CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY 

'We Need to Take Away Children': Startling Details from Internal Report on Family Separation Under Trump

Diane Herbst 


Trump administration officials have denied that they systematically carried out a policy of separating migrant children — including infants and toddlers — from their parents or adult family members who had arrived at the southern border to enter the country illegally.

© Provided by People John Moore/Getty

But a draft of a forthcoming report by the Justice Department's internal watchdog, obtained by The New York Times and NBC News, indicates they were not telling the truth.

In May 2018, public outcry immediately began to grow over President Donald Trump's newly announced "zero tolerance" policy of seeking federal prosecutions for all migrants who illegally cross into the U.S., which is a misdemeanor, rather than seeking immigration proceedings against them.© John Moore/Getty “Don’t bring them in," one prosecutor wrote in a note. "Won’t give amnesty to people with kids”

Around the same time, five federal prosecutors stated they were "deeply concerned" about the practice of family separation and tried to push back against the order, reports the Times, citing the draft from the Justice Department's inspector general.

Then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions conveyed a message to the prosecutors from Trump: "We need to take away children," Sessions said, according the draft of the report as described by the Times.

The paper further reports that one prosecutor scribbled this note: “If care about kids, don’t bring them in. Won’t give amnesty to people with kids.”

A week later, according to the Times, Rod Rosenstein, then the deputy attorney general, had a call with the same prosecutors in which he "went even further in a second call about a week later, telling the five prosecutors that it did not matter how young the children were. He said government lawyers should not have refused to prosecute the two cases simply because the children were barely more than infants."

NBC News reported that, according to the draft report, a federal prosecutor told his colleagues at one point that Rosenstein also said "per the [attorney general's] policy, should NOT be categorically declining immigration prosecutions of adults in family units because of the age of a child."

By that June, some medical experts were calling the separations "child abuse" while the United Nations declared the practice was illegal, violating the children's human rights.

At the time, federal government officials publicly denied they actively separated families.

On June 17, 2018, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who has largely borne the blame for the policy, falsely tweeted: “We do not have a policy of separating families at the border. Period.”

The draft of the watchdog report not only refutes this, it undercuts Sessions' previous public comments that the Justice Department was not so directly involved in the separation policy and was more focused on prosecutions.

Rather, the inspector general found that Justice officials "were aware that full implementation of the zero-tolerance policy would result in criminal referrals by [the Department of Homeland Security] of adults who enter the country illegally with children and that the prosecution of these family-unit adults would result in children being separated from families," according to the Times.

The paper reports that various government officials viewed the separation policy as a successful deterrent of the migrants Trump had campaigned against stopping.

© Provided by People Win McNamee/Getty Jeff Sessions (left) and Rod Rosenstein


The policy, in place until a federal judge ordered the end of the practice on June 26, 2018, resulted in the separation of more than 4,200 children since 2017, according to the ACLU, which has filed lawsuits to stop family separations.

The youngest child was 4 months old, according to the Times.

The inspector general's draft report described the Justice Department as having a "single-minded focus on increasing prosecutions" which "came at the expense of careful and effective implementation of the policy, especially with regard to prosecution of family-unit adults and the resulting child separations," according to the Times.

A Justice Department spokeswoman told the Times that the draft it reported on "contains numerous factual errors and inaccuracies."

The spokeswoman also seemed to shift scrutiny back to border officials under Homeland Security: "While D.O.J. is responsible for the prosecutions of defendants, it had no role in tracking or providing custodial care to the children of defendants. Finally, both the timing and misleading content of this leak raise troubling questions about the motivations of those responsible for it.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from PEOPLE.

Sessions declined to speak with the inspector general, though Rosenstein did, according to the Times. In a statement to the paper, Rosenstein insisted that he had "never ordered anyone to prosecute a case.”

“If any United States attorney ever charged a defendant they did not personally believe warranted prosecution, they violated their oath of office,” he said.

According to the Times, the timeline for the watchdog report's release is unclear and it "could change," though the inspector general "had been preparing to release his report since late summer."

President Trump, who campaigned on limiting both legal and illegal immigration, made the border prosecutions and resulting separations a key and widely controversial part of fulfilling that promise — drawing international backlash.

The 86-page draft report contains other revelations.

One government prosecutor, according to the Times, wrote to his supervisors of a pilot program at the border in 2017, predating the more official family separations: “We have now heard of us taking breastfeeding defendant moms away from their infants. I did not believe this until I looked at the duty log.”

Additionally the Times reported that, according to the draft report, a Texas prosecutor told Justice Department officials in 2018 that due to the focus on detaining and prosecuting migrants, Border Patrol missed more serious criminal cases and "sex offenders were released" as a result.

