcome one of our hostages who was indeed held arbitrarily in Iran," Sejourne said.

"Our diplomatic service is still at work" to free three other French citizens: Jacques Paris, Cecile Kohler and a man named only as Olivier held in Iranian jails, he added.

In a statement after his release, Arnaud's mother Sylvie said "we have been waiting for our son to return for almost 21 months. A wait that should never have existed.

"Our thoughts are with those who are still waiting for the return of their loved ones and we will remain at their side until they can experience this same happiness," she added.

The circumstances of Arnaud's freeing were not immediately clear. Announcing his release on X late Wednesday, President Emmanuel Macron made a point of thanking our "Omani friends and all those who worked towards this happy outcome".

Oman has frequently worked as a mediator between Iran and the West in such situations. A diplomatic source told AFP that Arnaud had been flown back to Paris via Oman.

- 'Very, very worried' -

Kohler's sister Noemie Kohler welcomed Arnaud's release but stressed the family had not heard from Cecile since April 13.

"We're very, very worried," she said. While the family remains in regular contact with French diplomats, the lack of progress is frustrating, she said.

Kohler and her partner Jacques Paris were detained in Iran in May 2022 accused of spying.

"We know that they are being held in absolutely appalling conditions," said Noemie Kohler.

Arnaud set off in July 2022 on a round-the-world trip that led him to Iran.

It was "a country he had long dreamt of visiting for the richness of its history and its welcoming people", Sylvie Arnaud said several months ago.

But he was arrested in September 2022 with other Europeans accused of joining demonstrations over the death of Mahsa Amini.

Amini, a 22-year-old Iranian Kurd, died after her arrest by the morality police in Tehran for allegedly breaching the Islamic republic's strict dress code for women.

While Arnaud's travelling companions were soon released, he was kept in prison before his November sentencing on charges of making propaganda against the regime and harming Iranian state security.

Frenchman Benjamin Briere and French-Irish dual national Bernard Phelan were freed by Iran in 2023 for "humanitarian reasons".

Both had been severely weakened by a hunger strike.

Besides the three French still in prison, Tehran is holding nationals and dual nationals from European countries including Britain, Germany and Sweden.

Two of them -- German Jamshid Sharmahd and Swede Ahmadreza Djalali -- risk execution after being sentenced to death on charges their families say are utterly false.

Also held is Swedish EU diplomat Johan Floderus whom prosecutors want sentenced to death on spying charges his family strongly rejects.

Activists say Swedish nationals have been especially targeted over the life sentence given in Sweden to former Iranian prison official Hamid Noury for his role in mass executions in Iran in 1988.

According to Washington, the release of the five US citizens in September last year means there are no more US nationals detained in Iran.

ROAD TO JACKSON HOLE

A landslide in Wyoming deepens the disparities between the ultra-wealthy and local workers

Alicia Victoria Lozano
Updated Fri, June 14, 2024 

The collapse of a vital road connecting workers in Idaho to jobs in Wyoming is bringing new attention to a longstanding schism between the ultra-wealthy and the people who cater to them.

Billionaires and investors have been pushing home prices in Jackson, Wyoming, into the stratosphere for years, forcing workers to live farther and farther from their jobs.

Already burdened by long commutes, people who work at hospitals, outfitters and landscaping companies now face an indefinite road closure that is upending their lives yet is unlikely to affect their wealthy clients.

What started as a crack in the Teton Pass last week turned into a massive landslide that closed a 10-mile stretch of road, which serves as a main gateway between Idaho and Jackson, Wyoming.

Transportation officials said the “catastrophic failure” would take months to repair. Meantime, a two-lane detour should be completed within weeks, according to the Wyoming Department of Transportation.


The rush comes as tourist season gets underway in the Rocky Mountains, where some 15,000 people are expected to descend on nearby Grand Teton and Yellowstone national parks each day.

Closing the Teton Pass for even a few weeks means cutting off a vital artery for people who live in Idaho but work in Jackson, a mountain and ski haven that has become a playground for Hollywood celebrities, tech tycoons and billionaires looking to get away from city life.

“The landslide really shines a ton of light on how unsustainable our community is,” said Jacob Gore, a Wyoming native who lives in Idaho because of rising costs. “I just accepted that I will never own a home in Jackson unless I win the lottery.”

A damaged section of Teton Pass near Jackson, Wyo.

 (Wyoming Highway Patrol via AP)

At St. John's Health in Jackson, about 20% of health care workers commute from the Teton Valley on the other side of the pass. This includes 115 essential workers who need to be on site every day, according to hospital spokesperson Karen Connelly.

Many of those workers face 12-hour shifts and cannot accommodate an additional four to six hours a day of driving time, Connelly told Teton County commissioners this week during a hearing.

On average, more than 2,500 people commute daily from Idaho to Jackson, which is in the wealthiest county in the United States, per capita, the county housing authority said. It has a median income of more than $108,000, compared to Teton County, Idaho, where the median income is $89,000, according to U.S. Census data.

Home prices between the neighboring counties vary exponentially. On the Wyoming side, the median home price is more than $3 million compared to about $800,000 in Idaho.

The allure of snow-capped mountain peaks and crystal clear lakes has long attracted both homesteaders and business leaders. Moguls like Ted Turner, Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett each own hundreds of thousands of acres of land in the West, and the federal government controls about 50% of land from Kansas to the Pacific Ocean.

Competition to build, own and rent is fierce in the most desirable areas, including gateway communities to national parks. Demand only increased during the pandemic, as remote workers sought to relocate.

"We're working our butts off so the billionaires can have nice gardens to look at in their vacation homes that they spend a few weeks in a year," said Rory Nelson, who lives in Victor, Idaho, and owns a small gardening company in Jackson.

"It’s heartbreaking because this is my home," he said, adding that he is now driving up to six hours a day because of the road closure.

Many people who live in communities like Victor and Driggs in the Teton Valley say they are now forced to choose between spending a full day in the car or finding temporary housing closer to work.

Idaho resident Gore runs a wildlife tour company and said he woke up to several missed calls from frantic clients and employees when news spread about the landslide. One tour guide, who lives in Driggs, opted to sleep in his car the night before an early morning outing rather than wake up at 3 a.m. to pick up his clients in Jackson at 6 a.m.

“If just one of these billionaires wanted to step in and help out, our community would change for the better,” he said. “But our workers aren’t thought of until their favorite restaurant closes."

Since the road closure, John Thomas Smaellie, a construction superintendent from Driggs, has been snaking his way south on Highway 33 into a neighboring valley and around a lake before turning north toward Jackson.

While he describes the two- to three-hour commute as “absolutely gorgeous,” Smaellie is missing crucial time away from his family. His 7-year-old daughter is the youngest rodeo princess in their town and requires hours of rehearsal and preparation before competitions, he said.

On Wednesday night, rather than help her get ready for an upcoming pageant, Smaellie was stuck on the road.

