‘An insult’: Teamsters slam UPS training non-union delivery drivers during deal talks

Miranda Nazzaro

THE HILL
Fri, July 14, 2023 

United Parcel Service (UPS) said Friday it will be training non-union delivery drivers in the coming weeks as the threat of a strike from tens of thousands of unionized workers looms closer.

In a statement Friday, shipping giant UPS said many of their employees will “participate in training that would help them safely serve our customers if there is a labor disruption.”

UPS said this “temporary plan,” will not affect its current operations or service for customers.

“These activities also will not take away from our ongoing efforts to finalize a new contract that increases our employees’ already industry-leading wages and benefits,” the statement continued.

Contract negotiations between UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters fell apart last week, increasing the chances the estimated 340,000 workers could strike after their current contract expires at the end of July.

The UPS Teamsters, which represents over half of the UPS workforce, is fighting for better benefits and working conditions.

“What an insult this is to the hardworking men and women who do backbreaking work every day to make this company $100 billion a year,” a Teamsters spokesperson said. “The full-time drivers, and the part-time workers making poverty wages, deserve better from this company.”

UPS drivers make $18.05 an hour in Arkansas, $17.63 in Oklahoma and $21.02 in Connecticut, according to Indeed.

UPS made $11.5 billion in net income in 2022, as profits exceeded fourth-quarter expectations. The company’s 2022 operating profits hit more than $13 billion, for an operating margin of 13 percent.

Last month, the union voted 97% in favor of authorizing a strike should they not reach an agreement with UPS by the time their contracts are up on July 31.

Teamsters, UPS battle may be just a warmup for future Amazon fight, experts say

“If this multibillion-dollar corporation fails to deliver on the contract that our hardworking members deserve, UPS will be striking itself,” Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien said in a statement in June. “The strongest leverage our members have is their labor and they are prepared to withhold it to ensure UPS acts accordingly.”

A United Parcel Service delivery driver steers his truck, Friday, June 30, 2023, in the East Boston neighborhood of Boston. Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien, the head of the union representing 340,000 UPS workers, said a strike is on the table. 

(AP Photo/Michael Dwyer)

O’Brien joined members of Local 804 UPS in Brooklyn, New York on Friday morning in a practice picket line.

“Our United Parcel Service members in New York and all over the country have never been more prepared to strike,” O’Brien said Friday.

5 things to know about UPS strike as Teamsters contract talks fail

The Atlanta company often touts it is the single-largest employer of Teamsters in the United States and states it transports over three percent of global GDP and around six percent of U.S. GDP daily.

Jonathan Gold, vice president of supply chain and customs policy at the National Retail Federation, previously said a UPS Teamsters strike could cause a significant supply chain disruption, using the supply chain issues during the pandemic as an example.

If the strike does take place next month, it would be the first in over 25 years since workers walked out for 15 days in 1997.

Hiring non-union workers is likely an escalation of the tension between the Teamsters and UPS’s negotiating team.

“UPS is making clear it doesn’t view its workforce as a priority,” a Teamsters spokesperson said.

“Corporate executives are quick to brag about industry-leading service and even more quickly forget the Teamster members who perform that service,” she said. “UPS should stop wasting time and money on training strikebreakers and get back to the negotiating table with a real economic offer that respects and fairly compensates 340,000 UPS Teamsters.”

UPS to train nonunion employees as talks stall with union for 340,000 workers and deadline nears

 - Delivery vehicles remain idle outside a UPS depot, Thursday, June 29, 2023, in New York. A little more than a week after contract talks between UPS and the union representing 340,000 of its workers broke down, UPS said Friday, July 14, 2023, it will begin training many of its non-union employees in the U.S. to step in should there be a strike, which the union has vowed to do if no agreement is reached by the end of this month. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)

ASSOCIATED PRESS
MICHELLE CHAPMAN
Updated Fri, July 14, 2023

A little more than a week after contract talks between UPS and the union representing 340,000 of its workers broke down, UPS said it will begin training nonunion employees in the U.S. to step in should there be a strike, which the union has vowed to do if no agreement is reached by the end of this month.

UPS said Friday that the training is a temporary plan that has no impact on current operations.

“While we have made great progress and are close to reaching an agreement, we have a responsibility as an essential service provider to take steps to help ensure we can deliver our customers’ packages if the Teamsters choose to strike,” UPS said.

Last week both sides blamed the other for walking away from talks, which now appear to be at a stalemate with a July 31 deadline approaching fast.

Teamster-represented UPS workers voted for a strike authorization last month and union chief Sean O’Brien previously said that a strike was imminent. On Friday, O'Brien joined union workers in a picketing dry-run in Brooklyn, New York.

“UPS is making clear it doesn’t view its workforce as a priority. Corporate executives are quick to brag about industry-leading service and even more quickly forget the Teamster members who perform that service,” the Teamsters said Friday. “UPS should stop wasting time and money on training strikebreakers and get back to the negotiating table with a real economic offer.”

The Teamsters represent more than half of the Atlanta company’s workforce in the largest private-sector contract in North America. If a strike does happen, it would be the first since a 15-day walkout by 185,000 workers crippled the company a quarter century ago.

UPS has grown vastly since then and become an even more integral piece of the U.S. economy, with consumers relying on swift delivery of most essential home items. Small businesses who rely on UPS could also be left looking for alternative shipping options if the company’s remaining workforce wasn’t able to meet demand during a strike.

Businesses have already begun to prepare for a strike, seeking alternate services for delivery, but the strike would likely lead to significant disruption given the scale at which UPS operates.

UPS delivers around 25 million packages a day, representing about a quarter of all U.S. parcel volume, according to the global shipping and logistics firm Pitney Bowes. That’s about 10 million parcels more than it delivered each day in the years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Teamsters chief says still open to deal with UPS

UPS Teamsters practice picket ahead of an upcoming possible strike in Brooklyn, New York

Fri, July 14, 2023 
By Lisa Baertlein

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -The head of the union representing 340,000 United Parcel Service workers on Friday said he's ready to keep talking with the company, even though his bargaining committee rejected its latest contract offer.