No jet orders, more 737 MAX cancellations for Boeing as crises drag on

DON'T CRY FOR BOEING THEY ARE ROLLING IN DEFENSE DEPARTMENT WARBUCKS

By Eric M. Johnson 

© Reuters/LINDSEY WASSON FILE PHOTO: 

A Boeing 737 MAX aircraft lands during an evaluation flight in Seattle

(Reuters) - Boeing Co lost another three orders for its grounded 737 MAX jetliner in September, and delivered 11 total aircraft to customers, less than half the number from the same month a year ago, company data showed on Tuesday.

The closely watched monthly snapshot also shows that quality flaws on the 787 Dreamliner continue to hamper efforts to develop an alternative cash cow to the 737 MAX, grounded after two fatal crashes in 2018 and 2019.As Boeing works to win regulatory approval, potentially early next month, to fly the 737 MAX again in the United States, the coronavirus pandemic continues to hurt demand for jets from both Boeing and European rival Airbus .

Boeing said it lost orders for two 737 MAX jets from leasing company BOC Aviation and another jet from an unidentified customer in September.

For 2020 through September, the number of MAX orders canceled, or removed from Boeing's official backlog when it applies stricter accounting standards, stood at 1,006 aircraft.

Canceled MAX orders, including those where buyers converted one type of jet to a different model, was 436 jets - and 448 for all jets across Boeing's portfolio, Boeing said.

On the delivery side, Boeing handed to airline customers 10 twin-aisle jets in September, down from 25 a year earlier and 12 in August.

That brings total deliveries to 98 for the first nine months of 2020, down from 301 aircraft for the same period a year ago.

Deliveries are a closely watched metric for investors since airlines hand over the bulk of the money for an order when they pick up their planes at Boeing.The September delivery tally included one P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, and three freighters: one 747 to United Parcel Service , one 767 to FedEx Corp and one 777 to Lufthansa Cargo, Boeing said. It also included seven 787 Dreamliner jets: one for leasing company AerCap Holdings , three for United Airlines , two for Turkish Airlines and one 787-10 to Taiwan's EVA Air, the planemaker said. Boeing will face largest inventory of built new aircraft in its 104-year history, as "the number of cancellations is increasing literally by every week," Air Lease Corp Executive Chairman Steven Udvar-Házy said on an Aviation Week podcast on Tuesday.

"Boeing has to make some tough decisions by the end of the year on how to deal with this," Udvar-Házy said.

(Reporting by Eric M. Johnson in Seattle; Additional reporting by Allison Lampert in Montreal and Tracy Rucinski in Chicago; Editing by Matthew Lewis and David Gregorio)

 TRANSITIONING FROM CAPITALISM TO SOCIALISM

Why companies need to make sustainability a priority and treat it like the next stage of digital transformation

insider@insider.com (Junta Nakai, Databricks)


Why companies need to make sustainability a priority and treat it like the next stage of digital transformation

© Junta Nakai Junta Nakai is the global industry leader for financial services at Databricks

Junta Nakai is the global industry leader for financial services at Databricks, a big data and AI company valued at $6.2 billion.

In this op-ed, Nakai details the benefits of companies undergoing a sustainable transformation that will allow for a more future-proof business model to be built. 

Digital transformation has become a major focus for CEOs over the last decade. Defined as the adoption of technology to replace manual processes, digital transformation promised to fundamentally change how businesses delivered value to customers.

But for years, digital transformation was more hype than reality, and the vast majority of companies failed to successfully 'transform' their businesses. As recently as October 2018, a McKinsey study found less than 30% of companies had succeeded in digitally transforming their businesses.

One good thing about 2020 is that this year is shaping up to be a transformative one for digital transformation. The pandemic and the resulting economic volatility has accelerated the adoption of the various technologies that are foundational to driving transformation, especially with respect to cloud adoption.

At the beginning of 2020, a KPMG study found 67% of CEOs expressed concern about migrating all of their business to the cloud. Now, that hesitation has nearly vanished. Changing consumer behaviors, work from home, and volatile economic conditions necessitate a new generation of digital solutions for customers and employees alike.

While digital transformation finally seems to be transitioning from buzzword to reality for many corporations today, CEOs must start preparing for the next big transformation on the horizon — a kind of transformation that may require an even more fundamental reorganization and rethinking of what it means to be a business: sustainable transformation.
Stakeholder capitalism

Sustainable transformation goes hand in hand with stakeholder capitalism, an idea that has gone from fringe to mainstream over the last few years, with prominent supporters such as Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce.

Stakeholder capitalism is the idea that companies should serve the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders. While simple in principle, it is quite a departure from the kind of capitalism that has prevailed in the post-war era. Stakeholder capitalism at its core is about sustainability.

The long-term viability of a corporation depends not just on maximizing profits for shareholders, but making sure the interests of consumers, employees, and the environment are maximized as well.