A sign on Highway 33 tells motorists the Teton Pass is closed on June 9, 2024 in Victor, Idaho. (Natalie Behring / Getty Images)

“Is my job really worth missing these things?” he asked. “I know they’re going to have a temporary road, but is it going to last? Emotionally, it’s very taxing to be at work knowing that if I left right now I could be home in time.”

Smaellie, a fifth-generation Driggs resident, has watched prices in his hometown skyrocket as “billionaires drive out the millionaires” from Jackson, a popular refrain among locals.

When he was young, Smaellie's parents bought a home and other investment properties on their public school salaries, he said. Smaellie, however, is forced to rent even as gated communities are built around him.

For his workers, who earn $60,000 to $70,000 a year, even renting is unaffordable. Six members of his crew share a two-bedroom apartment, he said.

Still, the idea of relocating his family outside the region is unfathomable.

“I would like my kids to see their father’s grave when I pass away,” he said. “I can go see my great-great-great grandfather’s grave in Tetonia. That is where my bitterness comes from.”

Like other regions that cater to luxury resorts, housing affordability in Jackson has been a problem for decades.

In 2020, the county set the goal of housing 65% of workers within its limits. Currently the county is at roughly 60%, according to housing director April Norton.

“There is a recognition that without permanently protecting homes for local workers, we might run out of them,” she said.

Chase Putnam, who owns a fishing outfitter in Jackson, is opening his eight-person camper to anyone in need of temporary accommodations. He bristled when asked about the affordability crisis and accused county commissioners of not acting quickly enough to secure housing for workers.

“I can barely rub two dimes together and I’m the one stepping in?” he said.

When asked for comment, the Board of County Commissioners referred questions to the housing authority.

"If there is political will, then certainly there are things to look at it," Norton said of building more workforce housing. "But it comes down to politicians, so we'll see what happens."

On Wednesday, the commissioners approved an ordinance that will temporarily allow camping units and mobile homes in all zones until the road reopens. But because 97% of surrounding land is owned by the federal government, it will largely be up to private landowners to welcome people in need.

While any permanent housing solution is years away, local residents are stepping in to offer immediate help. Melissa Thomasma, who lives in Victor, Idaho, created a mutual aid Facebook group after the landslide.

The nearly 2,000-member account is filled with posts from people offering campers, carpools and even audiobook credits for the long commute.

"That’s such a core value of our community,” she said. “You lend a hand when you can.”

This article was originally published on NBCNews.com

$COTU$

Why Was Ketanji Brown Jackson Made to Stand Alone for the Rights of Starbucks Workers?
Terri Gerstein and Jenny Hunter
Thu, June 13, 2024 


This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. Alongside Amicus, we kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!)

The Supreme Court handed down an 8–1 decision on Thursday that will help employers quash union-organizing campaigns. Given the storm of other cases dropping from the court this month, it’s important not to overlook the significance of this latest anti-union blow.

When workers try to form a union, it’s common for their employer to retaliate against or fire them in order to stop the union effort in its tracks. In Starbucks v. McKinney, the court made it harder for the government to quickly force an employer to rehire or stop retaliating against those workers. The decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas over a partial concurrence and partial dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, will impede the government’s ability to swiftly address the most severe cases of employer lawbreaking in union campaigns. It underscores the need for stronger labor laws and fully funded enforcement agencies.


For Supreme Court watchers, the surprising part of today’s ruling is that Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor joined Thomas’ majority decision. Before exploring that development, though, let’s consider what was at stake.

The case involves seven union supporters terminated by a Starbucks store in Memphis, Tennessee. Inspired by the Starbucks workers in Buffalo, New York, who formed the first union at the company in late 2021, employees in Memphis began organizing a union in early 2022. Starbucks responded by disciplining a leader of the organizing effort and ramping up managerial oversight of the store. Then, in February, the chain fired seven union activists, including five of the six members of the store’s organizing committee. The firings had the intended effect of spreading fear and frustrating the organizing effort in Memphis and other cities. The firings were part of a nationwide anti-union campaign by the corporation: Starbucks has committed more than 400 violations of labor law, according to federal authorities, including firing at least 59 union leaders and supporters.

Employers frequently fire or otherwise retaliate against workers during union campaigns; they’re charged with violating federal law in more than 40 percent of union election campaigns. These violations, which are called unfair labor practices, often have a stark multiplier effect: Reprisals against just one or two people send a strong message to co-workers, chilling them from exercising their rights and often nipping a campaign in the bud.

In a tiny group of cases, the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that enforces employees’ right to form unions, determines that a particularly egregious and impactful illegal act must be reversed immediately, before a broader overall case is resolved, in order to protect employees. In those cases, the NLRB can seek a temporary court order, called a 10(j) injunction, requiring the employer to rehire workers or otherwise fix the unfair labor practice.

Despite the frequency of employer retaliation, it is very rare for the NLRB to seek this kind of injunction. As Jackson’s partial dissent pointed out, of the approximately 20,000 unfair labor practice charges filed last year, the board pursued temporary injunctions in just 14 cases.

When the NLRB sought this relief in the Memphis Starbucks case, a district court agreed, ordering reinstatement of the workers and preventing the premature suffocation of the union campaign. Since then, hundreds of Starbucks stores have unionized across the country.

For the NLRB to protect workers’ rights, it must have the ability to seek such relief, even if the agency invokes it infrequently. If the board can’t stop severe violations until it’s too late, it would be merely a paper tiger. Although retaliation is illegal, employers often calculate that it’s worthwhile to break the law: The silencing effect of firing even one or two workers can crush a unionization effort.

Meanwhile, an employer’s potential consequences are minimal and won’t be imposed for months or years. The National Labor Relations Act contains zero monetary penalties. The available remedies include reinstatement, which can be long delayed and are sometimes no longer desired by former employees who have moved on; restitution, including back pay but minus any wages earned in the interim; and, most toothless of all in deterring violations, a notice posted by the employer promising to follow the law in the future.

The legal issue in the Starbucks case was about the test a trial court should apply in evaluating the board’s request for a temporary injunction. The NLRB and worker advocates supported a test taking into account the importance of these injunctions in protecting workers’ rights, as well as the fact that Congress assigned labor enforcement not to the courts but to the NLRB.

Instead, the court treated rare NLRB requests for temporary injunctions to reverse unfair labor practices the same as any generic case in which a private party seeks an injunction for any reason at all, making it much harder to get them. Thomas’ decision Thursday is characteristically contemptuous about the careful process the NLRB follows to determine when to seek those injunctions, calling it “an agency’s convenient litigating position” and the views of “in-house attorneys” rather than acknowledging that it is the result of a multistep procedure of consideration and approvals by experts and the NLRB itself.

