Category: Labor

  • “I did not start out as a writer interested in organized labor,” Hamilton Nolan writes in The Hammer: Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor; “I started out as a writer interested in why America was so fucked up. Why did we have such gargantuan levels of inequality? Why were thousands of homeless people living in the streets of cities where billionaires frolicked in penthouses? Why was it that certain classes of people worked hard their entire lives and stayed poor, just as their parents had been, and just as their children seemed doomed to be? Even while labor unions had fallen almost completely out of the public mind, it turned out that they were central to all our most fundamental problems.” In this live episode of Working People, recorded at Red Emma’s cooperative bookstore, cafe, and community events space in Baltimore on Dec. 6, 2024, Max speaks with Nolan about his new book, what the ongoing war on workers’ rights and unions tells us about the “fucked up” society we’re living in, and what lessons labor can teach us now about how to fight and win, even in the darkest of times. Sara Nelson, International President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL–CIO, also makes a special guest appearance in the second half of the episode.

    Additional links/info below…

    Permanent links below…

    Featured Music…

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Studio Production: Max Alvarez
    Post-Production: Jules Taylor


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Analysis:

    Mic check. Mic check. We’re going to go ahead and get started with tonight’s event. It is always, always, always good to see you at Red Emma’s bookstore Coffeehouse. There are many things you could be doing. The weather cleared up nicely, cold as hell, but it was a beautiful afternoon, so you might’ve been somewhere else. You chose to be here with us in community and in the struggle capitals, and that is never lost upon us. I’m the poet known as analysis. Welcome on behalf of the entire team Hamilton. Nolan is a longtime labor journalist who was written about labor, politics and class war for publications such as Gawker in these Times, the Guardian and More. Speaking of Gawker Media, he helped organize them in 2015. That became the first yes, yes, yes. First online media company to unionize. He’s based in Brooklyn, New York has a publication called How Things Work, and you can find that at his website, hamilton nolan.com, Hamilton nolan.com.

    We are joined in conversation this evening by Red Emmas fan. Max Alvarez is the editor in chief of the Real News Network, the host of the podcast, working people, PhD in history and comparative literature from University of Michigan and does so much more, writes for so many things. Speaking of writing, we have one copy. How many copies did I say? One copy of Max’s book, the Work of Living. Where can people talk about their lives and dreams and the year That World ended This right over there. So you should get that along with tonight’s book. We are so glad to get into this labor history. It is very important. I need y’all to give up some real radical roof rays and red ass noise for in conversation with Max Alvarez and presenting the hammer power. I love this subtitle. Listen to this Power inequality and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor. Y’all make some noise for Hamilton Nolan.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright, thank you so much analysis. Thank you once again to the great Red Emma’s Cooperative Bookstore coffee house and gathering space. This is a really important space for our community, so just wanted as always to thank our hosts and encourage y’all to please support Red Emma’s because we need places like this to plan the next steps, and that’s what we’re going to be talking about in the second part of our conversation today. And I couldn’t be more grateful to be in conversation with my man, Hamilton Nolan about that because I often find myself looking to Hamilton for answers or guidance or even just a little dose of strength that I can kind of get to help me get out of bed and keep fighting. Hamilton is a role model for so many of us in the labor journalism and labor media world, and I’m so proud of him and everything that he’s done, especially this incredible new book that we’re here to talk about today, which as analysis said is called The Hammer Power Inequality and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor. Hamilton, thank you so much for joining me today and Baltimore brother and welcome.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Thank you and thank you Red Emmas. This is my first time at Red Emmas and I love everything about this place already, so I’ll definitely be back and thank you all for coming and thank you Max, who by the way, if you all don’t know, is definitely one of the best labor journalists in the United States America, and we are lucky to have him here in Baltimore, so thank you for having me.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Thank you, brother. That means the world to me and who boy do we got a lot to talk about, right? I mean, I’m thinking we’re never going to be able to sum up the richness and depth and importance of this book in a 60 minute talk, right? That’s an unfair aim to have in any book talk. So I want to encourage everyone first and foremost to please buy and read this book. If you are finding yourself, like me feeling overwhelmed by anxiety, fear, anger, resentment, all these heavy feelings that you don’t know what to do with, but you are looking for something to do, you were looking for more that you can do to fight back and to keep us from falling further into the abyss. I would highly recommend that you start with this book and you’ll find a lot of hard truths and a lot of warm comfort in it through the stories of our fellow workers, past and present and through Hamilton’s fierce and righteous perspective.

    And so Hamilton, I want to by way of introducing the book sort of jump into the moment that we’re in right now because everyone is sort of looking at the past eight to 10 years to try to understand what the hell happened in this country that not only led us to elect Donald Trump president the first time, but now a second time with a fully magnified GOP controlling effectively all branches of government. And there are a lot of different narratives about the last eight to 10 years that cherry pick stories about the working class and their politics, our politics and so on. I wanted to ask you, Hamilton Nolan, what does the last eight to 10 years in this country look like through the lens of labor and through the lives of the working people that you report on for a living?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, thank you, man. It’s a great question and obviously one I’ve thought about a lot and you’ve thought about a lot, probably everybody in this room has thought about a lot. I think I’m going to cheat a little bit because I’m going to go back a little bit farther because I think you have to go back a little bit farther to really answer that question. And I will go back to the end of World War II 1950s in America. It’s going to be short though. I’m not going to talk that one, but the context being that after World War II in this country, one in three working people in America was a union member, and what did that produce that produced what is looked back on now as the golden age of America? Ironically, look back on by Republicans in particular, I was like, wow, that’s the time we need to get back to one in three working people in this country was a union member and America was prosperous, but that level of unionization in this country meant that the prosperity that America had was widely shared.

    So we had the greatest shared prosperity for a good 20 to 30 year period. It was really a golden age in the history of America. All that prosperity was widely shared because working people in this country had the power to take their share of that wealth thanks to high levels of unionization. And over time the decline of unions in America in the mid 1950s about one in three workers was union member. Today it’s one in 10, and that’s been a slow downward decline for all those years, and particularly beginning in 1980 with the Reagan era. I was born in 1979. So this kind of the story of my lifetime is that we saw this inequality, crisis, economic inequality, crisis in particular start to rise up in America. And of course Reagan’s assault on unions and worker power was a big part of enabling that. And there’s a really famous chart that a lot of you probably seen, and one line is the decline of union density in America.

    It goes down like that. And then the other line is the rise of the wealth held by the top 10% in America and it goes up like that and it’s perfect mirror images, perfect mirror images. So those two things are not coincidental. Those two things are one enabled the other. And so I think to bring it up to today, I think that it’s just the nature of societies that inequality can only rise for so long before stuff starts to break and stuff starts to break down, the social contract starts to break down, the political system starts to break down. People stop believing in the American dream because it becomes increasingly obvious that the American dream is kind of a sham. And I think that is the environment that fostered a guy like Trump who is not only a Republican, but also like a conman and just clearly a scam artist and all the sort of worst qualities come to the fore.