While results so far have been mixed, proponents believe stakeholder capitalism is good business. They believe companies can generate sustainable profits while simultaneously practicing a 'kinder form of capitalism' and avoiding risks that may pose existential threats to their businesses.

For example, consider a mining company harvesting materials underground on an island. If the company solely focuses on maximizing short-term profits by digging in the most efficient manner possible, they will soon run out of minerals to extract.

After the last ton of earth is extracted, there is no more source of profits. The land is bare. The negative externalities of the digging are severe for inhabitants and for the environment. So after maximizing short-term profits, there is no more business for the mining company and all stakeholders are worse off.

Stakeholder capitalism is about thinking about the broader constituents of a corporation, not just its equity shareholders, in making decisions. The idea is that by taking a wider range of stakeholders into consideration, companies become more viable over the long run.

It impacts duration as companies plan for the next quarter century, not just the next quarter. It impacts actions, as companies think through second and third derivative consequences of their activities.

Going back to the mining example, without digging sustainably, the company will run out of fertile mines or productive miners. Without considering the environment, residents and employees alike will be left with an uninhabitable land. Without engaging community groups, archaeologically significant sites may be accidentally destroyed and elicit negative feedback from customers, regulators, and the media.

Beyond the negative headlines, doing such a thing will likely have long-term impacts on operations as mining businesses are fundamentally dependent on local government licenses. While destroying historically important sites for profit may seem extreme, it isn't. A mining company was recently accused of doing just that after failing to engage all stakeholders. The CEO resigned as a result.
Digital transformation is a necessary condition for sustainable transformation

If you distill to the core what digital transformation was about, it was about efficiency and agility. Despite the challenges associated with moving from a legacy technology stack to a digital one, it still fits neatly into a narrow paradigm of profit maximization.

Sustainable transformation builds on top of efficiency and agility by also mandating operational changes, organizational realignment, and expanding the dimensions of strategic planning. Simply put, the challenge for CEOs is that sustainable transformation is harder than digital transformation because it is a departure in terms of both mindset and prioritization.

The good news is that the foundational building blocks of digital transformation (cloud, big data, open source, and AI) are also the critical components necessary for building a more sustainable business.

However, while businesses were given a decade to undergo their digital transformations, CEOs do not have the same luxury for sustainable transformation.

Recent events have shown that taking a comprehensive, stakeholder-driven approach to your business is a 'must have', not a 'nice to have.'

For example, the CEO of Lululemon recently told Fortune CEO Alan Murray that the company had to shut more stores in the US due to climate issues (fires and hurricanes) than they did for Covid-19. The systemic risks associated with climate change, geopolitical risks, and shifting consumer/employee expectations will require transformation on a much shorter timeline.
Sustainable transformation requires rethinking and reorganization

Consider a bank that makes housing loans.

Let's say that the bank holds onto the loans until maturity. Today, the mortgage underwriting and risk management process relies on data tools and human processes that digital transformation enabled. The underwriters analyze data about the customer (credit score, income history, etc) as well as basic data about the home itself (single family home, value of nearby homes, etc) to make decisions.

But going forward, this paradigm is likely not robust enough. Simply put, a lot of things can change during a typical 30-year duration of a fixed-housing loan (rising sea levels, changing weather patterns, wildfires, etc).

For this bank to remain viable and to manage risks effectively, it must bring sustainability to the core of its operations.

Sustainable transformation happens when the bank leverages the tech infrastructure gained from digital transformation to convert millions of addresses tied to mortgages into geo coordinates. The bank then merges the latitude and longitudes with topographical information at scale to index how many feet above sea level each home is. Finally, the bank runs billions of simulations on how changing weather patterns (from rising sea levels to hurricanes to wildfires) impacts the default probabilities or the underlying collateral values of those loans.

Sustainable transformation is when underlying mortgage risk no longer just about credit scores or income levels. It requires new ways of thinking and processes. It changes the mindset and skill sets required for an underwriter to make better decisions. It's not about just short-term profits, but about building a more sustainable and viable business model so that the bank can continue to underwrite profitable mortgage loans into the future.
Conclusion

Digital transformation was about efficiency and agility. Sustainable transformation adds duration and action to the matrix.

It is about thinking through the multi-dimensional impacts of a business decision and having the technological tools to analyze and act on them. It's about building a future-proof business model.

CEOs can take comfort in knowing that digital transformation has created the building blocks for sustainable transformation. The on-going efforts of the last decade enable it when paired with the right human capital, priorities, and data tools.

But time is not on their side. Consumer expectations, shifting environmental patterns and investor demand will necessitate that business leaders move quickly. Sustainable transformation is the next big thing, but the amount of time afforded to companies to achieve it will not be as large.