Jackson, by contrast, rejected the all-or-nothing binary of the majority opinion. She argued for an approach that, while incorporating the traditional factors for granting injunctions, applies them in a way that acknowledges the context of this statutory structure and the NLRB’s expert function. She astutely noted that the majority’s opinion constitutes a power grab for the courts, writing, “I am loath to bless this aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts, and where it so clearly intends for the expert agency it has created to make the primary determinations about both merits and process.”

Why didn’t Kagan and Sotomayor join Jackson’s more nuanced analysis? It’s hard to say for sure, but here are some hypotheses. Are they now choosing their battles with fellow justices, finding common cause when they can to preserve collegiality and their internal credibility? (The very small number of cases in which the NLRB seeks this relief each year might have made the damage seem somewhat limited.) Did they implicitly adopt a sympathy toward management that federal judges have often shown? Research indicates that this is especially true of judges who have worked as prosecutors or corporate lawyers. Is it possible that Kagan and Sotomayor were making a strategic move to try to get another justice’s vote in a different case? Finally, there’s a saying among lawyers that bad facts make bad law. The fired Starbucks workers allowed a TV crew into the store to interview them, a detail that seemed to unsettle the liberal justices at oral argument. Did their negative gut reaction to the facts have an outsize impact?

We don’t know. What we do know is that this decision will weaken the NLRB and harm workers.

In the end, the Starbucks ruling is unsurprising, since it involves two things the court’s far-right supermajority can’t stand: workers’ rights and a government agency that protects them. The majority’s pattern of ruling for corporate interests and disdain for administrative agencies made the outcome here—if not the acquiescence of two progressive justices—feel foreordained, but it’s terrible for workers nonetheless.

The United States is in a moment of worker activism unprecedented in recent history, at Starbucks, in Hollywood, and even in the previously seemingly impenetrable South, where the United Auto Workers resoundingly won a union election at a Chattanooga Volkswagen plant. But the challenges workers must face when they try to form a union are still too high, and Thursday’s decision creates one more excessive hurdle.




Supreme Court sides with Starbucks in blow to union movement
Caroline Anders
Thu, June 13, 2024 



Insights from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Politico

The News

The US Supreme Court decided in favor of Starbucks on Thursday in a case involving workers who were fired while trying to unionize a Starbucks store. The decision could make it harder for the US labor watchdog, the National Labor Relations Board, to intervene in labor organizing fights.

In this case, Starbucks said the workers were fired for violating company policy, but the NLRB successfully sought a court injunction to have them reinstated in their jobs.

The Supreme Court found that the legal test used to issue the injunction was too broad and inconsistent with other courts. Eight justices supported the majority opinion, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote a separate opinion that concurred with the overall judgment but dissented on several points.
SIGNALSSemafor Signals: Global insights on today's biggest stories.
Decision could encourage more legal challenges to National Labor Relations BoardSources: The New York Times, The Washington Post

Injunctions won by the NLRB are “a powerful deterrent against firing workers trying to unionize,” The New York Times wrote, but this ruling could give companies greater license to crack down on union efforts. That means the decision could open the door to an onslaught of challenges to the NLRB’s authority, attorney Christopher Foster said, particularly because the agency has taken a more aggressive stance in support of union efforts during the Biden administration. “This vindicates the strategy of [companies] going to the courts and not accepting the NLRB’s decision in any given matter,” Foster said.
Ruling could chill union efforts across the USSources: The Washington Post, NPR

The decision could have a “chilling effect” on labor organization efforts, legal experts said. Labor law challenges often take years to resolve, which may be discouraging for workers trying to organize; hence, injunctions to reinstate fired workers can be sought to address that concern. But this ruling will make it harder for the board to force a company to reinstate a worker, which experts said could dissuade other workers from organizing. However, the federal circuit courts that hear the most injunction petitions already used a legal test Starbucks preferred, a lawyer told NPR. That could mean the decision’s impact on organizing efforts more broadly isn’t so damaging as some fear, he said.
Decision aligned with broad legal movement to rein in federal powersSources: The Independent, Politico

This was one of several cases before the Court this year aimed at shifting power away from federal agencies, a long-time goal for the conservative legal movement. Conservatives want to rein in the broad authority held by federal regulators such as the NLRB, and the Court could further weaken those powers by striking down a precedent known as the Chevron deference in a future decision. Overturning the Chevron deference “would have the potential of being one of the most destabilizing decisions that this court has issued, if it chooses to go there,” said James Goodwin, an analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, a leftwing think tank.

Supreme Court’s anti-union Starbucks ruling lands a blow to workers rights

Ariana Baio

THE INDEPENDENT UK
Updated Fri, June 14, 2024 

Supreme Court’s anti-union Starbucks ruling lands a blow to workers rights


The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in a union dispute on Thursday, significantly scaling back the National Labor Relations Board’s power to step in and protect workers from companies under fire for alleged union busting.

In a unanimous ruling, justices said the NLRB should have to satisfy a stricter, four-part test when asking a court to intervene on behalf of workers who allege they have been retaliated against for unionization efforts.

Members and supporters of Starbucks Workers United protest outside of a Starbucks store in Dupont Circle on November 16, 2023 in Washington, DC. (Getty Images)

The case was based on a dispute between Starbucks employees in Memphis and the coffeehouse giant. A group of employees attempted to unionize and faced retaliation after Starbucks claimed they broke company policy by reopening their store after closing time and inviting non-employees inside.

The termination of the seven workers had a somewhat chilling effect on employees who felt nervous about attempting to unionize at other locations.

Eventually, the union filed a lawsuit against Starbucks alleging unfair labor practices. The NLRB intervened, securing a preliminary injunction to reinstate the terminated employees as the legal case worked its way through the courts, after satisfying an initial test to show “reasonable cause” that employers engaged in unfair practices.

Seeking preliminary injunctions is a powerful tool used to stop employers from suppressing union activity. The one disputed in the Memphis 7 incident was the 12th the NLRB has sought against Starbucks in the last two years alone.

Starbucks disputed the intervention, claiming the NLRB should have used a four-part test that requires proof of “irreparable harm” and “likelihood of winning” to secure the preliminary injunction.

Previously, the NLRB used a two-part test to secure injunctions to stop employers from engaging in potentially harmful behavior while legal proceedings unfold. After Thursday’s ruling, the board must adhere to the stricter test.

“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary’ equitable remedy that is ‘never awarded as of right,’” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. He said that the four-part test, otherwise known as the Winter test, was “relevant” and had “equitable principles.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed an opinion concurring in part but rejected part of the court’s decision, saying she “Cannot join the majority in ignoring the choices Congress has made in the NLRA about how courts should exercise their discretion in light of the National Labor Relations Board’s authority over labor disputes. Because the majority chooses the simplicity of unfettered judicial discretion over the nuances of Congress’s direction, I respectfully dissent in part.”

The opinion is unsurprising, during oral arguments in April, it seemed certain the court would side with Starbucks.

Thursday’s decision aligns with a larger legal movement aimed at shifting power away from federal agencies.