    But I remember I covered Trump when he was running in 2016 and 2015, and one thing that always stuck with me from the 2016 election was that in West Virginia, which was one of the highest states in America for voting for Trump in the democratic primary, Bernie won every county in West Virginia. So what is that? That’s people being like, we need something different. We need the most different thing that we can find. And I think that is what’s led us to Trump the hollowness of what neoliberalism produced in this country, the failure of America to share his prosperity, crushing unions crushing working people’s ability to get their fair share of the wealth that this country produces, which is still, by the way, the most wealth any nation in the history of the world has ever produced we’re rich as hell. It’s just that all the money goes to the very top. All those things I think conspire to form atmosphere where a guy like Trump can rise up. And I guess the story of the last election is that in those eight years, the opposition did not rally itself to fix the underlying problems that contributed to Trump getting in the first place. So here we are.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and I want to tease that out just a bit more, right? Since it’s, again, this is in the air that we’re breathing right now, it’s everywhere, especially if anyone’s like, I understand why you would maybe not be following the news so closely these days because exhausting. So I do understand that, but it’s all that anyone’s talking about right now. So I do want to sort of ask you if you could also take this and respond to the discussions and debates that are being had right now from mainstream news all the way to independent channels like ours all across social media, Democrats abandoning the working class and reaping what they’ve sown, Republicans having this quote, great realignment and a lot of working people supporting Trump and maga. And you really, I think helped us understand some of the complex reasons that might happen. But I want to ask you if you have, what you feel is missing from those debates right now, especially in the wake of Trump’s electoral victory.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I mean, I do think one thing that’s not getting really enunciated enough or made clear enough, especially in the discussion after the election of the sort of alleged working class shift to Republicans, and some of it was real. I mean, there has been a real certain amount of shift of lower income votes to Trump, but one thing that didn’t get brought up, and especially in the ways that the Democrats panic about that, and a democratic political consultant is probably the least equipped person in the world to solve that problem. They’re all millionaires who live in dc. But I mean, what I think didn’t get talked about enough specifically was that the union votes still went to Democrats by the same healthy margin that it had in the past. So actual union members did not shift to Trump, not that Harris was so great or anything, but the actual union vote stayed to the left.

    And so I think that, and I’m a broken record maybe, but when we talk about, oh, the working class, how are we going to bring the working class back, raise union density, get more people into unions, and you get people into organizations that actually can do political education, people’s relationship with politics can’t just be seen ads on tv. I mean, that’s not politics. And politics is being in an organization that can help people fight for their own interests, whether it’s electorally, whether it’s in the workplace or anywhere else. Unions are the foundation of that in America. The labor movement is the foundation of that. Even though it’s gotten very weak, it’s still demonstrated even in the last election when working class people shifted to the right union members didn’t. So unions are an essential ingredient to American democracy. And when we talk about the declining in unions, it’s not just a story about economics. It’s not just people aren’t earning enough money anymore. It is a story of the loss of power, the loss of regular people’s ability to exercise power, political power in particular. And so I think that’s something that has not been discussed enough, at least in the mainstream news though I’m sure on real news. Yes.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Oh yeah, we got you baby. And I want to come back to the union question in a second, but I think you make a tremendously important point, right? Given the sort of post World War II context that you gave us in the beginning all the way up till now, and like you said, our lifetimes are effectively the arc of this decline. We are sort of like and bear the living imprints of Neoliberalism’s like rise and fall, and we bear in our family stories and experiences like the effects of a failed ideology, well failed for us. But for the past 40 years, that has been what working people across the board have experienced, and whether they are joining unions or trying to form unions in larger numbers than we’ve seen in a generation in recent years or going on strike, whether they’re burning down police precincts or voting for explicitly anti-establishment politicians like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, that being the linkage that there’s an anti-establishment rage harnessed in there, all of those things are sort of different and even interlocking responses to a crisis that’s been building for our entire lifetimes.

    And I think that’s what drives me so nuts about the ways that the media talks about politics and then those of us who consume the media learn to think about politics and it limits the scope of how we can think. George Orwell wrote this a century ago, I’m not saying anything new here, but I think that’s such an important point because if you don’t have that deeper historical context, if you don’t understand that what people are responding to every two to four years, they’re responding to a crisis that’s been building for 40 or 50. And so in fact, what’s more telling about our political situation, not just here in the US but around the world, is that we are in what many analysts are calling an anti incumbent period. Because again, what we just lived through the past three election cycles we haven’t seen in our lifetime where the incumbent party was voted out each time.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I mean a two party system which we have, which unfortunately, and I think the older I get, the more I realize how bad a two party system is shitty system. But in a two party system, every election is a referendum on reality. And so if reality sucks, you get that pendulum nature that we see in America and that we’ve seen for much of the 20th century and into this century as well where the ping pong and back in America, we don’t have parties that have 40 year runs on top of the government. Why is that? Because all the dissatisfaction with the status quo is always going to be channeled to kicking out the party in power.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And again, traced along that timeline from when you were born to now, not only has union density just plummeted down to barely 10% in this country, but with that is all the neoliberal poison that has eroded the very foundations of our society, our democracy, everything, corporate consolidation, deregulation, privatization, globalization. These processes have been building up and accumulating. And it’s not that it’s anything new, it’s just that it’s taken this long for so many working people to feel it at this level, I think. And so that, sorry, did you have something to jump in on? No go. Because I think that leads us to where and why unions became such a central point for you, and in the same way that they become a central point for so many people in recent years looking for hope. Yeah. So talk about your path to understanding unions as an important institution. You didn’t start there. You didn’t set out to be a union guy

    Hamilton Nolan:

    And both of us, the fact that we sit here and talk about union so much is weird in media, in politics, unions are still considered this sort of niche story off to the side. And when I started and became a journalist, I didn’t start out to be a labor reporter. I was just like, I want to write about why is America fucked up? Why the rich get richer in the poor, get poorer? Why is there homeless people sleeping on the street and then there’s rich people in the penthouse, basic super basic stuff that all of us are like, why is that so broken? And over the years as I reported on all those things, I found myself repeatedly being drawn back to issues, to labor issues, to worker power, to the decline of worker power and the consequences of that and the ripple effects of that, and learned about the history of unions and the history of labor and the way that that had affected our economy, the way that that had affected our politics.

    And over the years, just pursuing the threads of those really basic questions. Why is America broken in the ways that it’s broken today? I ended up becoming a full-time labor reporter because I found over and over again that labor issues were at the center of all those questions. The inequality crisis was directly spawned by the attack on labor power in this country. And the inequality crisis is the thing that was destabilizing our country in all the ways that manifest in a million different ways, including Donald Trump and a lot of other things. So I mean, I just sort of increasingly covered labor over the years because I was like, wow, this stuff is so important, so important, so important. And at the same time as I was looking around the media and being like, nobody’s really talking about this that much. I mean, people cover politics in really stupid ways, and there’s not that much attention on things that are actually more, in many cases, a union election is more consequential than a political election in the sense of the impact that it’s going to have not just on the lives of those workers, but the ripple effects going to have through the economy, the way it’s going to change the balance of power economically in a city, in an industry.

    Those things have long-term ripple effects down through years and through generations, and they change families and they change people’s lives, and it’s a very, very undercover aspect of America in the media, in journalism. And so I think one of the reasons I kept on writing about labor over the years was just like nobody else was. Not nobody you were doing it, but relatively speaking, not that many people are writing about this stuff. That was actually really important, and that’s still true today, unfortunately.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Just a small aside, please, please support any and all labor journalists that you follow. Support Hamilton Substack. Please support the real news support freelance writers like Kim Kelly, support great labor writers. Publishing for places in these times, Jacobin all over the place, local papers, the people doing the beats in their local area, they’re the only person covering labor stories. Support it, please. Otherwise it goes away.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Max, how did you get into labor?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, I’ll sort of give a condensed version that hooks into the union question for the same reasons that you do. I feel a little weird when people ask my opinion about unions or I’ve become known as a union guy or someone who knows a lot about unions because I interview a shit ton of union workers and cover a lot of labor stories, but that is not where I started covering labor. I started the podcast that I’m still doing working people. Years ago when I was still a broke grad student, we were living in Ann Arbor, and I say a joke that I almost started the show as a ruse to get my dad to talk about losing our house and losing everything that I had grown up with, losing the American dream in his mind because for years it had just eaten our family away.

    It had taken my father away from me, the lights rum, but no one was there. My parents’ marriage was on the rocks, and that was so stunning to all of us. I was working at warehouses as a temp worker 12 years ago when this was all happening. It was really bad. And we grew up deeply conservative Republicans pro capitalists. The crash was a huge ideological crash for us because we saw how much the system we believed in and that we believed we could work within to make a good life for ourselves was so nakedly rigged in favor of the very people who had caused millions of families like ours to lose everything. And it was our going government bailing them out, and it was our media saying, Hey, the economy’s great while I’m sitting there on a couch with my dad in the house we were going to lose in two years.