Junta Nakai is the global industry leader for financial services at Databricks. In his capacity, he is responsible for driving the world wide adoption of the Unified Data Analytics Platform across Capital Markets, Banking/Payments, Insurers and Data Providers. Prior to joining Databricks, Junta spent 14 years at Goldman Sachs, where he most recently served as the Head of Asia Pacific Sales for the Americas in the Equities Division.

Read the original article on Business Insider

Global economy's recovery hinges on stimulus, virus battle, officials say

By David Lawder and Jan Strupczewski 

© Reuters/FLORENCE LO IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva speaks at a news conference following the "1+6" Roundtable meeting at the Diaoyutai state guesthouse in Beijing

WASHINGTON/BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Global finance leaders on Tuesday said the world economy had escaped a coronavirus-triggered collapse so far, but warned that failure to conquer the pandemic, maintain stimulus and tackle mounting debt among poor nations could crush a fragile recovery.

At the start of the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, the IMF issued slightly improved growth forecasts spurred by unexpectedly stronger rebounds from coronavirus lockdowns in the wealthiest countries and China.

The IMF said it now expected global gross domestic product to shrink 4.4% in 2020, compared to the 5.2% contraction it predicted in June, when business closures were at their peak. Some $12 trillion in stimulus supplied largely by advanced economies limited the damage, but poor countries and other emerging market economies faced a worsening picture, the global lender said.

"The story is less dire than we thought three months ago, but dire nonetheless," IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva said during a panel discussion that was held virtually.

Georgieva said governments needed to stay focused on their healthcare responses to the coronavirus and must not withdraw stimulus prematurely.

"If we cut these lifelines that have been extended to families and businesses before we are out of the health crisis, this could be catastrophic in terms of bankruptcies, unemployment and undoing all that has been done so far," she added.Underscoring concerns that it could take longer to develop promised treatments for the virus, U.S. drug companies Eli Lilly and Johnson & Johnson said they were pausing clinical trials of an antibody treatment and vaccine, respectively, over safety concerns.

The Group of 20 major economies, in a draft communique seen by Reuters, said the outlook was "less negative" due to the positive impacts from actions already taken, but the recovery will be "uneven, highly uncertain and subject to elevated downside risk."

"We will sustain and strengthen as necessary our policy response, considering the different stages of the crisis, to secure a stable and sustainable recovery," G20 finance ministers and central bank governors said in the draft ahead of a meeting on Wednesday.

DEBT FREEZE EXTENDED

The draft also said the G20 will agree to extend a freeze on the servicing of official bilateral debt for poor countries for another six months beyond the end of this year.

That is well short of the year-long extension sought by the IMF, the World Bank and many emerging market nations, but the G20 agreed to review the debt situation in April to determine whether another six-month extension would be warranted.

The freeze aims to free up billions of dollars that poor countries can divert to their pandemic health and economic responses.

Some emerging market leaders said more needed to be done to avert defaults in fragile economies from Africa to Latin America.

Kenneth Ofori-Atta, Ghana's finance minister and the chairman of the Group of 24 developing nations, said stronger participation from private-sector creditors, who have so far shunned debt suspensions, was required for efforts that include restructurings of emerging market debt.

"It's going to take a very synchronized and coordinated effort by all parties so we don't get into a world of cascading defaults," Ofori-Atta said at a G24 news conference. "I think all of this could be avoided if we can begin real and honest discussions as to the cash-flows capacity of all of these countries."

(Reporting by David Lawder and Andrea Shalal in Washington, Jan Strupczewski in Brussels, Leigh Thomas in Paris and Tom Arnold in London; Writing by David Lawder; Editing by Paul Simao)

CANADA
Pandemic exposes need for basic-income program, expert says


OTTAWA — A leading Canadian expert on government-funded basic incomes says the oft-debated idea could have averted much of the economic effects of COVID-19.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

Evelyn Forget says a basic-income program would have provided help to hard-hit Canadians automatically instead of forcing governments to set up emergency aid in a rush.

Basic income is essentially a no-strings attached benefit governments provide to citizens that sets a financial floor for individuals and families.

Advocates of such a program have pointed to the Canada Emergency Response Benefit as an example of how the country could make basic income a reality.

But Forget says the CERB, for all its innovation, wasn't a basic-income program, and neither is the replacement known as the Canada Recovery Benefit.

"We're still thinking about this in terms of a patchwork — different programs for different groups of people — and as soon as you start doing that, you start creating gaps that people fall through," Forget said in an interview late last week.

"One of the opportunities with a basic income is to think a little bit more holistically about how we can provide income support across the board, recognizing that people have different needs."

The University of Manitoba professor lays out her pandemic-related analysis in an update to her book, "Basic Income for Canadians," released Tuesday, which also argues such a program is neither a silver bullet nor a replacement for social programs like health care.