Starbucks Corp v McKinney was a labor law administrative case that had implications for unionization protections.

Supreme Court rules for Starbucks, limits power of judges to protect fired union organizers

David G. Savage
Thu, June 13, 2024 at 8:42 AM MDT·4 min read
14


Employees, supporters and labor organizers hold signs as they strike at a Starbucks location in Los Angeles. (Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

The Supreme Court ruled for Starbucks on Thursday and limited the power of judges and the National Labor Relations Board to protect union organizers.

In a 9-0 decision, the court overturned a ruling by a federal judge in Tennessee who sided with the NLRB and ordered Starbucks to rehire the so-called "Memphis Seven."

In doing so, the justices set a higher legal standard to prevent judges from deferring to the labor board in pending disputes.

Justice Clarence Thomas said judges should follow the traditional rules before intervening to give a temporary victory for the workers and the NLRB.

"A preliminary injunction is an 'extraordinary' equitable remedy that is never awarded as of right," he said in Starbucks vs. McKinney.

Read more: Supreme Court rejects California man's attempt to trademark Trump T-shirts

AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler denounced the decision and said the court had "sided with corporate power over Starbucks baristas today in a direct attack on the fundamental freedom to organize a union on the job. This decision sets a higher threshold for courts to reinstate workers who have been unfairly fired. In a system that is already stacked against workers, this will make it even harder for them to get back their jobs."

But the National Federation of Independent Business said it was pleased the justices ruled the NLRB "does not receive special treatment" in court. “Preliminary injunctions are not a benign, administrative procedure. They are a considerable intrusion on a business,” said Beth Milito, executive director of NFIB’s Small Business Legal Center.

Judges in different parts of the nation had followed differing approaches in these cases, and the court sided with those who said judges should be reluctant to intervene and issue a temporary injunction.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in part, saying she did not think judges were exercising too much power in these cases and should generally defer to the labor board.

"I am loath to bless this aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts, and where it so clearly intends for the expert agency it has created to make the primary determinations about both merits and process," she wrote.

Starbucks has been aggressive in fighting against union organizers. The coffee company said it took the Memphis case to the high court seeking to "level the playing field" in these labor-management battles.

At issue was what the company called a union-friendly legal standard that allowed judges to intervene early and to rule against the employers.

"Getting an injunction is often the whole ballgame," said Washington attorney Lisa Blatt on behalf of the company in Starbucks vs. McKinney.

The NLRB says these temporary injunctions are needed to protect workers who were fired in violation of the labor laws. But the companies say they should not be forced to rehire employees who broke their work rules.

In February 2022, Starbucks fired seven baristas in Memphis who were seeking to organize a union. The company said the dismissals arose from "significant violations" of their safety and security policies. They said the employees had remained in the store after closing hours and invited local media to interview them.

Starbucks Workers United called this "union busting" and filed a complaint with the NLRB contending the workers were fired in retaliation for their organizing efforts.

Read more: Supreme Court upholds FDA's approval of abortion pills for early pregnancies

M. Kathleen McKinney, a regional director of the NLRB, petitioned a federal judge to issue an order protecting the workers while the board considered their complaint. U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman agreed there was "reasonable cause" to believe the workers had a valid claim, and she ordered Starbucks to rehire the seven employees.

Starbucks said the NLRB leans in favor of workers in these disputes and regularly wins orders from judges who force employers to rehire workers while their claims are pending for months or years before the labor board. Their lawyers argued that in other non-labor cases, judges rarely issue such temporary injunctions and do so only if they are convinced the suing parties are likely to win in the end.

Lynne Fox, president of the Workers United, said the unionizing efforts will not be deterred.

“Regardless of large corporations’ machinations at the Supreme Court, workers are continuing to organize. Just last week, workers at 20 Starbucks stores filed petitions to join Starbucks Workers United. And there are nearly 450 union Starbucks stores across the country. Workers’ momentum is unstoppable and they will not let the Supreme Court slow them down," he said.

Starbucks said in a statement that the ruling had upheld the principle of "consistent federal standards" across the country.

"Partners are the core of our business, and we are committed to providing everyone who wears the green apron a bridge to a better future. We will continue to focus on making progress toward our goal of reaching ratified contracts for represented stores this year," the company said.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.


US Supreme Court backs Starbucks over fired pro-union workers

REUTERS
Updated Thu, June 13, 2024

By Andrew Chung

(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Thursday with Starbucks in the coffee chain's challenge to a judicial order to rehire seven Memphis employees fired as they sought to unionize in a ruling that could make it harder for courts to quickly halt labor practices contested as unfair under federal law.

The justices unanimously threw out a lower court's approval of an injunction sought by the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordering Starbucks to reinstate the workers while the agency's in-house administrative case against the Seattle-based company proceeds.

The justices ruled that lower courts had used an improper legal standard - one that Starbucks argued was too lenient - to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the agency under a federal law called the National Labor Relations Act.

Such orders are intended as an interim tool to halt unfair labor practices while the NLRB resolves unfair labor complaints. Under that law's section 10(j), a court may grant an injunction if it is deemed "just and proper."

Starbucks had argued that the judge who granted the injunction should have used a stringent four-factor test in deciding to issue that order, similar to the standard used by some other courts and in non-labor legal disputes. This test includes an assessment of whether the side seeking relief would suffer irreparable harm and is likely to succeed on the merits of the case.

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas authored Thursday's ruling in which the justices unanimously agreed to return the case to the lower court to apply the four-factor test. Liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, in a partial dissent, broke with the other justices on how the lower court should apply part of that test.

Starbucks has contended that under a stricter standard, the case would have come out differently in the lower courts.

President Joe Biden's administration had defended the NLRB's actions in the case. During Supreme Court arguments in the case in April, a Justice Department lawyer said the NLRB seeks injunctions like the one issued against Starbucks in very few "cream of the crop" cases, last year requesting just seven even though it receives 20,000 unfair labor charges annually.

About 400 Starbucks locations in the United States have unionized, involving more than 10,000 employees. Both sides at times have accused the other of unlawful or improper conduct.

Hundreds of complaints have been filed with the NLRB accusing Starbucks of unlawful labor practices such as firing union supporters, spying on workers and closing stores during labor campaigns. Starbucks has denied wrongdoing and said it respects the right of workers to choose whether to unionize.

Both sides in February announced they had agreed to create a "framework" to guide organizing and collective bargaining and potentially settle scores of pending legal disputes.

Starbucks after the ruling reiterated its goal of reaching contracts with union-represented stores this year.

"Consistent federal standards are important in ensuring that employees know their rights and consistent labor practices are upheld no matter where in the country they work and live," the company said in a statement.

In 2022, workers at a Starbucks cafe on Poplar Avenue in Memphis became among the first in the company to unionize. Early in their efforts, they allowed a television news crew into the cafe after hours to talk about the union campaign. Starbucks fired seven workers present that evening, including several who belonged to the union organizing committee.