Negotiations between the Teamsters and UPS deadlocked last week, with the world's biggest package delivery company saying it had no more to give and the Teamsters demanding better pay for workers who missed out on labor shortage-driven pay increases during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The contract covering UPS workers who sort, load and deliver packages expires at midnight on July 31.

"The clock is on our side, not theirs. I assume at some point they'll be reaching out looking to try and get a deal," Sean O'Brien, general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, told Reuters following a worker rally in New York.

Earlier in the day, UPS said it remained focused on reaching an agreement before the current one expires. At the same time, it said it would begin training non-union employees to deliver packages in the event of a strike.

UPS delivers about 20 million packages a day - roughly a quarter of U.S. parcel volume. A stoppage could delay shipments of everything from Amazon.com orders to critical medicines, and fuel inflation-stoking supply-chain disruptions. One estimate put the economic impact of a 10-day strike at more than $7 billion - one of the costliest in at least a century.

The stakes are high for both sides.

UPS, which aims to hold down labor costs to compete with non-union rivals, could lose customers in a strike, while the Teamsters count UPS as the largest employer of U.S. workers represented by the union.

UPS posted significant profits during the pandemic and rewarded executives and shareholders, O'Brien said. "Everyone has gotten a piece of the pie except for the people that actually touch the packages and provide the goods and services," he said.

(Reporting by Lisa Baertlein in Los Angeles; editing by John Stonestreet)

UPS Teamsters practice picketing  ahead 

of an upcoming possible strike in Brooklyn, New York

UPS feels Twitter pile-on amid strike threat, Teamsters negotiations


Tara Suter

THE HILL
Tue, July 11, 2023

The general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters hit UPS Tuesday for its “underpaid” and “overworked” employees, responding to a Twitter thread from the company about the benefits of working part time.

“They’re rightfully demanding what they’re owed,” Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien said in the tweet. “It’s time for your company to do right by the #Teamsters and our members’ families. 20 days to pay up.”

His comments come amid high tensions between the Teamsters and UPS. Negotiations on a new contract between the two collapsed last week as the July 31 set date — when the current contract expires — for a Teamsters strike inches closer.

“Will companies/institutions every learn that these tweets don’t go well?” one Twitter user wrote. “Like people will ALWAYS use these as an opportunity to expose your poor working conditions and/or messed up systems?

Other responses to the thread included Twitter users’ complaints with the company’s heat regulation in their trucks and a screenshot of an article reporting on UPS’s financial misdeeds.

“Speaking of setting the record straight, we think an ‘average $20 an hour’ for part-timers means either @UPS’s Twitter account has been hacked by someone who doesn’t know what ‘average’ means or the company is simply rounding up to the nearest 20,” the official Teamsters account said in a Quote Tweet.

Another Twitter user spoke about the negative working conditions they said they faced while working at UPS, including “extreme heat with no breaks” and “carbon monoxide poisoning one time.”

“When I went to the doctor for the latter, y’all threatened to fire me!” the Twitter user said in response to the UPS thread.

Google lays off contractors who unionized last month

Suspecting retaliation, the discharged workers have begun a hearing with the NLRB.

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Will Shanklin
·Contributing Reporter
Thu, July 13, 2023

Around 80 Google Help subcontractors who recently voted to unionize with the Alphabet Workers Union-Communications Workers of America (AWU-CWA) found out last week that they will be laid off. The group began a hearing this week with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) regarding the complex issue of joint employment for contractors. “It really stinks of retaliation,” Casey Padron, a general writer on the team scheduled to lose her job in August, told Engadget today.

The group announced the unionization effort on Thursday, June 8th; around two-thirds of the workers were notified weeks later about the layoffs. The team includes writers and graphic designers who create internal and external content for the search giant, including Google Help support pages. They list Google and Accenture as joint employers “due to the direct role both companies play in shaping working conditions.” Because they were joint contractors employed by tech consultancy Accenture, they don’t appear to enjoy protections with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, legislation passed in 1988 that provides certain rights for laid-off workers. (California is currently considering expanding protections for contract workers.)

“Last week we received news that 80 of our nearly 120 recently unionized Google Help coworkers would be laid off,” said Julia Nagatsu Granstrom, Senior Writer and member of the Alphabet Workers Union- CWA. “We had exercised our right to organize as members of the Alphabet Workers Union-CWA in order to bring both Google and Accenture, a Google subcontractor, to the bargaining table to negotiate on several key demands, including layoff protections.” Nagatsu Granstrom describes the layoffs as “absolutely unacceptable,” given the timing of an active union campaign “with overwhelming support from workers.”

The Google Help cuts follow a group of company contractors rating search results who were fired last month after announcing intentions to unionize with the same organization, the AWU-CWA. However, they were reinstated and promised backpay after filing Unfair Labor Practice charges with the NLRB.

Padron says the Google Help layoffs caught her off guard. “I was extremely surprised to hear about our team’s layoffs,” she told Engadget. “We are constantly told by Google and Accenture management how impressed they are with the quality of our work, so the timing of these layoffs looks suspiciously like retaliation for our union formation.” She says the employer’s proclaimed motive of budget tightening doesn’t add up. “They claimed that the cuts were a result of changes in budget allocation, but Accenture has also posted job listings that have our exact job description and project code.”

“These giant, wealthy corporations need to start living up to their own ‘core values’ and treating their workers with the dignity, respect, and humanity we deserve,” Padron added. “If these multi-billion dollar corporations can’t afford to provide humane working conditions to their employees, the business model needs radical change. Some of our operations managers and the Googlers we collaborate with have already expressed that Google’s help centers will suffer without our team. They will feel this loss, and they deserve to.”