A basic income would act as an automatic stabilizer, meaning it would expand payments when incomes crash and then roll back when things rebounded. Those who needed ongoing support would get it.

The cost of such a program would be based on any number decisions, including the value of benefits and how steeply governments clawed payments as earnings rose, she writes.

The parliamentary budget office estimated a six-month basic income program this year could cost between $47.5-billion and $98.1-billion. Some of that could be covered by redirecting funding from existing anti-poverty programs, and the price would be further offset by what the budget office said was $15 billion in anti-poverty tax measures that could be repealed.

Add in provincial benefits that could also be replaced by one benefit and Forget suggests the country could afford a permanent program.

The most recent figures for the CERB show that as of Oct. 4, just after it started winding down, the program had paid out more than $81.6 billion since March to 8.9 million people.

Federal officials scrambled to set up the program when some three million people lost their jobs in March and April and it became clear the decades-old employment insurance program wasn't up to meeting the needs created by a historic crash in the labour market.

"That greater awareness of the limitations of the programs we had led many of us to start thinking about ideas that used to be thought of as far-out fringe ideas, and basic income I put into that category for a lot of people," Forget said.

"Now, maybe it's an opportunity to think about basic income in the context of a lot of other programs and ideas about how we can build back better, if I can use the cliché."

Forget writes that a basic income program wouldn't rely on governments to quickly make good decisions during economic upheaval and it would take economic burdens off the shoulders of workers who have little control over events.

The country has so far recouped all but 720,000 of the jobs lost earlier this year, Statistics Canada reported Friday.

The jobs report noted the proportion of Canadians receiving federal income support fell to 13.5 per cent from 16.1 per cent between August and September, but also noted that 42 per cent of CERB recipients said they lived in households having difficulty paying the bills, an increase of 4.3 per cent from August.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau noted on Tuesday that the need hasn't abated. Some 240,000 people asked for the new recovery benefit on Monday when applications opened.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 13, 2020.

Jordan Press, The Canadian Press

CANADA 

Rich get richer, poor poorer: Two reports say pandemic intensifying inequalities

A pair of new reports say Canada is undergoing a "K-shaped recovery," with working-class Canadians going deeper into debt while those at the top prosper.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

The two reports released Tuesday said the uneven recovery is amplifying economic disparities that existed pre-pandemic and widening the gap between the haves and have-nots.

With the second wave of COVID-19 intensifying across the country, both reports suggest the divide between the rich and poor in Canada could worsen.

The affordability index by BDO Canada Ltd. estimates that nearly two in five Canadians said their personal finances deteriorated during the first wave, while one in five Canadians are better off,

The index, based on polling data by the Angus Reid Group, found that respondents who were worse off are nearly four times more likely to say their debt load is overwhelming.

Meanwhile, the latest MNP Ltd. consumer debt index said the pandemic recession is putting a spotlight on inequalities between the well-off and those dealing with job losses, debt, eviction and food insecurity.

Grant Bazian, president of MNP, said his firm's index "highlights the divergent experiences of Canadians during COVID."

"While some are fortunate enough to be able to continue working in their present jobs, but from home, others continue to struggle with financial uncertainty and not knowing whether their job will still be around after the pandemic,” Bazian said in a statement.

The MNP index, based on polling data by Ipsos, found that over half of the millennials surveyed said they regret the amount of debt they’ve taken on in life.

Many households reported being just hundreds of dollars away from bankruptcy, a sign they're living paycheque to paycheque.

MNP said 44 per cent of households earning $40,000 to $60,000 are $200 or less away from insolvency, including 22 per cent who are already insolvent.

Both reports underscore a yawning chasm between Canadians who are losing ground and those whose financial situation has improved during the pandemic or hasn't changed.

Doug Jones, president of BDO Debt Solutions, said the firm's affordability index shows Canadians are struggling more and more with the cost of living.

He said COVID-19 has prompted Canadians to cut back on spending and save more, but that people are also finding it more difficult to keep up with debt.

"These factors will likely put long-term stress on families and the economy," Jones said in a statement. "Now is the time to keep a close eye on household budgets and avoid debt whenever possible."

The survey found that two-thirds of Canadians with debt cannot keep up with their debt payments or have had to make sacrifices in their budgeting.

While this typically involves foregoing non-essential “nice-to-have” purchases like entertainment or recreation, the survey found that nearly a quarter of Canadians forego essentials like food or clothing.

The survey also showed that residents of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario were more likely to have added debt during the pandemic.

Meanwhile, Canadians who are saving more tend to be young, university educated and earn more than $100,000, the survey found.

This cohort tended to shift spending away from non-essentials such as restaurants and travel into savings — reducing concerns about debt.