Despite the dismissals, employees there subsequently voted to join the Workers United union.

The union filed unfair labor charges with the NLRB over the firings and other discipline by managers. The NLRB sought an injunction, accusing Starbucks of unlawfully firing the workers for supporting the union drive and to send a message to other workers.

Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, criticized the Supreme Court's ruling.

"Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law," Fox said. "That makes (Thursday's) ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious. It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court."

U.S. District Judge Sheryl Lipman granted the injunction in 2022, reinstating the workers in order to address the "chilling effect" of the dismissals on the unionization effort while the NLRB resolves the case. The Cincinnati, Ohio-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction in 2023.

(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and John Kruzel in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)



Opinion

Who Will Protect Starbucks if Not the Supreme Court?
Talia Jane
Thu, June 13, 2024 at 11:43 AM MDT·3 min read
2



In a major blow to dastardly labor rights that cruelly curtail righteous corporate greed, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks on Thursday. The ruling comes amid an ongoing battle between the heroic $25 billion corporation and the evil National Labor Relations Board’s order to rehire the “Memphis Seven,” a group of working class Starbucks employees who had the audacity to organize a union to support workers’ rights. The seven low wage workers were terminated by the java giant, prompting the NLRB to step in.


The case before the Supreme Court was brought by Starbucks seeking to overturn a lower court ruling that affirmed the NLRB’s order for Starbucks to rehire the Memphis Seven, and which issued an injunction against Starbucks for attempting to fight that rehiring. The Supreme Court’s ruling Thursday establishes a new precedent limiting the extent labor organizers and the NLRB can use the courts to enforce their rulings against companies that violate labor law or who unlawfully terminate workers in an effort to union-bust.

The NLRB successfully ordered Starbucks to rehire the “Memphis Seven” in September 2022. The NLRB alleged unfair labor practices for the firings, while Starbucks claimed the seven had engaged in “significant violations” of company policy: Starbucks claimed workers stayed in the store past closing time and allowed interviews by local media. Starbucks took its appeal to federal court and lost in August 2023 before appealing to the Supreme Court.

In response to the ruling, the Memphis Seven wrote, “It is a shame to see the lengths Starbucks is willing to go to destroy their image.” Starbucks Workers United, which represents unionized Starbucks employees, issued a statement on the ruling, calling it “particularly egregious” in light of how curtailed labor protections have become over the years.


SB Workers United statement Twitter screenshot: “Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law. That makes today’s ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious. It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court. “Starbucks should have dropped this case the day it committed to chart a new path forward with its workers, instead of aligning itself with other giant corporations intent on stifling worker organizing. It’s incongruous to want to build a productive, positive relationship with workers and at the same time lead an attack on one of the few mechanisms they have to defend themselves against unscrupulous employers. “Regardless of large corporations’ machinations at the Supreme Court, workers are continuing to organize. Just last week, workers at 20 Starbucks stores filed petitions to join Starbucks Workers United. And there are nearly 450 union Starbucks stores across the country. Workers’ momentum is unstoppable and they will not let the Supreme Court down."More

Unionized Starbucks workers and those seeking to unionize have frequently alleged union-busting efforts by the coffee giant, including unlawfully reducing or changing worker-organizers’ schedules or closing locations in retaliation for successful organizing drives. Starbucks has received at least 446 unfair labor practice charges in the past year alone. The Strategic Organizing Center estimates Starbucks has spent $153 million on “anti-union activity,” and is liable for $87 million in denied wages, illegal firings, and store closings.

On Thursday, all nine Supreme Court justices either wholly or partially ruled in favor of Starbucks on the basis of impropriety for courts to intervene on matters that can be—and in this case were—resolved by the National Labor Relations Board. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority decision and pointed to “traditional rules” of courts not stepping in, with liberal justice Ketanji Brown Jackson partially concurring. “I am loath to bless this aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts, and where it so clearly intends for the expert agency it has created to make the primary determinations about both merits and process,” wrote Jackson. The ruling effectively neutralizes the NLRB’s ability to use the court system to enforce its rulings against combative companies, marking the loss of one of the few tools left to combat intensified corporate union-busting.

This article has been updated.

Supreme Court rules for Starbucks in union case over terminated employees

Zach Schonfeld
Thu, June 13, 2024 


The Supreme Court on Thursday tossed a lower court’s ruling ordering Starbucks to reinstate seven Memphis-based employees terminated amid a unionization drive.

The decision makes it more difficult to immediately block alleged unfair labor practices as they are litigated in a sometimes years-long administrative process. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the majority opinion on behalf of eight justices, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson partially dissented.

The case arose from the “Memphis Seven,” seven Starbucks employees who were terminated from the coffee giant in 2022 during a unionization effort. They had publicly posted a letter addressed to the company’s CEO and sat down in the store with a television news crew to discuss the organizing efforts.


Starbucks said it lawfully terminated the employees for breaking the company’s policies the day of the television interview, including by going behind the counter while off-duty and unlocking a door to allow an unauthorized person to enter the store.

Lower courts had split on the standard for when to issue the so-called “10(j) injunctions,” which can force companies to reinstate employees, keep facilities open and pause corporate policy changes as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) processes complaints against them.

The Supreme Court’s ruling rejects a more lenient test leveraged when requiring Starbucks to reinstate the seven employees, instead demanding courts use a more stringent, four-factor test applied in other contexts.

“Nothing in §10(j) displaces the presumption that those traditional principles govern,” Thomas wrote in his majority opinion. “We therefore conclude that district courts must use the traditional four-part test when evaluating the Board’s request for a preliminary injunction under §10(j).”

The NLRB only seeks the temporary injunctions in a handful of cases each year, but the ruling now raises the bar for the burden that must be cleared when going to court to seek such an order.

Jackson agreed the lower ruling should be wiped but dissented in part and said the majority was “ignoring the choices Congress has made” when establishing the NLRB.

“I am loath to bless this aggrandizement of judicial power where Congress has so plainly limited the discretion of the courts, and where it so clearly intends for the expert agency it has created to make the primary determinations about both merits and process,” Jackson wrote.

In a statement, the Starbucks union called the Supreme Court’s ruling “egregious.”

“Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law. That makes today’s ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious. It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court,” said Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, which represents unionized Starbucks workers at hundreds of stores.

The NLRB declined to comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling, but in April, its general counsel said the differences between the tests “are terminology, not substantive” and that the board has been successful using either.

Starbucks said in a statement it would continue to work toward reaching a ratified contract amid the ruling.

“Partners are the core of our business, and we are committed to providing everyone who wears the green apron a bridge to a better future,” Starbucks said in a statement. “We will continue to focus making progress toward our goal of reaching ratified contracts for represented stores this year. Consistent federal standards are important in ensuring that employees know their rights and consistent labor practices are upheld no matter where in the country they work and live.”