Nagatsu Granstrom says the unionized workers will take “every recourse possible to support our impacted members and continue to organize workers at Google Help and beyond.” Padron echoes the upbeat, fighting tone. “If it’s Accenture and Google’s goal to demoralize us, they have failed,” she told Engadget. “We are more united than ever and will continue to fight for this job that so many of us love and rely on.”

Hollywood Is Going on a Dual Strike for the First Time Since 1960. You Won’t Believe Who Led the Last One.

Ironically, you have Ronald Reagan to thank for SAG-AFTRA actors’ welfare.

BY NADIRA GOFFE

SLATE

JULY 14, 2023

Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Archive Photos/Getty Images, Chris Delmas/AFP via Getty Images, and Getty Images Plus.

On Thursday, the Screen Actors Guild, or SAG-AFTRA, announced that it would join its sister union, the Writers Guild of America—who have already been on the picket line for more than 10 weeks—in a full-out strike. This news, which is the result of weeks of attempted bargaining with streaming services for better residual payments and protections against prospects like outsourcing work to artificial intelligence, marks the first time both unions have struck simultaneously since 1960. The last time both unions went on strike, SAG in particular was led by an unlikely familiar figure: Ronald Reagan.

 Writer, actor, and comedian Wayne Federman wrote a piece for the Atlantic in 2011 titled “What Reagan Did for Hollywood,” in which he details the unprecedented advancements that Reagan helped secure for workers in Hollywood before going on the path to become one of the most emphatically conservative presidents in contemporary American history. 

I called Federman to discuss the significance of the 1960 strike and its relation to the state of Hollywood today. This conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity.


Nadira Goffe: What were the circumstances that led to the 1960 SAG strike?

Wayne Federman: So the SAG strike was about one issue, and that issue was motion pictures made by the studios that were now being played on television. That started around 1948. [The union] kept wanting to talk about this issue, and [the studios] kept kicking the can down the road, year after year, negotiation after negotiation. So, eventually, the membership of SAG were like, We have to deal with this issue. It was very, very, very contentious. And they brought back Ronald Reagan, who had been president of SAG from 1947 to 1952, to lead the union. He had a TV show, he had been host of General Electric Theater, and his movie career had kind of waned a little bit, but he was very respected by the membership, and they brought him sort of out of retirement to lead this strike. So he got elected again.

Why did they invite him back? What was so special about him?

Because he was an extremely effective leader of SAG in the late ’40s. At that time, he was considered a liberal Democrat, but by the time he was brought back as SAG president to lead this strike, he had had a political conversion. … I don’t think he was a registered Republican at that time, but he was certainly starting to lean that way. The membership liked him. They remembered that he had been this good union leader before, and when he was head of SAG in the early ’50s, he helped get residuals for television actors [for reruns].

But here’s a little thing: Nancy, his wife, did not want him to take this job, because now you’re going up against the people that can hire you. You’re the face of the industry, of these actors, and now you have to go up against the heads of Warner Brothers and MGM and all of the major studios. But he eventually said yes, and as soon as the strike was resolved, he didn’t even finish out the term. I believe he resigned after the strike was successfully negotiated.

What were the main union ideas behind the 1960 strike?

Let’s say you get hired to act in a film. Basically, the person hiring you is taking the risk. They’re paying you your salary, and in return, they own that product. So, what SAG was saying was, You can play that film anywhere in the world, you can play it in Italy, you can have it dubbed—but when you put it on television, that’s a new revenue stream. Also, the argument was that that is taking work away from other actors. Because if you have this movie on, that time slot is no longer available for working actors.

On the other side, the head of 20th Century Fox [Spyros Skouras], his argument was very simple: Why should I pay you twice for the same job? I’ve already paid you for this job. I own this at this point. And that was basically the position of all of these studio owners. At the beginning of the strike, they were like, We’re not even going to talk about residuals. It’s a nonstarter. And Reagan said, We’re “trying to negotiate for the right to negotiate.” That’s how far apart they were. It was so foreign to these guys that they would have to share their revenues with actors after they’d already paid the actors. Ultimately, one studio, Universal Pictures—believe it or not, the head of Universal, a guy named Lew Wasserman, used to be Ronald Reagan’s agent—was the first domino that dropped. I think Lew Wasserman thought it was inevitable anyway: If it wasn’t going to happen in 1960, it might happen in ’65. And then one after another [gave in], until, I think, the 20th Century guy was the last guy, who was like, All right, I’ll give it, I’ll pay you again for something I’ve already paid you for, through clenched teeth.

As weird as it may sound now, in the old days, you could only see Paramount movies in Paramount theaters [due to vertical integration]. At that time, the studios were in a big fight with television. There was a big Supreme Court ruling called the Paramount Decree, where the studios had to give up distribution [control] of their movies. And that cost them. And then people started staying home and watching television, like I Love Lucy, and so the movie industry was hemorrhaging money. There were some studios that wouldn’t even show a television set in people’s homes. It was a real battle because they were losing so much money because television was exciting and new. So they were like, Oh my God, this is one place where we might be able to make some money. And now you’re asking us to give you a percentage of it.

What is the importance of residuals? As you said, actors had already gotten paid.

This was kind of a new idea—that, if we take these movies and put them in this new medium, there’s a new revenue stream outside of box office gross. There was no such thing as movies on television when the industry started. There was no television. The idea of residuals started on radio, believe it or not. They would do a broadcast on the East Coast and then do another one for the West Coast, and they would get paid for both of those broadcasts. And then at one point they were like, We’re just going to tape the East Coast broadcast and then play it again for the West Coast. And that was really the start of, Well, can you pay us because we’re actually doing this again? So the idea was: Let’s see if we can get part of this revenue stream for our actors, because in a way, we’re now competing against ourselves.

And, essentially, even though it’s prerecorded and just put on a different medium, it’s technically multiple performances.