    So I started doing labor journalism on my podcast because I did not want my father to go to his grave feeling like a failure. And I kept doing the podcast because I saw how much, and I knew how much pain you accrue as a human being in such an inhuman system that chews us up and spits us out until we have nothing left to give that gets us accustomed to being paid so little and treated so poorly and what that does to your heart and your psyche. I wanted people to have a space to talk about that and to tell the stories of labor through the human stories of regular people. And it was years in the making that I came to understand a, people don’t deserve this. Well, I mean, I knew that from the beginning, but there’s something they could do about it. And that’s how I came to understand, oh shit, they had unions. I am seeing people come to the same conclusion. I’m seeing how they’re improving their lives by struggling together to exercise that, right?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    It’s really like one of the best parts of being a labor journalist. The stuff that we do, and you would probably agree with this, I don’t want to speak for you, but it is just like when I was at Gawker during the recession out of 2008, 2009, I did this series of unemployment stories. So I just had people who had become unemployed right in and tell their story. We published this every week for 40 weeks, 40 week long series, hundreds and hundreds of people telling their own stories. I got more thank you notes from people about that than probably anything I’ve ever written. And I didn’t write any of it. It was all their stories. And just giving people the ability to tell their own stories is such a blessing. And in unions, when I’ve been on book tour most of this year, I’ve been like all over the country and everywhere I go, I meet people who would just be like somebody who has worked in their union for 20 years, 30 years, been a member, been active, been elected, been a shop steward, whatever it is, and nobody’s ever told that person that was important that you did that it was actually important.

    And so I think that’s what we do. We’re very lucky because in a sense you get to let people speak and you also get to tell people that they’re legitimately important in a way that they might have never even heard before.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, I think that’s beautifully and powerfully put. I mean, I am reminded of it week in and week out, just how much we all need that and how little we all get it. And there’s a hopeful note in that because that’s a gift that we can all give one another, listening to each other and talking to each other, showing your scars, telling your stories. That’s how workers learn that they’re being paid different rates all the way up to, again, the raw human stuff. That is, that’s what labor journalism is about. It’s not about unions, it’s about people struggling for a better life, a good life, and that manifests in the need that you can’t move anymore because of a work-related injury. So you can’t play T-ball with your kids, the life quality of life you lose because of someone else’s greed and negligence. I mean, it comes through in stories like that.

    And there’s so many in Hamilton’s book, there’s so many in the work, in the articles he’s written, the interviews that I’ve done. And I think we all have a duty to sort of try to reconnect with each other on that human level for nothing else, to remind one another that we’re not alone. We’re not worthless. We deserve better than this. And every life is beautiful, and people need to be seen that way before they can see themselves that way and believe that they can even fight for a better world and that they deserve one. And so in that regard, I wanted to bring, I actually brought a prop, which was like, I didn’t expect this to be so relevant, but I have here in my hand for those listening to this, a cup from Tudor’s Biscuit World in West Virginia. I won’t go into the backstory of how I got this cup, but I found myself in Huntington, West Virginia and saw this restaurant that looked like a throwback to the eighties.

    And I was like, oh, shit, I want to get a biscuit and I’m going to get a cup. But then I read your book and I was like, I wanted to throw the cup at the wall. So I wanted to ask, just by way of, again, really bringing us back to the book, there’s a really important story here about Tudor’s biscuit world. I wanted to ask if you could tell us a bit about that, the incredible person at the center of it, and also what this story says about everything you’re talking about, both the need for unions and also the reality that working people are up against when they try to exercise their rights.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    So the book is about, as you said, the gap between the potential that unions have to really, and I completely still believe today, and the seed of this book was being a labor reporter and getting involved in unions myself, organizing my workplace and all this stuff. And you’re like, wow, unions are so powerful. Unions are the tool. All these things that were broken, here’s the tool that can fix ’em all. This is so great. We just need to give everybody unions and we’re going to fix all these problems. And then you get involved in the actual labor movement and you start looking around, you’re like, this shit is broken, and that shit’s broken and they’re not organizing and nobody has unions and people don’t know about you. And it’s like it’s all a mess. So the gap between the potential of unions to sort of save this country innocence, and then the reality of the labor movement and organized labor being broken in a lot of ways is kind of the seed of this book.

    So one of the chapters in the book I want to write about just something which should be one of the most basic things that anybody can do, which is a person organizing their own workplace. Every union started somewhere. And generally it started with one person who’s like, we should have a union here. So I went to West Virginia. Tudor’s Biscuit world is like, if any of you’re from West Virginia, you already know what it is, but it’s like West Virginia’s homegrown fast food chain biscuits and breakfast and stuff like that. People love it. In West Virginia, there was a woman named Cynthia who worked at a Tudor’s biscuit world, tiny town called View West Virginia. She had grown up in a union family. Her dad was in a union. So she, like many people in West Virginia, which has really strong union culture, knew about unions, had connections to unions.

    And after she retired, she got a job at Tudors of Biscuit World. She was there for a while and she was like, these people aren’t paying our overtime. My colleagues aren’t getting their time off. The manager’s abusing us all. And she was like, we need a union. Her dad was in a union to her, it was a very natural thought to have. So she was like, I’m going to unionize this tutor’s biscuit world. She called her husband’s union, which was like the operating engineers. They were like, we don’t really do Tudor’s Biscuit world, but eventually put her in touch with the guy at UFCW who agreed to help her out with this organizing campaign, came out there to Elk View, helped her run a union campaign inside tutors, which little did she know at the time was one of the only fast food union campaigns in the United States of America.

    I mean, you could count on one hand the number of even organizing drives at fast food stores in the United States at that time. So very, very unique thing that she was doing, even though to her it seemed completely natural and normal. And as she went to organize this workplace, which probably had 25 workers at this tutors, tutors sent in the union busting team, the corporate union busting team arrived, and new managers start showing up at work. And this is a very, very small town, LVUS Virginia. And so people start getting threats. Some people start getting bribes, we’ll give you a watch, we’ll give you a promotion, vote against the union. One person at one point, somebody knocked on their door and their kid was getting ready to go to I think the University of West Virginia, and they were like, the scholarship might be in danger if you vote for this union.

    That was the kind of thing that was happening at a freaking fast food restaurant. And so when the vote came around and people got fired, of course, and they lost the vote by only a couple of votes, and failed to successfully unionize this tutors and filed a bunch of unfair labor practice charges, which got upheld, but everybody went and got new jobs because you’re getting paid $8 an hour, $9 an hour at this job in the first place. So it’s just such a story of an uphill battle. And the thing that she set out to do was so basic. It’s something that ideally really, you should be able to do that in a day. You work at a bookstore, you talk to the people that you’re like, we should have a union set up the election. Bam. That’s how easy it should be to form a union at your workplace. And the reality of what a struggle was for her, I think is illuminating story for us and also for the labor movement itself and for the labor movement to look at and be like, why are we unable to provide the resources that people need to successfully accomplish this thing at a fucking 25 person fast food restaurant, much less a 2,500 person factory or on and on.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I want to drill down on that for a second because I think there are two crucial points there. One, about the reality of the past few years and the uptick in organizing, the increasing militancy, the creativity of strike strategies, the voting in of more democratic caucuses and major unions like the UAW and Teamsters and so on and so forth. So there’s been a lot of movement in the movement over the past few years, and we’ve been there covering it, and it’s exciting, and that’s how a lot of people know who we are. But one of the things that constantly freaks me out and stresses me out and bums me out is that we are still living in a kind of time and place and media ecosystem that conditions us to have no long-term memories, no long-term commitment to struggles that even we deeply care about.