Supreme Court sides with Starbucks in case over fired union organizers — and other labor news

Max Nesterak
Fri, June 14, 2024 



A Starbucks store at 5351 Lyndale Ave. in Minneapolis. Photo by Max Nesterak/Minnesota Reformer.

Take a seat in the Break Room, our weekly round-up of labor news in Minnesota and beyond. This week: Supreme Court sides with Starbucks; nursing home workers call off strike; problems with the frontline worker pay program; where the Windom workers are now; the loudest union critic of the Twin Cities; and workers at Kim’s to vote on unionizing.
Supreme Court sides with Starbucks

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Starbucks in its challenge to a federal judge’s order to reinstate seven fired union activists at a Tennessee store.

The ruling means the federal government must meet a higher standard to win timely relief for workers while challenging alleged labor violations, making it harder for President Biden’s assertive National Labor Relations Board to use one of the most powerful tools it has to protect workers’ right to organize.

While the opinion was a loss for the NLRB, it doesn’t pose an existential threat to the agency like the arguments made by SpaceX, Trader Joe’s and Amazon in other active cases: that the board itself is unconstitutional.

The Starbucks case arose after the coffee giant fired seven workers in 2022 for allowing a TV crew in a Memphis store after hours for a news story about their union campaign. The NLRB alleged the firings were illegal retaliation and interfered with workers’ right to organize a union, while Starbucks said the workers violated company policy. The agency asked a judge for a preliminary injunction to reinstate the workers while the case over the firings worked its way through the NLRB’s administrative proceedings, which can sometimes take years.

A federal judge sided with the NLRB, ordering Starbucks to reinstate the workers, and an appeals court upheld the order.

But the Supreme Court decided that the standard used to award that injunctive relief on the side of workers was too lenient, and that the NLRB must meet the four-part standard used broadly in other cases: that a plaintiff “is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

Eight justices signed onto Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson concurred overall but dissented on some points.

Starbucks applauded the ruling, writing in a statement, “Consistent federal standards are important in ensuring that employees know their rights and consistent labor practices are upheld no matter where in the country they work and live.”

Starbucks Workers United, which has organized more than 400 stores including nine in Minnesota, lamented the decision and said Starbucks should have dropped the case.

“Working people have so few tools to protect and defend themselves when their employers break the law. That makes today’s ruling by the Supreme Court particularly egregious,” Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, said in a statement. “It underscores how the economy is rigged against working people all the way up to the Supreme Court.”

Starbucks began negotiating with unionized workers on a framework for a first labor contract earlier this year, more than two years after workers unionized a Buffalo store in 2021 and after racking up more than 100 complaints from regional NLRB offices alleging unfair labor practices.
Nursing home workers call off strike

The union representing nearly 200 nursing home workers at Saint Therese in New Hope called off a five-day strike set to begin on Saturday after reaching a tentative deal that locks in $5 per hour raises workers received during the pandemic.

“We are proud that because we stuck together and were willing to strike, we won this tentative agreement,” Kpana Farwenel, a certified nursing assistant and member of the SEIU bargaining team, said in a statement.

The deal brings the average wage floor to $20, with senior certified nursing assistants making up to $25 in base pay. That’s among the highest in the Twin Cities metro, according to SEIU Healthcare Minnesota & Iowa, which represents the workers.

Workers at Saint Therese, along with hundreds of workers at 11 other nursing homes in the Twin Cities, walked off the job for 24 hours in March in the largest nursing home strike in recent state history. Since then, the 11 other facilities settled contracts with the two unions representing the workers, SEIU and UFCW.

Saint Therese announced last week it would sell the nursing home to Compass by Aug. 1, prompting the union to call foul since their contract requires at least 90 days notice of a sale.

In a statement, Saint Therese CEO Craig Abbott said he was pleased to come to a resolution that provides “comfort and assurances for our valued staff” during the ownership transition.

All nursing home workers — union and non-union — are on track to receive raises starting in 2026 as part of the first rules approved by Minnesota’s new labor standards board for nursing home workers. The board approved minimum wages, which must still clear some bureaucratic hurdles, of $23.49 per hour on average by 2027.
Frontline worker pay problems

Just 60% of the more than 1 million people who received $487.45 for working frontline jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Minnesota clearly deserved the bonuses, according to a state audit released on Tuesday.

The Office of the Legislative Auditor estimates 9% of recipients were not eligible for the payments, while for the rest, the auditors couldn’t independently verify they were eligible nurses, first responders, prison guards, sales clerks, janitors and other workers who couldn’t stay home during the pandemic.

The report faulted the Department of Labor and Industry, which oversaw the program, and the Department of Revenue for not adequately investigating clearly fraudulent applications. The auditors also criticized lawmakers for how they wrote the law, which included requirements that relied on workers to tell the truth and couldn’t be easily verified, like working in person and in close proximity to others.

“Remember, this program was set-up as a zero-sum game with a fixed amount of state funding — $500 million — to be divided equally among all eligible applicants,” Legislative Auditor Judy Randall told the Legislative Audit Commission on Tuesday. “The more applicants who were approved, the less each applicant received.”

DLI Commissioner Nicole Blissenbach pushed back forcefully on the findings, saying they were more of an indictment of legislators than her agency’s staff. She said in a statement that her agency prevented more than $36 million in payments to tens of thousands of applications deemed fraudulent or ineligible.

“The overarching theme of the findings is that the issue is with the program itself, not how it was implemented,” Blissenbach told the Legislative Audit Commission on Tuesday.
What happened to the Windom workers


The Star Tribune’s Christopher Vondracek and Elizabeth Flores traveled to the small city in central Mexico where many guest workers returned after the HyLife slaughterhouse in Windom shuttered and laid off all its 1,007 employees.

In a series of stories, Vondracek details how one plant’s closure upended workers’ dreams and sent them scrambling to find work across the United States or returning to a home with fewer economic opportunities and rampant cartel violence.

HyLife recruited workers from Salvatierra to work in its meatpacking plant on H-2B visas, promising over two years of work that paid six times as much as they could earn in Mexico. The work was grueling but hundreds of workers took the opportunity, with plans to build a home, send kids to college and support relatives.

After the plant announced its bankruptcy, government officials tried to find other opportunities for workers. Some ended up at processing plants in Michigan, oil fields in Texas and a dairy farm in Iowa.

The state Department of Labor and Industry is investigating HyLife, alleging the company stole wages from hundreds of visa workers.
Minneapolis and St. Paul’s loudest union leader critic

The Pioneer Press profiled Jason George, head of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 and outspoken critic of the left-wing elected leaders in St. Paul and Minneapolis. George says the Twin Cities are increasingly run by “a government of paid activists, career political types.”

Trade unions like IUOE, which represents construction mechanics and heavy equipment operators, are predictably among the most conservative labor unions. Their focus is generally on increasing government infrastructure spending to fund high-paying construction jobs, rather than expanding regulations and social safety net programs like public health insurance.