Right. And you’re also taking work away from actors who could be using that time slot, who could be hired to do an episode of Gunsmoke or The Fugitive, or something like that. Again, the residuals were so small at the time, but this was a paradigm shift in Hollywood.

What about residuals for films made before the strike in 1960?

TV really starts kicking in 1948; by 1956, they’re playing [movies like] The Wizard of Oz on television. That’s a big MGM musical. … It’s not one of these B Westerns that Republic Pictures made, or something like that. So, there are more A pictures making their way onto television. And so [the studios are] thinking, In the age of television, what do we do for all of these movies that were made between 1948 and 1960? They decide, All right, instead of residuals for any of those movies made between 1948 and 1960, we’re going to give you a few million dollars to start. This is the first health fund for actors, which is where I get my health insurance and pension. It was seed money [for] benefits for your workers. And so that’s how the pension and welfare started for SAG. … Now it’s got to be well over $10 billion, probably. I don’t even know the amount of money that’s been sent to actors who work in movies that get played on television, based on that 1960 strike.

And so there are no residuals for any movie made before 1960. There were people who worked in the ’30s and ’40s, like Mickey Rooney and Bob Hope, who were upset at this. They were like, Why do we strike? I thought I’d get residuals for Road to Morocco or whatever. In a way, Reagan was selfless because most of the movies he made were in pre-residual times.

What you’re essentially telling me is that Ronald Reagan decides to take up this liberal cause and basically secures residuals and welfare for the future of Hollywood actors. And then, very shortly afterward, registers as a Republican. Where he then becomes, well, the Ronald Reagan.

That is correct.

What are the circumstances leading to this current SAG strike and how do they differ from or resemble the circumstances in 1960?

For this strike, before we even negotiated, we already had strike authorization from the membership. In 1960, they didn’t. The 1960 strike was really about one issue, and this strike is about multiple issues. This is about how residuals, specifically for streaming entertainment, are being calculated. Those numbers are … not really released. It’s not like a Nielsen rating. Sometimes you’ll hear something like, Oh, 1.2 million minutes of Squid Game—what does that mean? Does that mean that many people watched one minute of it, or does that mean people watched it a number of times, or … ? I don’t know why it’s all proprietary for these streamers, but that’s just where we’re at. We want a little more transparency in that, [to consider] that if we’re on a hit show, is that paid differently than a [nonhit] show? And then there’s this A.I. situation.

You said that the studios were sort of giving up these residuals through clenched teeth. Do you think that their position on that has changed?

That’s the amazing outcome of what Ronald Reagan—and other negotiators at the time—was able to do: In a way, they were changing the paradigm of how Hollywood money is divided up. They were striking for an idea: that we deserve this for A, B, C, and D reasons. You get residuals now. Not everyone; editors don’t get residuals, but directors do. I get residuals for streaming services, but they’re just not the same. They’re not as good as cable, and they’re not as good as network. When you look at the check, you’re like, OK, this doesn’t seem like a lot. But, again, you don’t know how many people are watching it.

And also, I think when we first started looking at streaming services, we were like, We want these services to thrive so that there’ll be more work for actors. So I think that’s why we were not militant about residuals for these new platforms. No one is saying, Oh, we paid you to be on this Netflix show, and we never have to pay you a residual. The problem is that it’s not as hearty as it used to be for these other mediums. But the idea of residuals … is not going away, unless [the companies] decide to try to break the unions and just use nonunion actors and not pay residuals.

This time around, do you think the WGA strike has influenced this SAG strike?

Well, I think it did. This is just one person’s opinion. But the Directors Guild of America settled with the producers, and I think that the Writers Guild felt like, Oh, that was really kind of a leverage point for us, that we would maybe be in this together. Even though legally you’re not allowed to be in it together, but wink, wink, we’re in this together. I think the actors were aware of it, and they were like, We have your back a little bit. Again, it’s a separate negotiation, and there should be a bright line. But in my opinion, being out here, I feel like the Writers Guild was hoping, OK, now we have more leverage, obviously. We have a little more power. And there’s going to be more pain inflicted. The Emmy Awards might be postponed—as an actor, you’re not allowed to promote your movie that you’ve already done.

How are you feeling? You’re in both unions.

Yes. How am I feeling? Well, mixed is how I’m feeling, to tell you the truth. Most of my friends are like, Eff those guys, look at how much so-and-so makes, these faceless internet oligarchs that own all the content, eff those guys, let them feel a little pain. That’s kind of what a lot of my peer group is like. But I’m a little more like, “We’re in this together. Does it have to get to this, where there’s a work stoppage?” I’m super sympathetic to people who aren’t in the union that rely on film production to make their living—caterers and all of those people. I feel terrible for them. I go on the line sometimes, and it’s a little bit of a party atmosphere—there’s music playing, and they do karaoke, and we get free food thanks to Drew Carey. So I’m mixed. No one’s asked me that. Thank you.

It’s complicated. If it were easy, people would be doing it all the time.

It’s a complicated issue. It’s like Reagan. It’s complicated.

Ronald Reagan led an actors strike decades before his U.S. presidency


By Shera Avi-Yonah and Andrea Salcedo

The Washington Post
July 14, 2023

A portrait of former SAG-AFTRA president Ronald Reagan hangs in SAG-AFTRA headquarters, when the actors union announced its strike. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

The year was 1959, and talks between the Screen Actors Guild and movie studios had stalled.

The actors sought residual payments from TV channels that reran films they’d worked on, in what would have been a drastic shake-up.

Producers, seeking higher profits from new media, refused to negotiate.

So SAG called in a ringer who had retired from union leadership: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, an actor and Democrat at the time, served as SAG’s president from 1947 to 1952, winning for television actors the kind of residuals movie actors wanted, and eventually helping cement Hollywood as the new capital of TV production.