    And we see the results of that when strikes the Pittsburgh Post Gazette are still going on, and people have forgotten about ’em, just like we forgot about the coal miners in Alabama. And they effectively lost just like everyone loved the Starbucks drive, but they’re still fighting for first contracts. A lot of those stores that got closed aren’t reopened. A lot of people’s lives have changed and they moved on. We keep talking about the labor wave as if it’s still going unabated, but we’re not dealing with the reality of that people trying to exercise that right, have run into over these past few years. But then there’s also, and this is what I wanted to ask you about on the larger labor, organized labor side, all the way up to the leadership of the a Ffl CIO, current president, Liz Schueller said at the convention that our goal is to organize a million new workers in 10 years. That is such a small dream for such a big crisis. So I wanted to ask you for your thoughts on that. And also we need to be dreaming bigger. What are the bigger dreams that workers and the movement need to be having right now?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, I mean, today 10% of workers in America are union members. That’s the last stop before single digits,

    And there’s no stop after single digits. That’s the last stop on the elevator. So we are in a fucking crisis, man. And the first thing is the world of organized labor, which still, by the way, has 16 million people in America and unions have billions of dollars. And there is a considerable amount of resources in organized labor, even though it’s been weakened for many decades. They need to see it as a crisis. First of all, the leadership of the institutions of organized labor, and I compare it a lot to climate change because it’s like this slow moving crisis. It gets a little bit worse every year, but it goes slow enough that you can kind of ignore it. So it gets a little bit warmer every year and the water comes up this much, but you can kind of ignore, it’s not in your house yet.

    And the same way union density goes down every year, 0.2%, 0.3%. If you’re running a union, you can kind of ignore that. It’s not really destroying what you have, but over time, that leads you to oblivion. The first thing we really need is a sense of urgency among the leaders of the labor movement. And then we need them to open the checkbooks and start from the premise that we need to double the amount of union members in this country. We need to organize the next 10 million people. What you touched on the story of Liz Schuler, the A-F-L-C-O convey, I went to the a Ffl CO convention in 2022, which is like the presidential convention of the labor movement. And there was a new president taking over the Scheller, and she made a big splashy announcement for her introductory speech taking over the A-F-L-C-O. And her big announcement was, we are going to commit to organize a million new workers in 10 years.

    And everybody clapped, it’s like a million sounds big. And so I pulled out a calculator and did about one minute worth of math. And it turns out that if you unionize a million new workers in 10 years, union density will continue to go down because it’s not even enough to keep up with the new jobs that will be created in that time. So the goal, the aspiration of the biggest institution in the union world was to keep declining. And that to me is so emblematic of the fucking problem at the center of organized labor. And it’s interesting because at the same time as a labor reporter, you can go all over the country and meet the most inspiring people you ever met in your whole life in unions, in the labor movement, organizers, local presidents, activists, workers, all these people, brave people, smart people fighting, dedicating their life to this cause. I mean, there’s a bazillion incredibly inspiring stories and incredibly inspiring people inside the labor movement, but the farther up you go, the less inspiring it tends to get. And one of the things I read about in my book is I followed Sarah Nelson, who’s a great labor leader, the head of the Association of Attendants, and she sort of wrestled with the question of how to be a leader of this movement. She’s sitting right there, by the way, she’s in the house tonight.

    But I think the importance of that was sort how do we wrestled the leadership of this movement into the right place, tons of great people in the labor movement, and yet the leadership is so disappointing and it’s hurting us and it hurts us every year continually until we figure out how to fix it.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, you anticipated my final question before we open it up to q and a, but if I can, I actually wanted to pose my final question to both you and Sara. A) because, yeah, Sara Nelson features heavily in this book and you learn a lot about Sara, her career and just what an incredible human being and fighter she is and what she’s fighting for. But also, if we recall, we saw this woman on the news a few years ago during the first Trump administration, during the government shutdown saying, fuck this. We’re going to general strike till you assholes get back to work. And that’s what stopped the government shutdown. So I really don’t want to put you on the spots here, but I kind of do and kind of already have. I wanted to ask both of you guys, what can we take from the first Trump administration to really get our heads and hearts right for the fight ahead, moving into a second Trump administration, but also again, in the vein of dreaming bigger, what do we need to correct or expand in this next dark period that we didn’t do in the last administration?

    And then I’ll ask everyone to applaud and we’ll open up to audience questions. But yeah, Sara, I would love if you could answer that question as well.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Alright, I’ll give a quick answer and then you can give a more inspiring answer or whatnot. I mean, we got to get more. The response to where we’re going is to get more hardcore. And the thing that makes me fearful in this moment is not, and I don’t think the people in this room are going to be the problem. I mean, if you’re sitting in this room, we’re probably fairly copacetic in the sense of when you’re faced with fascism, you have to organize more, build the labor movements stronger, fight more or fight back harder. But I think that the Democratic Party, for example, and the portion of this country that coalesces around the Democratic party, there’s going to be a big section of that whose impulse is going to be to compromise this time and to the way that strong men like Trump work is like he makes it so pleasing him is the only way to get anything done.

    And so there’s a very powerful incentive for people in the world of politics on all sides to start kissing his ass, start licking his boots, start compromising. You see the president of the Teamsters taking buddy buddy pictures with him. Why is that? It’s because it’s like, well, this is how you get things done in this. But all that does is empower him more. And so it’s like a downward spiral where you give the strong man more and more power. So I think we got to fight harder. I don’t know if we will, but Sarah, what do you think?

    Sara Nelson:

    All right. Glad I had some bourbon for this. No. Okay, so Max, I could give a lot of answers to this question. First of all, I just want to say that I was back here getting emotional because these two men were sharing very personally and very openly about why this shit matters. And anyway, that was some good stuff, max. That was some good stuff. Okay. So what I’m going to say though is that of course, we got to organize more. We got to take this on. We got to fight, fight, fight. We got to do what Mother Jones said. She said she told the ludlow strikers after they had been gunned down and their tent, that they were sleeping in the cold depths of the Colorado winter while they were on strike against the co barons. And their intensity was burned and women and children were burned in the process.

    She came to Ludlow and she said, you will fight and win. You will fight and lose, but you must fight. And part of the story that’s not ever told is that actually minors came with guns and a lot of spirit in their hearts to chase the militia out to chase the Colorado National Guard out, and they set up their own government there in Ludlow for the next six weeks, and they had their funerals and they took care of each other. And ultimately that went away. But that part of the story is never told. And so that is the power of our solidarity. But what did those people learn from that fight? I mean, they were out in that tent city to start with because the coal company was not even following the laws of the state at that time. They were, in some ways, they were just fighting to just enforce the law because they were all immigrants who spoke 28 different languages in that tent city.

    And one of the reasons for that is because the co Barrons thought we’re going to hire people from different countries who won’t be able to communicate with each other because that is also going to be a way to make sure that we don’t have a union come in. And what they don’t understand at that level, and I’ve met these people, right? I’ve been in a lot of board rooms. They do not have the corner market on smarts, let me just tell you. But what they don’t understand is that when there’s a mine explosion and the mothers are left to tell their children that not only are their fathers not coming back, but they’re not sure how they’re going to be able to take care of them because none of the mothers can get work. They’re going to have to find another man in order to survive, and they’re trying to comfort their kids and figure out how they’re going to put their lives back together.

    You don’t have to speak the same language to understand what’s going on in the heart. So that’s how the union was built. And I think about the last Trump administration, and I’ve really worked at not saying his name, no, it’s really fucking important. Let me just be clear, because our union learned after Carl Icahn fired all the TWA strikers in 1989, that we had to have a different way of striking. And so we looked at creative tactics and we created this strike tactic called chaos, create havoc around our system. And the idea was that we were using this provision of the railway Labor Act that had never been used, that allowed for intermittent strikes to go on strike and off strike. And we decided we would add an element to this, the element of surprise, we were not going to tell you when or where we were going to strike.