For example, IUOE Local 49 and the carpenters’ union, the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters, were staunchly opposed to St. Paul’s rent control ordinance, warning that the policy would stymie construction amid a housing shortage.

“We build things,” said George, in an interview with the Pioneer Press. “That’s what my union does. We knew rent control would have a devastating effect on the city.”

The two unions were part of a campaign last year called “Service St. Paul” to elect city leaders focused on basic services: police, fire, housing and roads. None of their endorsed candidates won, Pioneer Press’s Frederick Melo notes, in what was the latest in a string of political defeats.
Workers at Kim’s restaurant will vote on unionizing

The union campaign at chef Ann Kim’s Uptown Minneapolis restaurant Kim’s is headed to a vote by some 60 workers later this month. Workers, who are organizing with Unite Here Local 17, notified management of their intent to unionize last month and asked Kim to voluntarily recognize their union, the Star Tribune reported.

Kim declined, writing on Instagram, “I wholeheartedly believe we can come together as a Kim’s team without a union.”

Minneapolis Council Member Katie Cashman privately pressured Kim to voluntarily recognize the union in a voicemail, Axios reported.

The post Supreme Court sides with Starbucks in case over fired union organizers — and other labor news appeared first on Minnesota Reformer.

Being facially expressive may make you a better negotiator – research

Nilima Marshall, PA Science Reporter
Thu, 13 June 2024 



A poker face may be seen as a useful tool to have in negotiations, but in some cases, it could also lose you the game.

Researchers at Nottingham Trent University (NTU) found that being pleasant and facially expressive may also make someone a better negotiator.

The results, published in the journal Scientific Reports, are based on an analysis of more than 1,500 conversations focusing on muscle movements in the face, such as smiles, eyebrow raises, nose wrinkles and lip corner pulls.


The team led by Bridget Waller, professor of evolution and social behaviour at NTU’s Department of Psychology, also found facially expressive people were seen as more likeable and socially successful.

She said this research could explain why humans have more complex facial expressions than any other species.

Prof Waller said: “Our comparisons between humans and other primates show that humans produce more facial movement on the whole and have more expressive faces.

“Our research shows that being expressive makes you more likeable, which might make it easier to live in social groups, which is a clear evolutionary advantage.”

In the first part of the study, the researchers showed recorded clips of conversations to more than 170 people and asked them to rate how “readable” (in terms of emotions and expressions) and likeable the subjects were in the videos.

The team then conducted a follow-up analysis of unscripted Zoom chats between 1,456 strangers, where conversation partners rated how much they liked each other.

The researchers found that, on average, people produced 71 individual facial movements per minute during these social interactions.

Expressive people were found to be more liked both by independent raters and by their conversation partner.

The scientists also set up a conflict scenario where people were offered a bad deal.

Prof Waller said: “We asked the participant to decide how to split a monetary reward between themselves and the experimenter – who was masquerading as a participant.

“Our experimenter offered an unfair split – taking 80% of the reward.

“We measured how well they negotiated down from this, and what they eventually agreed to.

“Roughly half our participants agreed to taking less than 50% (poor negotiation) and the other half split the reward equally (good negotiation).”

Those who were both agreeable and expressive in their negotiations were found to achieve a better outcome.

Dr Eithne Kavanagh, research fellow and lead author on the study at NTU’s School of Social Sciences, said: “This is the first large-scale study to examine facial expression in real-world interactions.

“It suggests that more expressive people are more successful at attracting social partners and in building relationships.

“It also could be important in conflict resolution.”

Prof Waller said that facial expressions are mainly used for social communication, although they are often associated with emotions.

She said: “We do not think there is much evidence that facial expressions signal emotion and instead think of them as conversational or interactive cues.”

The work is part of a project known as Facediff (Individual differences in facial expressivity: Social function, facial anatomy and evolutionary origin), which is funded by the European Research Council.

French elections: who are the key players and what is at stake?

Jon Henley Europe correspondent
Thu, 13 June 2024 


Jordan Bardella, president of the far-right National Rally. Some observers predict the party could almost treble its deputies in the French parliament after the summer elections.Photograph: Sarah Meyssonnier/Reuters


France’s snap legislative election is one of the most consequential in decades for both the country and the rest of Europe, potentially propelling the far-right National Rally (RN) to a parliamentary majority and therefore into government.

The two-round election will take place on 30 June and 7 July. How will it work, what are the stakes and what is the result likely to be?
What’s the story and why does it matter?

Taking almost everyone, including most of his party, by surprise, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, called snap legislative elections in the aftermath of his centrist Renaissance party’s crushing defeat by RN, the party of Marine Le Pen, in the European parliamentary elections.

No French president has ever dissolved parliament with his party at barely 15% in the polls, and it seems very likely that RN, which Le Pen has spent years detoxifying and which scored more than 31% in the EU ballot, will boost its tally of deputies.

If RN does well enough to hold an absolute majority in the national assembly, the consequences could be dramatic: Macron would have to nominate an RN prime minister and most of French domestic policy would be run by the far-right party.
How do the elections work?

Parliamentary elections in France are normally held every five years; the next ones were due in 2027, a month or so after the next presidential elections, in which Macron, having served two terms, would not be able to stand.

The 577 deputies (or MPs) in the assembly are elected by universal suffrage using a two-round simple majority system. To win in the first round, a candidate must get more than 50% of ballots cast and the support of at least 25% of registered voters (so turnout matters).

If no candidate achieves that, the two highest scorers plus any other candidate who collected at least 12.5% of total registered voters, advance to a second round of voting seven days later. In that round, the candidate who obtains the most votes is elected.

A handful of MPs are usually elected in the first round. The vast majority of second-round contests are two-candidate races, but depending on turnout, some can involve three or even four candidates, leaving some scope for tactical agreements between parties to withdraw.

The system was designed to make it harder for candidates from parties on the extremes of the political spectrum to be elected. However, the increasing mainstreaming of RN over the past two decades has ensured the current parliament includes 88 RN deputies. (To get an outright majority they would need 290 deputies.)
What are the roles of parliament, government and president?

Under the French constitution, the government “determines and conducts the policy of the nation”, parliament passes laws and can overturn the government, and the head of state is supposedly an arbiter ensuring the “regular functioning of public powers”.

The president, as guarantor of “national independence, territorial integrity and respect for treaties” is in charge of foreign, European and defence policy, while the government – with the backing, or not, of parliament – runs domestic policy.

That means pensions, unemployment benefit, education, tax, immigration and nationality requirements, public employment, law and order, employment legislation all fall, in principle, under parliament’s and the government’s remit.

By convention, and because they do not want to see their government overturned by a no confidence vote or a motion of censure by parliament, presidents invariably appoint a prime minister and cabinet that will have majority support in the lower house.

When president and parliamentary majority are politically aligned, this arrangement functions relatively smoothly. When they are not (known as cohabitation) things are harder. It is difficult to conceive of a stormier cohabitation than Macron and an RN majority.
Who are the contenders and what are their chances?