After agreeing to return to the SAG presidency in 1959, he would preside over a five-week strike that resulted in SAG winning residual payments for film actors. Hollywood writers also staged a strike, getting their own payments for movies screened on TV; theirs lasted 21 weeks.

In a move that would be echoed this summer, the dual strikes in 1960 aligned writers and actors on the picket line, bringing much of Hollywood’s work to a standstill.

And Reagan would be among those who ended them.

“[The deal] was overwhelmingly approved by the membership,” Iwan Morgan, author of ‘Reagan: American Icon,’ told The Washington Post. “They were very keen to get back to work and make money. … He was a pretty good negotiator, there’s no doubt about it. Reagan would later joke that negotiating with Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, over arms reduction was nothing in comparison to having to negotiate with the studio heads.

At the time, creatives had to contend with the popularization of a new medium, TV. Now they’re dealing with a similar issue in the form of streaming, plus existential questions raised by artificial intelligence — a combination that led to another dual strike when SAG-AFTRA announced Thursday that its actors would stop their work. The move from SAG-AFTRA (the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists merged with SAG a decade ago) aligned with the Writers Guild of America in its strike that has run since June

When Reagan began his SAG negotiations, the movie studios refused to even discuss residuals, said actor and writer Wayne Federman, who has written about the 1960 strike and spoke to The Post on his way to the writers guild picket line Thursday.

Producers argued at the time that actors had been paid once for their work and shouldn’t get money over and over for the same work. After a month of fruitless negotiations, Reagan called a strike authorization vote in February 1960. SAG members walked off sets one month later, on March 7.

Reagan benefited from long-standing relationships within the industry — including with the future head of Universal Studios, Lew Wasserman, who had been Reagan’s agent.

“Reagan in 1960 should never have been fronting SAG negotiations because not only was he an actor, he was also a producer,” Morgan said. “There were possible conflicts of interest here, but Reagan kept them out about the fact that he had co-production credits. That only became public knowledge afterwards.”


Charles S. Boren, left, vice president of the Association of Motion Picture Producers, shakes hands with actor Charlton Heston at the end of the Screen Actors Guild's strike against seven film studios in 1960. Shown next to Heston is SAG President Ronald Reagan, shaking hands with B.B. Kahne of the AMMP. (Bettmann/Bettmann Archive)

Criticism also came from fellow SAG official and actor James Garner

“I was a vice president of the Screen Actors Guild when he was its president,” Garner said in his memoir. My duties consisted of attending meetings and voting. The only thing I remember is that Ronnie never had an original thought and that we had to tell him what to say. That’s no way to run a union, let along a state or a country.”

The actors and the studios reached a deal after five weeks of negotiations. Actors would get residual payments for films produced in 1960 and after. Any films they’d worked on before 1948 would pay actors zero residuals. In lieu of residuals for films made in the interim, the studios gave SAG a $2.65 million lump sum that the guild used to create its first pension plan.

The deal caused some grumbling among actors, Federman said, including Mickey Rooney and Bob Hope, who believed SAG could have won retroactive payments for all pre-1960 films.

“There was a feeling that Reagan had caved in — again — under pressure from MCA [the company who represented him] because MCA was desperate to end the strike,” Morgan said. “There was a feeling from some of the old stars that Reagan had not pushed harder.”

Still, it represented a distinct pro-labor moment in Reagan’s career.

Reagan shifted from his Democratic roots and supported Richard M. Nixon’s presidential aspirations in 1960, then registered as a Republican after that election, The Washington Post reported. In 1966, while he was running for governor, Reagan won “about 25 or 30 per cent of the labor vote,” the New York Times reported. A decade later, while campaigning for the White House, he characterized “big labor” as a problem for the country.

Shortly before that 1980 election, AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, in announcing his organization’s support for President Jimmy Carter, said Reagan’s supporters were “among the most bitterly antilabor forces in America,” according to a September 1980 dispatch in The Post

“Ronald Reagan is no friend of working people,” Kirkland said. “His past record proves that fact, and we must make sure that union members have the facts to match against the glib rhetoric.”

Despite the criticism from a leading labor voice, Reagan defeated Carter in a landslide and set up a presidency that would put him on another side of union dealings.

In 1981, members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), one of the few labor unions that endorsed Reagan during his run for office, walked off their jobs citing unfair wages and long hours.

But Reagan, who at the time was following a Kennedy-era executive order that limited public workers’ abilities to strike, did not come to the table with the union, which had about 13,000 workers at the time. If he capitulated, Reagan’s advisers said, he’d have every other union in the public and private sector demanding better wages, Morgan told The Post.

“Reagan is being told by his economic team and his closest advisers, ‘If you cave in now to PATCO you’ll look weak,’” Morgan said.

Had he done this, Reagan would have never been able to reduce the country’s 13 percent inflation rate at the time — a key part of Reagan’s economic plan during his first term, Morgan said. So Reagan gave them 48 hours to return to their jobs or be fired. Many workers at the time thought the former actor was bluffing, according to Morgan. But Reagan wasn’t, and the first head of a labor union to be elected into the White House became the first president in decades to end a strike.

Hollywood shutdown

What’s happening: Actors in the SAG-AFTRA union announced a decision to strike after negotiations over a new contract failed. They will join Hollywood writers, who have been on strike since early May. Follow live updates as the strike unfolds.

Why are Hollywood actors and writers on strike? The Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild of America say their demands are meant to protect their members as the entertainment industry is in an era of rapid change. The SAG strike could last for months, here are the rules about what actors can and can’t do.

What has the writers’ strike halted? With writers and actors both going on strike, the film industry will likely grind to a halt. Here’s what to know about the strikes’ impacts on Hollywood. This is only the second time in history a joint strike has happened, with the last occurrence in 1960 when Ronald Reagan led SAG.