    And so at Alaska Airlines in 1993, we struck seven flights and brought this deeply anti-union company to its knees who wanted to settle a contract overnight by fax machine that gave the flight attendants a 60% raise. We asked them if they wanted to meet and talk about it. They said, no, no, no. Every time we meet with you, something bad happens. We just want this over with. And so when I’m watching the government shutdown and seeing what’s going on there, and they’re saying that this is because Trump wants to build his southern border wall for security, for national security for our country, that was a bunch of bullshit. It was a 50 year campaign by the GOP to try to privatize everything in our country because if there had been a terrorist attack, that would’ve accrued incredible power to the executive to say, I’ll take care of it.

    We’re going to make all these changes. If there had been an aircraft accident, same thing would’ve happened. If nothing had happened, they would’ve said, see, it’s a bunch of bureaucracy that we don’t need, and so we’re going to privatize. And so that was really what was at stake. And once we understood that this was not a political discussion between Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, this was actually an attempt to try to distract people’s so much with the racist fearmongering, xenophobic, racist fearmongering, and keep people focused on all of that and create his own chaos campaign. I’m like, I know this one. We’re going to create a little chaos too. And so we set about talking about a safety strike for flight attendants, and we called on the rest of the labor movement to talk about a general strike because there were 800,000 people either out of work or forced to come to work for free, and another million contract workers who were just out of work with no hope getting anything in return.

    This was a crisis and everyone could see it. And the cab driver in DC as I’m talking about this from one place to another, and I’m getting out of my cab and handing him the money, he turns around and grabs my hand. He’s got a tear going down his cheek and he says, thank you. You’re fighting for me too. You don’t think about this shit. But there was no work going on in DC so he didn’t have any cab fairs, so he couldn’t make a living for his family. So it’s all connected and we’re all connected, and if one person is mistreated, we’re all mistreated. But what we have to understand with this next incoming administration is that we cannot talk about Trump. We need to talk about the people who created Trump, the people who are going to give Trump power like you were talking about, and we need to hold them accountable, every one of them.

    And we can’t think people think about this stuff in terms of red states and blue states. That’s bullshit. There’s working people everywhere, working people to be organized everywhere, working people to defend everywhere. And that’s how we need to approach this next administration. So the one thing I will say is that during that time, people were like, oh my God, which is what always happens in chaos campaigns. They don’t know where the ball is. So they’re like, oh my God, this is amazing. And one thing we learned is that instead of the typical strike coverage where it will say, how long can the union hold out? People are going to start crossing the line the next day, or people are not going to be able to hold out. They couldn’t say that because we weren’t telling ’em when or where we were going to strike, and they didn’t have their normal playbook. So all of a sudden they had to report on the issues that the workers were fighting for. And so we took control of the narrative, we took control of the schedule, we took control of the situation, and that’s what we as working people can do if we understand that this is all of our fight. But during that time, all these reporters were covering this and they were like, wow, this is amazing. And the one person who asked the question, yeah, but how are you fucking going to really do this was Hamilton Nolan.

    So when he said, I’d like to write a book and I’d like to follow you around for a year, I was like, I don’t know. I is. This guy’s going to see right through me. And you did follow me for the worst year of my life. Thanks very much for doing that. But no, I mean, this is a really important book, and if all you do is read the intro and the last chapter, you’re going to know how to fight this next administration and how to take this on. But if you also want to hear some really inspiring stories about people who are trying to make this work and people who have won fights against all odds, read this book. And then the last thing I’ll just say is that laws do not give us power. We have power when we decide to come together and use it. Yes.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Let’s give it up for Sarah Nelson and Hamilton, Nolan, yo

    Sara Nelson:

    And

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Max Alvarez.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right, man. I’m like, I’m crying, I’m cheering. I’m like, there’s a roller coaster here. So we want to open this up to questions. We know you all have questions for Hamilton, please, yeah, flag analysis down so we can get your questions and everyone can hear ’em also. Yeah, the recorder is going. We will have the audio for this published at the Real News. So if you’d prefer to ask a question but not on recording, Hamilton and I will be available afterwards.

    Analysis:

    And there’s so much to get into, so much thank you for such a rich discussion that we could talk for hours. Guess what, we don’t have ours. So we want to keep our questions and comments relatively brief and truncated so that we can get a few in. And we have one question here, and then we’re going to take a couple more hands.

    Audience Member 1:

    And I apologize because usually I don’t do this and I talk shit about people who do. But I’ve got three questions and you don’t have to take, I’m going to ask them, but you don’t have to take any of them. We can take one. So there are not red states and blue states, but there are red counties and blue counties. How do you do the organizing in those red counties? Two is that we’ve had a number of folk like Susan, but also high powered folk like feign at UAW, who’ve actually taken a different approach to labor. Could you talk about their approach to organizing? And then there are three different identities that we’re trying to navigate as workers. So one is our identities as consumers, the other is our gender identity. And then finally, and I think it’s most important actually, is our racial identity because all those things are related to organizing and how we think about ourselves as workers. How do you think about how our successful unions navigating those identity dynamics? Again, you don’t have to take any of them, but the questions are still important.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I try to give a sort of broad answer that maybe touches on most of them at least. I think the thing about red states and blue states and red counties and blue counties goes to the heart of why this stuff is so important, particularly in this time that we’re in, where that is held up as such a strong divide in this country. And every election gets stronger. The two sides of the media, the two sides of politics, the two sides of everything. And people think that that is an unbridgeable gap, that this country is going down a road that we’re going down that is actually getting worse and worse, and the divide is getting starker and starker between red and blue. And when, to me, the one thing that can bridge that gap and that can close that gap and erase the distinction between red and blue is the labor movement.

    Because I’ve been all over the country, I’ve been in red states and blue states and red counties and blue counties, and working people have common interests. And the fact that the labor movement is weak and that people don’t have access to unions is why they don’t think about that. And they don’t think in those terms. They think in terms of Fox News and CNN and M-S-N-B-C, and that’s not the real story, and that’s not the real story of politics is not Democrats and Republicans. It is working people building their power. And so I think the labor movement gets more important, the starker that red and blue divide gets, because it is the one thing that can bridge that gap and bring working people together. I always think of when the Warrior met coal strike was going on in Alabama, which was the longest strike in America, they had a big rally in Brookwood, Alabama, way out in country Alabama.

    Sarah Nelson was there, a bunch of labor leaders were there, and thousands of united mine workers were there. This is country ass Alabama, and it was the most integrated event that I have ever been to in my life. I grew up in the south. I’ve never been to an event that integrated apart from maybe a football game. And this was everybody in that community there. And they were all talking about the evil private equity firm that was stepping on the necks of the workers. And I guarantee that most of those people were probably Trump voters. Oh, no,

    Sara Nelson:

    I’m sorry. I went to the first week of that strike, and at that first rally, people were real skeptical about the union. They were pissed, so they were out on strike, but they were not sure that they liked their union. And it was not an integrated event. The black workers were over here, the white workers were over here. They were all staying about as far as they could from the union stage where we were having this rally. And they were not talking about who the villain was either. They were just mad. And so after being on strike for six months, I’ll hand it back to Hamilton because that’s what we have to recognize too, is that when we’re out on the picket line and we are defining our issues together, suddenly what our differences are don’t matter as much anymore because we’re all human beings fighting for the same thing.

    And you suddenly start to see people differently and you start to hear their stories too. You start to understand those stories better, so you start to understand why the strike matters to them, and then you start to feel connected to why you’re not just fighting for yourself, but you’re fighting for the person next to you too. And so this is where we have the opportunity to break through these gender identities and race identities, and not to wash them away, but to celebrate them and find the strength in that. Because I’m telling you, max, I’m going to fight fucking harder because I heard your story about your dad. That’s what this is about.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    There you go. I mean, yeah, give it up and to pile on here, I mean, I can’t stress enough that this is the conclusion that you come to doing the work that we do at the Real News, right? I mean, you hear these stories week in, week out. You can’t help but be affected by them, and you can’t help but feel a duty to not give up on people and to help them fight the fight that needs to be had so that this kind of shit doesn’t happen on the regular. And this is by way of addressing a question about red counties, blue counties, and where the rural urban divide really kind of comes into that. Because like Hamilton has for this book, I mean, we are out there not just interviewing union workers in dense urban areas. We are out there reporting on family farmers in Wisconsin who are the last few hanging on as big agriculture has taken over the entire rural landscape and wipe generations of knowledge, of pride, of land ownership off the board and swallowed it up into the gaping maw of corporate America.