The Angus Reid online survey, in partnership with BDO Canada, included 2,047 Canadian adults surveyed between Sept. 1 and Sept. 8.

The Ipsos online poll, conducted for MNP between Sept. 1 and Sept. 3, included 2,001 Canadians.

According to the polling industry’s generally accepted standards, online surveys cannot be assigned a margin of error because they do not randomly sample the population.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Oct. 13, 2020.

Brett Bundale, The Canadian Press

Canadian Lundin Mining to meet Chile's Candelaria workers amid strike, union chief says

SANTIAGO (Reuters) - Canada's Lundin Mining will meet on Wednesday with the Mina union at its Candelaria copper deposit in Chile in a bid to resume talks to end a strike that began last week, the union's head said on Tuesday.

© Reuters/CHRIS HELGREN A man passes the Lundin Group mining company booth during the PDAC convention in Toronto

The union walked off the job last Thursday after list-ditch talks broke down over a contract deal.

The head of the 350-member union also criticized what he said were attempts to shut down the strike.

"There is a persecution against the leaders for defending the rights of the workers," said Patricio Gárate, head of the 350-member union.

Lundin Mining did not immediately respond to the meeting.

Copper prices have been supported because of concerns about possible strikes in Chile, the world's largest producer of the red metal.

Gárate previously told Reuters that one of the most important differences between the two sides was that the workers opposed changes in benefits and certain clauses in the collective contract.

Candelaria produced 111,400 tonnes of copper in 2019 and had reached 74,200 tonnes as of August this year.

(Reporting by Fabian Cambero; Writing by Adam Jourdan; editing by Grant McCool)

Indie bookstores launch anti-Amazon 'Boxed Out' campaign

NEW YORK — With many independent bookstore owners facing the most dire financial crisis in their lifetimes, the American Booksellers Association has teamed with an award-winning advertising agency known for “culture hacking” to dramatize the threats of the pandemic and the growing dominance of Amazon.com.

© Provided by The Canadian Press

On Tuesday, the trade group launched the “Boxed Out” campaign, for which a handful of bookstores around the country will have windows boarded up and boxes piled up out front that resemble Amazon delivery containers, with one label reading “Don't Accept Amazon's Brave New World." The beginning of what the booksellers association hopes will be a conversation in stores and online, “Boxed Out” was designed by DCX Growth Accelerator, a Brooklyn-based firm which attracted national attention in 2018 when it set up a fake “Palessi” luxury shoe store and stocked it with items from the Payless discount chain.

“Boxed Out” coincides with Amazon Prime Day, when the online giant offers special deals to its members.

“We're hoping that people will understand the juxtaposition and support their local stores,” says booksellers association CEO Allison Hill.

Independent booksellers had enjoyed a resurgence over the past decade after being devastated in the 20 previous years by the rise of the superstore chains Barnes & Noble and Borders, and then the emergence of Amazon. ABA membership, once more than 5,000, was down to just 1,401 in 2009 during the height of the Great Recession and was apparently set to keep declining as e-books began to catch on.

But the digital revolution stalled, Borders went out of business and Barnes & Noble retreated after a long era of expansion. In 2019, the last time the ABA released yearly numbers, membership was up to 1,887, with some sellers even opening additional outlets. Hill's predecessor, Oren Teicher, who retired at the end of 2019, received an honorary National Book Award earlier that year for his success in “working to strengthen and expand independent bookstores nationwide.”

But the pandemic could wipe out all the gains since 2009. An ABA survey from this summer found that some 20 per cent of members could go out of business, meaning hundreds of stores face closure, especially as government aid runs out. Meanwhile, the number of new independent stores opening has dropped sharply, according to the ABA, just 30 this year compared to 104 in 2019.

While the overall market for books has been surprisingly solid in 2020, Amazon.com has apparently fared best as the public increasingly makes purchases online. According to a report issued last week by the antitrust subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, “Amazon accounts for over half of all print book sales and over 80% of e-book sales” in the U.S. market.

Greenlight Bookstore in Brooklyn is among the participating stores in “Boxed Out.” Co-owner Jessica Stockton-Bagnulo says that sales have fallen this year by double digits after a decade of “steady growth.” Her store has risen from its “deepest trough” earlier this year, and has rehired some laid off workers, but Stockton-Bagnulo says Greenlight’s position is still “precarious.”

“If shoppers could shift more of their purchasing away from Amazon to local businesses like ours ... it could make all the difference in allowing us to survive and thrive for years to come. We hope Boxed Out will have that effect,” she said.

Hill said she and the booksellers association had been looking for a way to draw attention to what indies were going through and met with several agencies before deciding on DCX. Not all of DCX projects have had long-term impact. Payless, for instance, continued to struggle after the Palessi campaign, filed for bankruptcy in 2019 and closed all of its U.S. stores.