By Shera Avi-Yonah  is an intern on The Post’s General Assignment desk. Before joining The Post, she interned at Bloomberg News, the Daily Memphian in Memphis, CBS News and the American Prospect. Twitter

By Andrea Salcedo is a general assignment reporter for The Washington Post. She joined The Post in 2020 as an overnight reporter on the Morning Mix team. Previously, she covered breaking news and features for the New York Times metro desk. Twitter

What you need to know about the SAG-AFTRA strike that will upend Hollywood

2023/07/14

Writers Guild of America members, with support from SAG-AFTRA, strike at Paramount Studios in Los Angeles on June 6, 2023. - Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times/TNS

NEW YORK — Lights, camera, pause. Hollywood is officially on hiatus as the union representing on-screen talent has joined screenwriters in striking against the studios, amid stalled contract negotiations.

SAG-AFTRA officially announced its strike would commence at midnight PST Friday, after the union’s contract expired late Wednesday and negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) fell apart. Union leadership noted that while the strike was “an instrument of last resort,” settling for an unfair deal wouldn’t just “destroy each of us, but the industry at large.”

Here’s a breakdown of what the strike means for screens big, small and beyond.
Why is SAG-AFTRA striking?

The union, representing roughly 160,000 actors, broadcast journalists, hosts and more, is seeking more than an increase in pay and improvement in working conditions.

SAG wants to ensure their livelihoods are protected amid the emergence of evolving technologies, such as streaming services and artificial intelligence, concerns shared by the Writers Guild of America, who began their strike in May.

Oscar winners like Meryl Streep, Jennifer Lawrence, and Ariana DeBose last month were among the hundreds of SAG members who signed a letter in which they laid out their demands to prevent a strike.

“We feel that our wages, our craft, our creative freedom, and the power of our union have all been undermined in the last decade. We need to reverse those trajectories.”
What are the ramifications of a SAG-AFTRA strike for Hollywood?

Members of the union will be ordered to stop performing, forcing sets that have yet to shut down amid the writers strike to do so — in turn likely delaying a whole host of release dates. They’ll also be prohibited from promoting upcoming work. Excited to see Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert DeNiro on the Oscars campaign trail for Martin Scorsese’s long-awaited, “Killers of the Flower Moon?” That all depends on when this strike ends. In the meantime, press junkets, interviews, or any posting of promotional content are all on hold.

”Oppenheimer” star Emily Blunt, for instance, confirmed to Deadline Thursday that, were the strike to break out during the premiere of Christopher Nolan’s much-anticipated docudrama, the star-studded cast would “be leaving together as cast in unity with everyone.”

The strike might also put a damper on this year’s San Diego Comic-Con. In addition to promotional panels being on the list of big no-no’s for represented actors, many studio staples like Marvel, Sony and HBO already reportedly pulled out of presentations or panels as a result of the writers strike.
Is all acting work prohibited under the strike?

Most on-screen theatrical work — such as TV, film, and streaming — isn’t allowed for members during the strike. However actors are expected to be permitted to appear in music videos, commercials, corporate or educational videos, and on broadcast news. It’s expected that non-SAG-AFTRA podcast and audiobook gigs will also be allowed. Voice-over work which has been negotiated by SAG is expected to be OK, but will require the union’s approval, sources tell Vanity Fair.

Morning and talk shows, as well as reality or game shows and the like are handled by the Network Television Code and should remain unaffected by the strike.
Is Broadway on strike, too?

While many SAG members also do live theater, live theatrical performance falls under a separate union: Actor’s Equity. As such, live theater such as Broadway plays and musicals, are not affected by the strike, an Actor’s Equity representative confirmed to The Daily News, adding: “Audiences can still feel good about buying tickets to Broadway and other live theatre!”
Who might you see on the picket line?

Because of the breadth of those represented by SAG-AFTRA, there’s a good chance onlookers will spot plenty of familiar faces picketing for professional protection.

That star-studded letter seen by Rolling Stone, notes that “what might be considered a good deal in any other years is simply not enough,” due to the “unprecedented inflection point in our industry,” was also signed by the likes of Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Ben Stiller, Neil Patrick Harris, Eva Longoria, Riley Keough and Ziwe.

© New York Daily News

UK

Ending private school tax breaks would raise £1.5bn for state sector, thinktank says

Labour’s pledge to remove independent schools’ tax benefits would have ‘limited effect’ on pupil numbers, according to research by IFS

Research by the IFS found that Labour’s plans to add VAT to private school fees would help provide a 2% boost in spending on England’s state schools. 

Photograph: Ben Birchall/PA

Sally Weale 

Education correspondent

THE GUARDIAN

Tue 11 Jul 2023 

Warnings of a mass exodus from private schools if Labour carries out its pledge to scrap their tax breaks have been dismissed by a leading economic thinktank. .

Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) found that Labour’s plans to add VAT to private school fees would generate up to £1.5bn in additional revenue, “a small but potentially worthwhile sum” providing a 2% boost in spending on England’s state schools.

The policy would have “a relatively limited effect” on pupil numbers, the research found.

Contrary to predictions of families quitting independent schools due to rising fees and moving their children into the already creaking state sector, the IFS said it expected higher fees would have “a weak effect” on demand, potentially reducing private school numbers by as little as 3% to 7%.

As the political parties set out their stalls for the next general election, the private schools policy has become one of Labour’s most eye-catching and hotly debated pledges. The latest IFS research answers some of the challenges to the policy, which others believe does not go far enough.

“If the main aim of removing tax exemptions from private schools is to raise revenue, then this is likely to be achievable,” the report’s author, Luke Sibieta, said. “If the aim is to encourage more pupils into the state sector and reduce inequalities by school attended, then this policy package is likely to have only minor impacts.”

Prof Francis Green of the Private Policy Education Forum, which also co-authored the study Engines of privilege: Britain’s private school problem, said: “The removal of charity status from private schools is right. But, without further measures, this will do little to lessen the unfairness in our class-segmented school system.”