    It’s still there. It just looks a little different. And the names on the sides of the trucks are different in rural America, but the same monster is destroying the fabric of our society, whether you live in a red county or a blue county, I see it all the time, not just in the conditions that workers are living under the declining quality of life and access to basic public services and higher cost of living, yada, yada, yada. But I’ve been in deep red Trump country, places like East Palestinian, Ohio, sitting on the stoops of deep red Trump voting Republicans who will say to me, he is like, yeah, look, I don’t care that you’re a socialist weirdo from Baltimore, but because you’ve been there talking about our stories, you’ve been interviewing us, you’ve heard what we’re going through and you keep showing up. And then we got unions to show up and we got environmental justice groups to show up.

    We got residents from other sacrifice zones or people living near other rail lines who didn’t want to happen to their communities. What happened to East Palestine? And it was like when, to Sarah’s point, the Hamilton’s point when we’re all there standing in a room talking about the shit that is impacting all of us and how we are all effectively fighting off different tentacles of the same corporate monsters and Wall Street vampires and bought off like corrupt government systems and bureaucrats. I mean, we realized very quickly how much all the shit that they used to divide us and how it all comes down to that human connection and sharing stories that melts that shit away like that. And then when you work in common struggle to address those things, you build the working class consciousness and movement that everyone keeps talking about. There’s some great recipe.

    What’s the messaging that we got to get to get a working class movement? There’s no fucking message. Just go and be there for each other, fight for one another, struggle together. See one another as human beings who deserve better than this and who are in fact the solution that we are waiting for all of us, right? You do that, you learn more about each other. You become less scary to your coworkers who look different from you, right? I mean, you’re forced to stand next to a burn barrel and talk stories about your kids in school and you realize that they’re friends and you deal with a lot of the same shit. You build solidarity through struggle, not through carefully curated messaging that I think you got to touch grass to do that. You got to talk to people to do that. You can’t just do that all online.

    You can’t do it in your own little reality bubbles. We’re all living in those reality bubbles. So whatever we do, it has to help people break out of them because our social worlds have gotten so much smaller over the past 50, 60, 70 years, and that went into hyperdrive with Covid. More people went underground or socially distanced and more of their connection to the outside world was being mediated by a screen. And so we’re seeing people sharing the same physical plane, but they’re not living on the same plane of reality. And that is a big reason why Grifters like Trump and the GOP are so able to convince working people that their neighbors are their enemy. You break that through struggle. You break that through being there. You break that through being the face behind the headline and behind the kind of scary archetypes that people are fearful of. Sorry, that was a long answer.

    Analysis:

    I’m watching our time, so let me just take, I know we had a couple hands, I just wanted to see what the hands were in the room. So one, two. So I’m going to come here and then I’m going to move right that way.

    Audience Member 2:

    Thanks for this inspiring discussion. Something I’ve been thinking about a lot, which is kind of related to what we’re talking about is that we’re in a moment of record distrust with the government and with media and the Trump administration has made clear their plan to demolish what’s left of our social safety net. And so I’m spending a lot of time thinking about what the next steps are going to be. It was a poll that found that people, people’s leading source of election news is other people, they’re not going, people are avoiding the news, they’re not trusting the news, they’re going to social media. So you’ve talked about the of organizing and unionizing and building solidarity. What I want you to dig into more is how can we use that to actually reach people and educate people and build trust and actually get information out to people who need it to hear it.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I don’t know if you figured that out. Let me know because journalism is, that’s what journalism tries to do. That’s what journalism is. That’s what Max does every day. That’s what I do every day. And you have a career in journalism and you’re constantly thinking about the very question, well, we got all these great super important stories. How do we make everybody listen to ’em? How do we make people care about this? How do we make people read this? How do you make people see this? The only answer I know I could make up an answer, the only answer I know is just keep doing the work. Just keep doing the work. Just keep writing the stories. Just keep recording the interviews. Just keep publishing the podcast. Just keep putting it out, keep putting it out. And over years it will come to people. And I’ve been in a million, just like Max has panel discussions and meetings and blah blah where people are like, what’s the magical solution to make these story make everybody learn about the Starbucks union and blah blah?

    You just got to keep telling the stories and telling the stories and telling the stories and write this story and write this book and write the next book and do this podcast and do the next podcast and keep talking. And for us, and that goes for everybody. If you think this stuff is important, tell somebody else. Talk to somebody else. You write the story, you do the story you tell the people. This spreads by word of mouth, it spreads through the media, spreads through independent media. There’s not a magical solution. But the thing we have going for us is that this shit actually is important and it actually is dramatic and actually is a good story and actually is something that people want to know about and need to know about. And that spreads through the power of itself.

    Analysis:

    See, we’re going to take two more right here and here.

    Audience Member 3:

    Alright, I’m going to steal 30 seconds for a quick relevant announcement. I work with the Baltimore Amazon Workers Support Network and organizing campaigns are one on the inside. Often what a support committee can do is kind of minimal, so we chip away as best we can. But there’s one thing that I want to let you guys know about tonight. We’re trying to find people who might be salts at Amazon. Assault is a person who takes the job in order to help with organizing a union. We have some friends on the inside, especially down at Sparrow’s Point. So if anybody here is interested in the work of our committee or might be assault or might know somebody who’s looking for a job or labor sympathetic or whatever, we’re trying to find people to get our friends on the inside some support. And I have one quick question and I’ll get right to it.

    It’s pertinent to Amazon. To Amazon. And what about your title? I’m surprised that you guys have never gotten around to talking about why that title The hammer. Yeah, we do have a lot of different identities to work with, but some of us believe that working people should be at the heart of the matter and there’s a reason for that. The potential power of working people. Amazon, for example, fits into the whole discussion about what they call choke points, which is mainly a transportation warehousing. Amazon calls ’em fulfillment centers. Were just off the longshoreman strike. There was the railroad workers. The postal service, it seems to me has been just a scratch away from something breaking there. Old thirties song that the farmer is the man that feeds them all, but the transportation workers are the people who move it all. So that’s one kind of pressure point. I’d like to get you on that topic of choke points or any other pressure points.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, thank you. First of all, it’s salting Amazon, a noble thing to do with your life. I hope somebody here does that. And then when you finish, you call me a max and we’ll write a story about it. So thank you for that announcement. The book is called The Hammer because a union is a tool, a union is a tool that you wield to express your own power that you already have. When you give people the means to have a union, you’re not telling ’em what to do. I’m not telling you what position you should have. I’m not telling you what you should ask for. I’m not telling you what you want, what you should fight for. It’s giving people the means to exercise their own power. And all workers have labor power inherently. We all have power as workers because we can all not work. That’s the heart of our labor power. But the only way to exercise that power is to have the union. You got to have the hammer to do the work. And so the labor movement is a hammer to me. It’s a tool that we need to give everybody to exercise their own power.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I think there’s a really, that dovetails with how I was going to respond to your question, right? Because I think I want to get to the choke points point in a second. But I think one of the pitfalls there, which you obviously know about, you guys are strategizing about this, but I’m more talking about the average person who’s cheering this on but doesn’t know a lot about how it works. I think that people who don’t know how organizing works and don’t talk about it, but they see it and they cheer it on and they see the power that we all see in unions in the labor movement, but again, have less first person contact with the realities of that, it becomes more of a strategy that forsakes the human reality that everyone needs to, we need to organize everyone everywhere. I mean there’s a moral political and in fact a self-fulfilling need to have that mentality that can be forsaken if we only focus on the most strategic points and people can then lower in their head the priority of someone organizing it.