Hill said she was more impressed by a campaign from 2015 on behalf of Jesse's bodega in Brooklyn, near the headquarters of DCX. Owner Jesse Itayim faced eviction after the landlord sought a 250 per cent rent hike, so DCX devised an “Artisanal Landlord Price Hike Sale” that featured exorbitant costs for such rebranded items as “Grass Fed Himalayan Tuna Salad.”

Jesse's held on another year before shutting down.

“I just liked how they did it with a sense of humour,” Hill says of DCX. “I think things are different now and that we're at the beginning of a sea change. I think people realize how fragile we are because of the pandemic, and my hope of this campaign is that it's the beginning of a conversation."

Hillel Italie, The Associated Press


BETA
What's your take?

Thousands of Amazon workers demand time off to vote

Thousands of Amazon tech workers Tuesday signed an internal petition urging the company to offer paid time off for its workforce to vote on or before Election Day.

©NBC News

While Amazon is the second largest employer in the country, with 1,372,000 U.S. workers including Whole Foods employees, it does not offer paid time off to participate in federal elections.

More than 1,500 Amazon tech workers added their support to the petition one hour after it was launched internally Tuesday morning. By noon PT, the petition had reached 3,243 supporters. The call is hosted on the company’s internal ticketing system, which is used by workers to submit requests and tasks to be completed on the job, like fixing bugs found on a website. It’s also used internally as a way for employees to submit requests for changes to company policies, like benefits.

“We are less than a month away from the 2020 U.S. election. I strongly urge the company to provide the entire US employee workforce with a paid day/shift off that can be used anytime between now and Election Day on Nov 3,” the petition, hosted on the company’s ticketing system, reads.

“This additional day/shift off must be available to all employees every year.”

Employees who support the call for time off to vote are signing on by adding a “+1” to the ticket or leaving a comment of support below the petition.

Amazon declined requests for comment.

The action was organized by the Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, a group of Amazon tech workers formed in 2018 to pressure their employer to commit to reducing fossil fuel emissions. The group previously persuaded the company to reduce fossil fuel emissions in September 2019 after repeated calls from thousands of employees.

This year, the climate group expanded its focus to speaking out against working conditions for Amazon warehouse employees during the pandemic. In April, the company fired two of the group’s core organizers, Emily Cunningham and Maren Costa, for what Amazon described as violations against internal policies that bar workers from publicly criticizing the company. But the group has continued to mobilize.

Tuesday’s worker-led petition asking the company to grant its tech and warehouse employees paid time off to vote comes as long lines are already recorded in states that have opened early voting, with some voters in Georgia on Monday reporting they spent nearly 10 hours in line waiting to cast their ballot.

“I’m an employee in Seattle, and we’re three weeks out from Election Day, and I haven’t heard anything from Amazon about what we can do to make a plan to vote,” one Amazon tech worker and organizer with Amazon Employees for Climate Justice, told NBC News on the condition of anonymity over fears that Amazon would retaliate for speaking to the press.

Amazon’s policy differs widely from its competitors: Walmart offers up to three paid hours off to its employees to vote and participate in elections. Other American companies, such as Target, PayPal and Apple, likewise provide paid allotted time for workers to vote.

Due to the pandemic, many states anticipate fewer voting sites will be open come Nov. 3, meaning lines to vote on Election Day could be even longer than in previous years.

If Amazon decides to not grant the employee-led request for paid time off to vote, it would be “a big disappointment,” an Amazon warehouse worker in New York said on the condition of anonymity.

His co-workers are openly talking about how they don’t plan to vote because they don’t have the time on or before Election Day between work, their long commutes and family obligations.

“It troubles me that my colleagues have to choose to sacrifice between showing up for work and making a living and showing up to vote,” he said.

Black McDonald's workers say they were called 'ghetto,' had their hours cut, and were unjustly fired in a new lawsuit

© Provided by Business Insider McDonald's is facing its fourth racial-discrimination lawsuit this year. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

McDonald's workers filed a racial-discrimination lawsuit against the fast-food giant on Tuesday.
Three McDonald's employees said Black workers were called "ghetto," "smelly," and "lazy," and received fewer hours than non-Black employees at a Rock Island, Illinois location. 

"We are sick and tired of being considered less than human and not even worthy of life," one of the workers said on Tuesday. 

The lawsuit claims that McDonald's has a systemic problem with racism, pointing to three other racial-discrimination suits filed this year.

McDonald's workers are suing the fast-food giant, in at least the fourth racial-discrimination lawsuit the chain has seen this year.

On Tuesday, McDonald's employees who worked at a Rock Island, Illinois location filed a lawsuit against the fast-food giant in the US District Court for the Central District of Illinois. There are three plaintiffs in the case: Selynda Middlebrook, Stephanie Stevens, and Luther Gray, acting on behalf of his 17-year-old daughter A.G., who also worked at the McDonald's location.