The IFS analysis, published on Tuesday, confirms Labour’s calculation that ending private schools’ tax breaks would increase tax revenues by about £1.6bn and estimates that, taking into account additional costs to the state sector of around £100-£300m a year, the policy would lead to a net gain to the public finances of £1.3bn-£1.5bn.

If the numbers transferring into the state sector are low, tax revenues from private schools will be healthy and the cost of incorporating more pupils into the state sector will be limited, though the paper points out that with pupil numbers expected to fall dramatically over the next decade, state schools might welcome extra pupils.


Julie Robinson, CEO of the Independent Schools Council, said the number of pupils moving from independent schools into the state sector would be higher than the 20,000 to 40,000 estimated by the IFS.

She said: “This is the second report in less than a month to confirm what we have consistently said: Labour’s policy will not raise the money it claims it would. Even an over-optimistic estimate – which this most certainly is – leaves Labour significantly short of funding the education policies they claim a tax on parents would pay for.”

In a keynote speech last week, Keir Starmer said money raised from removing tax breaks on private schools would be used to give primary schools cash for “world-class early language innovation”. The party has also said the funds would be used to help recruit more than 6,500 new teachers into the state sector.

The shadow education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, said the IFS analysis reinforced the fact that that all of Labour’s policies are fully costed and fully funded. “The Conservatives have crashed the economy and have no plan for growth which will mean we face tough choices in government,” she said.

“Labour will fund our fully costed plans to drive high and rising standards in our state schools by ending private schools’ unjustifiable tax breaks.”

Josh Hillman, director of education at the Nuffield Foundation, which funded the research, said: “This timely analysis shows that the combination of levying VAT on fees and the tax exemptions associated with removing charitable status from private schools would raise a small but potentially worthwhile sum of money for use in state education.

“However, to make a significant contribution to reversing the widening gap in achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged pupils, a wealth of other research suggests it would need to be spent carefully on well-targeted funding streams and evidence-based programmes and practices.”

Japan asks China for 'scientific' view of Fukushima water release

Foreign Minister Hayashi says Tokyo ready to communicate about plans

Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi, left, meets with his Chinese counterpart, Wang Yi, at an ASEAN meeting in Jakarta on July 14. 

 © Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan/Kyodo

 July 14, 2023

TOKYO (Reuters) -- Japan called on China to approach the release of radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear power plant in a "scientific manner" at a meeting held between Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi and Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi on Friday.

In a move that has caused alarm among neighbouring countries and local fishermen, Japan is set to start releasing more than 1 million tonnes of water from the wrecked Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant this summer. China has emerged as the most vocal of those critics, saying the plan would endanger the environment and human lives.

At a meeting with Wang on the sidelines of an Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) meeting in Indonesia, Hayashi said Japan was willing to communicate with China about the water discharge from a scientific perspective, according to the Japanese foreign ministry.

"(Hayashi) called on China to respond in a scientific manner," it said in a statement.

Wang, in turn, asked Japan to "face up" to legitimate concerns of all sides, "sincerely" communicate with its neighbours and be "prudent" in handling the situation.

"This is as much an issue about attitude as it is about science," China's official Xinhua news agency cited Wang as saying.

The issue of the water release took up a substantive amount of the hour-long talk between Wang and Hayashi, but the two did not come to a clear agreement on the matter, a Japanese foreign ministry official told reporters later on Friday.

Although China has raised concerns about the water discharge, a comprehensive review of the plan by the United Nations nuclear watchdog has said that the impact would be "negligible" and that the discharge would be in accordance with international standards.

The Japanese government says the water has been filtered to remove most radioactive elements except for tritium, an isotope of hydrogen that is hard to separate from water. The treated water will be diluted to well below internationally approved levels of tritium before being released into the Pacific.

Hayashi defended the plan at an ASEAN meeting on Thursday and asserted that China was making "claims not rooted in scientific evidence", according to Japan's foreign ministry.

Relations between the two countries have also become tense as China asserts its maritime ambitions in the region, which Hayashi touched on during his meeting with Wang.

Hayashi "conveyed strong concerns over China's increasing military activity conducted within the vicinity of Japan" as well as Chinese military cooperation with Russia, according to the statement.

Wang said he hoped Japan could be "objective and rational" towards China, and not position it as a threat.

"Japan has identified China as the biggest strategic challenge and rendered China as a threat, which is seriously inconsistent with the reality of China-Japan relations," he said, adding that Beijing was open to maintaining contacts with Japan at all levels.

China woos Papua New Guinea with free trade push

Beijing leverages frustrations over economic ties with U.S., Australia

Chinese President Xi Jinping shakes hands with then-Papua New Guinean Prime Minister Peter O'Neill in Port Moresby in 2018.

 

 Reuters

RURIKA IMAHASHI and IORI KAWATE, Nikkei staff writersJuly 12, 2023 02:28 JST

SYDNEY/BEIJING -- China is bolstering economic ties with Papua New Guinea as the Pacific nation seeks to expand trade with the world's second-largest economy even while deepening military cooperation with the U.S.

The state-owned Bank of China (BOC) has opened its first representative office in Papua New Guinea. The office is a concrete step in Chinese President Xi Jinping's plans to "build a comprehensive strategic partnership with Papua New Guinea," BOC Chairman Ge Haijiao said in a speech at Port Moresby in early June.

Pacific island nations like Papua New Guinea have become a new battleground for influence between Beijing and Washington. As fears grow among the U.S. and its allies over China's growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific, the nations are seen as strategically important in both the economic and security spheres.

While the BOC has not yet obtained a banking license in Papua New Guinea and cannot engage in financial transactions, local media report, Papua New Guinea's central bank sees the representative office as a step toward introducing a new commercial bank into the country.

The Chinese side likely hopes the office will promote yuan-denominated trade.

Also last month, Papua New Guinean Prime Minister James Marape presented parliament with a visa waiver agreement with China to facilitate reciprocal travel by diplomats and government officials.