    Tudor’s biscuit world, obviously if we’re trying to take down capitalism, yeah, the choke points are more important for the amount of damage we can do. But in terms of the people harnessing the power that has been left slumbering inside of us or wasted away for our employers, the power that we actually have to make the world and to remake the world again into something better. I mean, that’s the power that you see in the eyes of people who take that fateful step in their workplaces to say, we deserve better than this and we’re going to be the ones to do something about it. We are going to change our circumstances and not just be, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, the listless play things of enormous forces. We take that step into our own power. And I see every day Hamilton sees, Sarah sees, you guys see in Amazon, when people start doing that shit themselves and they start working together, they see in fact the power that they always had.

    But that if so many of us feel powerless, it’s because we’ve never experienced that. Maybe we’ve never exercised it. Maybe we’ve been, I didn’t know about unionization when I was a warehouse worker. I thought you either quit and find another job or you stay and take it. So that step, getting people to take that step into believing that they have power and that they do have power, like every working person, everyone needs to feel that be part of it. We need to fan those flames anywhere and everywhere they are because that is the larger necessity for building a grassroots working class movement of movements. People like leading the charge. That’s how we put the working class at the center. Now to quickly return to your question about choke points, again, I think there is such a huge argument for why salting at Amazon is such a noble and necessary calling right now.

    And it’s what we were talking to workers about in Bessemer, Alabama when they were trying to unionize on Staten Island when they were unionizing is that look at Amazon, look at them taking everything over. I watch who watches football. Has anyone seen how much Amazon’s got its tentacles into the NFL? I mean, this is the second largest private employer in the country. This is one of the biggest international behemoths that’s only getting bigger and bigger and bigger owned by one of the most wealthy people in the history of the world. And we as working people have fucking no say over what they do. They just keep encroaching more and more into our lives. And so it was a band of workers in Bessemer, Alabama, hollowed out de-industrialized majority black, like twice the national poverty rate, Bessemer, Alabama, who were leading this charge to bring Amazon to the table and say, we are going to have a say in what you do. That’s why this is fucking important. It’s a testament to the very thesis of Hamilton’s book. You want to wield that hammer against Jeb Bezos, go salted Amazon, build that power. And then my larger point is that we just need to build it anywhere and everywhere that we can.

    Analysis:

    Let’s take this last question.

    Audience Member 4:

    Good evening. And I want to thank you first for the message and I’m seeking tools because we already have a union, but we have the public sector and the private sector. And because of the Janus rule, you have people that work with us that don’t pay the union dues. So I’m looking for tools to fight that, to fight the people that don’t want to pay into the union. But because we are union representatives, we still have to represent them. And I don’t mind representing everybody, but we can’t fight in the public sector. Does that make any sense?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah.

    Audience Member 4:

    And I probably wouldn’t be here tonight if it wasn’t for my coworker here who’s very young and so excited about coming here tonight because she wants to be in the neighbor movement, but we don’t have any tools to fight with. So we here to find tools.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, it’s a great question. And Janice, what you mentioned is the Supreme Court ruling that made the whole public sector right to work. Meaning that if you have a union or workplace, you can’t force anybody to pay union dues. So you get a situation where you can have a union and people can choose not to pay dues and they become what we call free riders and they’re basically, they get the union contract and they don’t pay their fair share and it can eat away the power of the union. And that’s what you’re experiencing and what people like you in public sector unions all over the country experience. I think one aspect is, one thing you see is that people who go through an organizing campaign and they go through that struggle to win the union, they tend to be really jazzed up and fired up about the power of the union.

    But sometimes when there’s a union that’s been in a workplace for a long time and people just get hired into it, they kind of take it for granted. They take that contract for granted. They don’t really appreciate the struggle that went into building that and winning that and maintaining that. The work that people like you got to do just to maintain the power of that union. And so it can become hard to inspire people. And what I saw reporting in my book and reporting all over the place is that unions in right to work states, unions that are successful in right to work situations. They just do a shit load of internal organizing all the time. Meaning that they are constantly talking to the members of that union about what the union is doing, why it’s important, why you need to come to this meeting, what the meeting’s about, what issues are facing us, what issues is the union fighting on.

    Everything. You have to constantly be talking and internally organizing the people in that workplace. There’s a chapter in my book about the culinary union, Las Vegas, which is a private sector union, but it’s in a right to work state. Nevada’s a right to work state, and yet this union has managed to successfully organize the entire casino industry in Nevada, the entire Vegas strip. They’re one of the most powerful unions in Nevada. And how do they do it even though it’s right to work and people could choose not to pay dues. They do it by constantly, constantly, constantly talking to all the members in that union. They got lists, they’re coming to your apartment and knocking on your door, hi, I’m here from the union, I’m here. We’re having a citywide meeting four times a year. We’re getting everybody together in the union. We’re talking about our issues. So it’s just work, work, work, work, work. Constant, constant talking to people. And I don’t think there are any shortcuts to that process. And it can be a real pain in the ass as you know if you’re doing that work is hard. But just talking to people about what the union is, what is it doing, why it’s important, and why they need to pay those dues and what they’re getting for those dues is the path that I see work in unions that make that work. Powerful,

    Powerful.

    Analysis:

    I was trying to figure out what word I wanted to choose, but your words are the right coda for this discussion that has been very, very necessary. Loved all the questions they were necessary questions and the beginning, not the end of a conversation this evening, but certainly the beginning. Some more convos and organized. I need you all to give up a final red Emmas round of applause for Max Alvarez and Hamilton Nolan.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Thank you Red Emma’s. Thank you, Max Alvarez.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • “I did not start out as a writer interested in organized labor,” Hamilton Nolan writes in The Hammer: Power, Inequality, and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor; “I started out as a writer interested in why America was so fucked up. Why did we have such gargantuan levels of inequality? Why were thousands of homeless people living in the streets of cities where billionaires frolicked in penthouses? Why was it that certain classes of people worked hard their entire lives and stayed poor, just as their parents had been, and just as their children seemed doomed to be? Even while labor unions had fallen almost completely out of the public mind, it turned out that they were central to all our most fundamental problems.” In this live episode of Working People, recorded at Red Emma’s cooperative bookstore, cafe, and community events space in Baltimore on Dec. 6, 2024, Max speaks with Nolan about his new book, what the ongoing war on workers’ rights and unions tells us about the “fucked up” society we’re living in, and what lessons labor can teach us now about how to fight and win, even in the darkest of times. Sara Nelson, International President of the Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL–CIO, also makes a special guest appearance in the second half of the episode.

    Additional links/info below…

    Permanent links below…

    Featured Music…

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Studio Production: Max Alvarez
    Post-Production: Jules Taylor


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Analysis:

    Mic check. Mic check. We’re going to go ahead and get started with tonight’s event. It is always, always, always good to see you at Red Emma’s bookstore Coffeehouse. There are many things you could be doing. The weather cleared up nicely, cold as hell, but it was a beautiful afternoon, so you might’ve been somewhere else. You chose to be here with us in community and in the struggle capitals, and that is never lost upon us. I’m the poet known as analysis. Welcome on behalf of the entire team Hamilton. Nolan is a longtime labor journalist who was written about labor, politics and class war for publications such as Gawker in these Times, the Guardian and More. Speaking of Gawker Media, he helped organize them in 2015. That became the first yes, yes, yes. First online media company to unionize. He’s based in Brooklyn, New York has a publication called How Things Work, and you can find that at his website, hamilton nolan.com, Hamilton nolan.com.