The location's general manager called Black workers and customers "ghetto," while other employees stereotyped Black employees as "lazy" or "smelly," according to Tuesday's complaint. Black employees also allege they were given fewer hours to work than non-Black employees.

In late July, the general manager called Middlebrook a "waste of space," according to the complaint. Middlebrook's hours had been cut earlier in the year, the complaint alleges, making it difficult for the 20-year-old to support her new baby.

When Stevens — Middlebrook's aunt — told the general manager that she should not speak about employees in such a "discriminatory and demeaning manner," the complaint says that Stevens was fired on the spot.

"We are sick and tired of being considered less than human and not even worthy of life," Middlebrook said on a call with reporters on Tuesday.

Read more: McDonald's hires ex-Obama advisor to lead a new team focused on 'positive change,' as the company doubles down on values in the midst of scandals

"I am deeply committed to running a values-led organization, and discrimination, harassment or retaliation of any kind are not tolerated in my restaurants," Trina Gendron, the McDonald's franchisee who owns the location, said in a statement.

"I take these allegations seriously and am currently reviewing the complaint and investigating these allegations," Gendron continued.
The lawsuit argues McDonald's has a systemic problem with racism

© Andrew Burton/Getty Images The lawsuit alleges this is a systemic issue. Andrew Burton/Getty Images

The complaint alleges that racism is prevalent throughout the McDonald's system. This is at least the fourth racial-discrimination lawsuit filed against McDonald's in 2020.

Two Black executives sued McDonald's in January, claiming they faced racial discrimination and "cruel" retaliation while working at the company.

In July, three McDonald's workers sued the company, saying they faced racial discrimination while working at a Florida location of the chain. On Tuesday, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that McDonald's fired two of the plaintiffs in retaliation for filing the civil rights lawsuit.

"McDonald's is committed to leading with values and does not tolerate retaliation," McDonald's said in a statement to Business Insider. "The allegations that employees were terminated for any reason related to ongoing litigation is categorically false."

Later in July, 52 Black former franchisees sued the company in another racial-discrimination case. These former franchisees say they were not giving the same opportunities as white franchisees and that many were forced out of the McDonald's system.

Read more: Inside McDonald's Black franchisees' decades-long quest for equality that led to a $1 billion racial-discrimination lawsuit

"The top-down systemic racism evident in McDonald's C-suite, as evidenced by recent allegations by Black executives and Black franchisees, reaches down to the restaurant level, where individual managers and franchisees are not held accountable for engaging in, and failing to prevent, discrimination on the basis of race," the complaint reads.

McDonald's has previously denied allegations of racial-discrimination.
The lawsuit attempts to hold McDonald's accountable, as the chain pushes back against a potential designation as a 'joint employer'

The lawsuit argues that both the franchisee — who owns and operates the Rock Island location — and McDonald's corporate should be held responsible. McDonald's, the complaint argues, is a "joint employer" of workers at the location.

Roughly 95% of McDonald's locations in the US are owned and operated by individual franchisees. Historically, these franchisees are treated as independent business and would be solely liable in cases related to workers' issues such as wage theft or discrimination.

The concept of "joint employer" calls this independence into question.

© Rui Vieira/PA Images/Getty Images McDonald's has been the center at a battle over the definition of "joint employer." Rui Vieira/PA Images/Getty Images

Back in 2014, the National Labor Relations Board ruled that McDonald's could be treated as a joint employer, making it a co-defendant if workers file lawsuits against their employers.

Many franchises pushed back against the ruling, arguing that it nullified the industry's business model and would drive up the cost of franchisors' legal fees. Meanwhile, progressive groups such as the Service Employees International Union saw the joint employer decision as a victory that could make it easier for fast-food workers to unionize.

Under the Trump administration, the NLRB's definition of "joint employer" has narrowed. In 2019, a federal appeals judge reversed the 2014 McDonald's decision, ruling that the fast-food giant did not exercise enough control over workers in franchised locations to be a joint employer.

In 2020, the Department of Labor issued relatively narrow guidelines on how to interpret the "joint employer" rule, reducing the likelihood franchisors would be held liable in court. However, in September, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the rule, with Judge Gregory Wood calling it "arbitrary and capricious."

The most recent racial-discrimination lawsuit aims to hold McDonald's liable as a joint employer. The complaint argues that plaintiffs believed they worked for McDonald's and McDonald's exercises substantial control over franchisees.

"We certainly believe, as we allege in the complaint, that McDonald's control of the franchise here in Rock Island does make them responsible for the discriminatory treatment," George Luscombe, an attorney for the Rock Island plaintiffs, told reporters on Tuesday.
Read the original article on Business Insider