The moves come as China and Papua New Guinea expand economic cooperation on a wider scale. China has proposed the countries sign a free trade agreement and the sides are conducting a joint feasibility study.

In May, Papua New Guinea decided to establish a trade promotion body and open its inaugural overseas trade office in Shanghai. The new office could launch during Marape's trip to China planned for sometime this year, local media report. The FTA could be signed then as well.

A newly constructed road that was funded by the Chinese government in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, on November 2018. © Reuters

More overseas companies operating in Papua New Guinea are based in China than anywhere else, according to the Australian think tank Lowy Institute. They span across a wide range of industries, from retail to hotels to construction.

Papua New Guinea is drawn to China partly due to frustration over its trade with the U.S. and Australia.

Australia was the country's largest export destination as of 2020. But since gold and other precious metals comprise over 98% of these shipments, Papua New Guinea essentially faces a trade deficit with Australia, according to Papua New Guinean Trade and Investment Minister Richard Maru.

China ranked third, after Australia and Japan, at around 6.4 billion kina ($1.8 billion at current rates) in 2020. The figure had grown 11-fold since 2012. Papua New Guinea hopes to further expand shipments of taro and other agricultural products to the country.

Last year, China signed a security treaty with the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea's eastern neighbor. It also proposed a regionwide deal with 10 Pacific island nations, including on security, though the framework fell through.

After the Solomon Islands deal, the U.S. and Australia sought to deepen military cooperation with Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea concluded a defense cooperation agreement with the U.S. in May, and is in talks for a security pact with Australia as well.

China appears to be responding by improving economic ties with Papua New Guinea.

"Deepening ties with China complicates security ties with Australia and the U.S., given PNG doesn't see these bilateral relationships as binary -- it will deepen economic ties with China, while deepening its ties with Australia and the U.S.," said Maholopa Laveil, the FDC Pacific fellow at the Lowy Institute.

"The Marape government is leveraging its trade ties to gain more from Australia and the U.S. in its defense agreements," Laveil said.

Cuban government condemns provocative US nuclear submarine visit to Guantanamo Bay


The Russian military training ship Perekop performs docking maneuvers on July 11, 2023, in Havana. (AFP)

AFP
Published: 11 July ,2023

The Cuban government on Tuesday said it “strongly rejects” the presence of a US nuclear-powered submarine last week at the American naval base in Guantanamo Bay on the island’s east coast.

In a statement issued in English, the foreign ministry said it “strongly rejects the arrival of a nuclear-powered submarine in the Guantanamo Bay on July 5, 2023, that stayed until July 8 at the US military base located there.”

The incident was a “provocative escalation of the United States, whose political or strategic motives are not known,” it added.

The ministry warned of the “danger of the presence and circulation of nuclear submarines of the United States armed forces in the nearby Caribbean region.”


In Washington, the State Department had no immediate comment on Havana’s statement.

The complaint follows a tightening of relations between Cuba and Russia, with an uptick in bilateral projects and visits by senior officials even as Moscow is engaged in a war on Ukraine.

Last month, Cuba and Russia -- both under US sanctions -- announced they would pursue closer “technical-military” cooperation.

Moscow and Havana were at the center of a global nuclear scare in 1962, when the Soviet Union stationed missiles on the island, sparking threats of an attack by the United States.

The weapons were withdrawn and a crisis averted, but Cuba has been under a US blockade ever since.

Cuba has also raised eyebrows over recent interactions with China.

The Wall Street Journal has reported that Havana was negotiating with Beijing to establish a joint military training facility on the island, and the White House said China has been operating an intelligence unit in Cuba for years -- which Havana has denied.

Cuba has repeatedly demanded the return of a 117-square-kilometer (45-square-mile) territory in US hands since 1898 and home to the Guantanamo base.

Since 2002, it has been used by the United States to house “enemy combatants” captured in the so-called war on terror following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Last month, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Fionnuala Ni Aolain said the treatment of the remaining 30 detainees at Guantanamo was “cruel, inhuman and degrading.”

 

Russia declares Norway-headquartered Human Rights House ‘undesirable’

The Procurator General’s Office in Moscow claims the organisation’s activities are “provocative” and “shapes public opinions”.

By

Thomas Nilsen

     

July 07, 2023

The announcement Friday afternoon comes as no surprise. There is no longer any room for human rights work in Russia.

Today, more than 80 civil society organizations are united under the umbrella foundation Human Rights House. Advocating for the freedoms of assembly, association, and expression, the groups are based in many countries but headquartered in Oslo.

Human Rights House has advocated civil rights in Russia for years and supported many local individuals and groups.

The Procurator General’s Office states that the Human Rights House is engaged in discrediting Russia’s foreign policy and its armed forces. The provocative information agenda of the organization is aimed at political and economic isolation of Russia, the statement reads.

“The activities of the HRHF and the listed national human rights houses are aimed at violating the territorial integrity of the state, destabilizing the socio-political situation, discrediting the domestic and foreign policy pursued by the country’s leadership, and shaping public opinion about the need to change power in an unconstitutional way.”

To underline its accusation that Human Rights House Foundation is a foreign “provocative” organization, the Prosecutor General’s Office points to its investigation discovering that the activities are funded by the European Union, Great Britain, Norway, the Netherlands, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic and Switzerland.

Human Rights House is the second Norwegian group to be declared ‘undesirable’ in Russia after the environmental foundation Bellona was listed in April.

The law on undesirable organizations has been expanded several times and can be used to hinder any foreign or international organization that allegedly undermines Russia’s constitutional order, military, or security.

When blacklisted, any “undesirable organization” must cease all activities in Russia or face criminal sanctions.

A 2021 amendment to the law makes it easier to open criminal cases for people affiliated with an undesirable organization. Offenses carry a punishment of up to six years in prison.

Photo: Human Rights House Foundation