Macron’s Renaissance group is the largest in parliament with just over 170 MPs. It has a centrist, pro-European, pro-business platform, but its popular support, along with that of the president, has slumped after a string of unpopular reforms. It is polling at 19%.

RN, the biggest single opposition party, has been disciplined since winning the 2022 elections but for all its normalisation remains at core a populist, nationalist, far-right party with plans for a “national preference” for French citizens and billions in unfunded spending. It is polling at 33%.

Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) is a putative left-green alliance between Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s hard-left France Unbowed (LFI), the Socialists (PS), Communists and Greens (EELV). They do not always see eye to eye but have agreed to field one candidate between them in every constituency. If it can keep its act together, polls suggest it could score up to 30%.

Les Républicains (LR), the centre-right party of Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy, has 68 MPs but is in meltdown after a pledge by its chairman, Éric Ciotti, to form an electoral pact with RN (the parties would either field joint candidates or agree not to stand against one another). Most of the rest of the party strongly disagrees. Polling is at 7%.
What might the outcome be?

The two-round electoral process makes it hard to confidently estimate seat numbers, but experts predict RN could almost treble its tally of deputies, though most likely fall short of an outright majority, while Renaissance’s total could halve.

Such a result would leave Macron facing three years of an even more fractured and hostile parliament, having to cut difficult deals with opposition parties to form a government and pass laws, leading to almost certain legislative deadlock.

That would create big problems for France but might be less damaging than an outright RN majority. An RN-controlled parliament, most likely with the 28-year-old party president, Jordan Bardella, as prime minister, would aim to push through its domestic agenda.

That could include raising public spending, expelling more migrants, halting family reunification, reversing a planned gas price rise, and privatising public TV and radio. Some other plans, including “national preference”, could run into constitutional obstacles.

The ramifications would be European. Although the president would nominally retain control over foreign policy, measures such as aid to Ukraine could be jeopardised because parliament’s backing would be needed to finance any suport as part of France’s budget



French Film and TV Business Braces for Fallout as Possibility of Far-Right Wins Loom in Upcoming Elections
Elsa Keslassy
Fri, 14 June 2024 at 1:11 pm GMT-6·5-min read




The historic gains of the French far-right party Rassemblement National (National Rally, or RN) during the European elections on June 9 and French President Emmanuel Macron’s shock decision to dissolve the National Assembly have not only propelled the country’s film and TV industry into a state of panic but are causing ripples across the economy.

Boasting the second-biggest economy in Europe, France saw its stock exchange take a hit this week amid talks that Marine Le Pen’s far-right party had a solid chance of performing strongly in the parliamentary elections set for June 30 and July 7. The three biggest banks in France, BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole and Societe Generale, have lost between 12-16% in value this week, according to Reuters.

More from Variety

France's Far-Right Party Gains Historic Ground in European Vote; Prompts French President Emmanuel Macron to Call Early Parliamentary Elections


With France on Highest Alert, Olympics Organizers Plan Opening Ceremony Along Seine Under Unprecedented Security Protocol


France's First Lady Brigitte Macron to Be Subject of Biopic Series From Gaumont

In addition to bank stocks that have slumped, concerns about the country’s political crisis have also driven the biggest weekly jump in investor demand for government bonds since 2011, amid the euro debt crisis, per Reuters. The CAC 40 equity index in Paris also dropped by 2.4%.

The prospects of seeing Macron lose control of the National Assembly and government has had a domino effect on the country’s economic standing. Speaking on the local radio Franceinfo on Friday, finance minister Bruno Le Maire raised the possibility of a new debt crisis in case the Rassemblement National wins the parliamentary elections, drawing hypothetical comparisons with the aftermath of Liz Truss, the former U.K. prime minister whose short 44 day term in office caused a spike in the cost of government bonds in 2022.

While Macron’s pro-business and pro-Europe agenda had reassured investors since he took office in 2017, the Rassemblement National is having the opposite effect. Some of party’s suggested measures include a cut in sales taxes and lowering the retirement age, while its stance on Europe remains blurry.

Francois Godard, senior media analyst at Enders and author of the recently published book “Germany, France and Postwar Democratic Capitalism: Expert Rule,” says France’s standing with international financiers is crucial to the local economy because the “country is Europe’s primary destination for foreign direct investments.” Addressing potential consequences on the French media industry and ongoing consolidation, Godard said “if foreign financiers start deserting, it will put French companies in a difficult situation to borrow money because interest rates will inevitably go up.” France is home of some of Europe’s biggest media groups, including Vivendi, Banijay and Mediawan.

Discussing the potential impact of a far right win on the film and TV industry, insiders say the nationalistic party would certainly attempt to privatize public broadcasting services, including France Televisions. But unlike in Italy, where the country’s far right prime minister Giorgia Meloni gained control of the local broadcaster Rai last year without much of a fight, the Rassemblement National would face tremendous backlash in France where the industry is predominantly aligned with the left and center. “In France, we have a strong culture of public broadcasters, we have celebrated its independence for a very long time, and we have a very active watchdog body Arcom, which wouldn’t allow a government to take it over,” Godard says.

French film and TV producers are already sounding the alarm over the risks of having far right leaders governing the country for the first time since WWII. Xavier Gens, the director of Netflix’s hit shark movie “Under Paris,” says it would be a “catastrophe in general, and a disaster for French cinema.”

Gens argues the far right would dismantle the country’s unique system which allows freelance workers in theater, other live entertainment and movies and TV to receive unemployment benefits.

“What makes French cinema and culture special is our cultural policies that have always preserved auteurs. If we strip down these benefits for freelance workers and privatize public broadcasters we will kill our industry,” said the director, whose credits include “Mayhem!” and “Hitman.” “Our cinema shines everywhere in the world, at festivals and overseas, with films that are vibrant and diverse. If the Rassemblement Nation takes power, it’s the end of everything,” he continued.

In line with other far right parties across Europe, the French far right party, once called Front National, has widened its appeal in recent years after rebranding itself in 2018. Although it’s now marketing itself as a milder, socially engaged and nationalistic party, it’s still driven by a xenophobic ideology.

French producer Daniel Ziskind, who co-produces many movies from the Arab world, such as
Ahmed Yassin Aldaradji’s Venice premiering “Janain mualaqa,” shares Gens’ concerns and fears “an impact on the financing and visibility of world cinema in France.” He says the privatization of French broadcaster France Televisions would also deliver a blow to local and European film biz because it’s a major source of pre-financing for movies.

The snap parliamentary elections will take place in two rounds less than a month before the start of the Olympic Games in Paris. If the Rassemblement National dominates these elections, Macron will have to govern with a prime minister belonging to the far right party until his term ends in 2027. In case of that the outcome, Jordan Bardella, the 28-year-old lead candidate who won the European elections by a landslide with 31.5% of votes, has already been tipped as a potential presidential candidate.