    We are joined in conversation this evening by Red Emmas fan. Max Alvarez is the editor in chief of the Real News Network, the host of the podcast, working people, PhD in history and comparative literature from University of Michigan and does so much more, writes for so many things. Speaking of writing, we have one copy. How many copies did I say? One copy of Max’s book, the Work of Living. Where can people talk about their lives and dreams and the year That World ended This right over there. So you should get that along with tonight’s book. We are so glad to get into this labor history. It is very important. I need y’all to give up some real radical roof rays and red ass noise for in conversation with Max Alvarez and presenting the hammer power. I love this subtitle. Listen to this Power inequality and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor. Y’all make some noise for Hamilton Nolan.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Alright, thank you so much analysis. Thank you once again to the great Red Emma’s Cooperative Bookstore coffee house and gathering space. This is a really important space for our community, so just wanted as always to thank our hosts and encourage y’all to please support Red Emma’s because we need places like this to plan the next steps, and that’s what we’re going to be talking about in the second part of our conversation today. And I couldn’t be more grateful to be in conversation with my man, Hamilton Nolan about that because I often find myself looking to Hamilton for answers or guidance or even just a little dose of strength that I can kind of get to help me get out of bed and keep fighting. Hamilton is a role model for so many of us in the labor journalism and labor media world, and I’m so proud of him and everything that he’s done, especially this incredible new book that we’re here to talk about today, which as analysis said is called The Hammer Power Inequality and the Struggle for the Soul of Labor. Hamilton, thank you so much for joining me today and Baltimore brother and welcome.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Thank you and thank you Red Emmas. This is my first time at Red Emmas and I love everything about this place already, so I’ll definitely be back and thank you all for coming and thank you Max, who by the way, if you all don’t know, is definitely one of the best labor journalists in the United States America, and we are lucky to have him here in Baltimore, so thank you for having me.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Thank you, brother. That means the world to me and who boy do we got a lot to talk about, right? I mean, I’m thinking we’re never going to be able to sum up the richness and depth and importance of this book in a 60 minute talk, right? That’s an unfair aim to have in any book talk. So I want to encourage everyone first and foremost to please buy and read this book. If you are finding yourself, like me feeling overwhelmed by anxiety, fear, anger, resentment, all these heavy feelings that you don’t know what to do with, but you are looking for something to do, you were looking for more that you can do to fight back and to keep us from falling further into the abyss. I would highly recommend that you start with this book and you’ll find a lot of hard truths and a lot of warm comfort in it through the stories of our fellow workers, past and present and through Hamilton’s fierce and righteous perspective.

    And so Hamilton, I want to by way of introducing the book sort of jump into the moment that we’re in right now because everyone is sort of looking at the past eight to 10 years to try to understand what the hell happened in this country that not only led us to elect Donald Trump president the first time, but now a second time with a fully magnified GOP controlling effectively all branches of government. And there are a lot of different narratives about the last eight to 10 years that cherry pick stories about the working class and their politics, our politics and so on. I wanted to ask you, Hamilton Nolan, what does the last eight to 10 years in this country look like through the lens of labor and through the lives of the working people that you report on for a living?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, thank you, man. It’s a great question and obviously one I’ve thought about a lot and you’ve thought about a lot, probably everybody in this room has thought about a lot. I think I’m going to cheat a little bit because I’m going to go back a little bit farther because I think you have to go back a little bit farther to really answer that question. And I will go back to the end of World War II 1950s in America. It’s going to be short though. I’m not going to talk that one, but the context being that after World War II in this country, one in three working people in America was a union member, and what did that produce that produced what is looked back on now as the golden age of America? Ironically, look back on by Republicans in particular, I was like, wow, that’s the time we need to get back to one in three working people in this country was a union member and America was prosperous, but that level of unionization in this country meant that the prosperity that America had was widely shared.

    So we had the greatest shared prosperity for a good 20 to 30 year period. It was really a golden age in the history of America. All that prosperity was widely shared because working people in this country had the power to take their share of that wealth thanks to high levels of unionization. And over time the decline of unions in America in the mid 1950s about one in three workers was union member. Today it’s one in 10, and that’s been a slow downward decline for all those years, and particularly beginning in 1980 with the Reagan era. I was born in 1979. So this kind of the story of my lifetime is that we saw this inequality, crisis, economic inequality, crisis in particular start to rise up in America. And of course Reagan’s assault on unions and worker power was a big part of enabling that. And there’s a really famous chart that a lot of you probably seen, and one line is the decline of union density in America.

    It goes down like that. And then the other line is the rise of the wealth held by the top 10% in America and it goes up like that and it’s perfect mirror images, perfect mirror images. So those two things are not coincidental. Those two things are one enabled the other. And so I think to bring it up to today, I think that it’s just the nature of societies that inequality can only rise for so long before stuff starts to break and stuff starts to break down, the social contract starts to break down, the political system starts to break down. People stop believing in the American dream because it becomes increasingly obvious that the American dream is kind of a sham. And I think that is the environment that fostered a guy like Trump who is not only a Republican, but also like a conman and just clearly a scam artist and all the sort of worst qualities come to the fore.

    But I remember I covered Trump when he was running in 2016 and 2015, and one thing that always stuck with me from the 2016 election was that in West Virginia, which was one of the highest states in America for voting for Trump in the democratic primary, Bernie won every county in West Virginia. So what is that? That’s people being like, we need something different. We need the most different thing that we can find. And I think that is what’s led us to Trump the hollowness of what neoliberalism produced in this country, the failure of America to share his prosperity, crushing unions crushing working people’s ability to get their fair share of the wealth that this country produces, which is still, by the way, the most wealth any nation in the history of the world has ever produced we’re rich as hell. It’s just that all the money goes to the very top. All those things I think conspire to form atmosphere where a guy like Trump can rise up. And I guess the story of the last election is that in those eight years, the opposition did not rally itself to fix the underlying problems that contributed to Trump getting in the first place. So here we are.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, and I want to tease that out just a bit more, right? Since it’s, again, this is in the air that we’re breathing right now, it’s everywhere, especially if anyone’s like, I understand why you would maybe not be following the news so closely these days because exhausting. So I do understand that, but it’s all that anyone’s talking about right now. So I do want to sort of ask you if you could also take this and respond to the discussions and debates that are being had right now from mainstream news all the way to independent channels like ours all across social media, Democrats abandoning the working class and reaping what they’ve sown, Republicans having this quote, great realignment and a lot of working people supporting Trump and maga. And you really, I think helped us understand some of the complex reasons that might happen. But I want to ask you if you have, what you feel is missing from those debates right now, especially in the wake of Trump’s electoral victory.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I mean, I do think one thing that’s not getting really enunciated enough or made clear enough, especially in the discussion after the election of the sort of alleged working class shift to Republicans, and some of it was real. I mean, there has been a real certain amount of shift of lower income votes to Trump, but one thing that didn’t get brought up, and especially in the ways that the Democrats panic about that, and a democratic political consultant is probably the least equipped person in the world to solve that problem. They’re all millionaires who live in dc. But I mean, what I think didn’t get talked about enough specifically was that the union votes still went to Democrats by the same healthy margin that it had in the past. So actual union members did not shift to Trump, not that Harris was so great or anything, but the actual union vote stayed to the left.

    And so I think that, and I’m a broken record maybe, but when we talk about, oh, the working class, how are we going to bring the working class back, raise union density, get more people into unions, and you get people into organizations that actually can do political education, people’s relationship with politics can’t just be seen ads on tv. I mean, that’s not politics. And politics is being in an organization that can help people fight for their own interests, whether it’s electorally, whether it’s in the workplace or anywhere else. Unions are the foundation of that in America. The labor movement is the foundation of that. Even though it’s gotten very weak, it’s still demonstrated even in the last election when working class people shifted to the right union members didn’t. So unions are an essential ingredient to American democracy. And when we talk about the declining in unions, it’s not just a story about economics. It’s not just people aren’t earning enough money anymore. It is a story of the loss of power, the loss of regular people’s ability to exercise power, political power in particular. And so I think that’s something that has not been discussed enough, at least in the mainstream news though I’m sure on real news. Yes.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Oh yeah, we got you baby. And I want to come back to the union question in a second, but I think you make a tremendously important point, right? Given the sort of post World War II context that you gave us in the beginning all the way up till now, and like you said, our lifetimes are effectively the arc of this decline. We are sort of like and bear the living imprints of Neoliberalism’s like rise and fall, and we bear in our family stories and experiences like the effects of a failed ideology, well failed for us. But for the past 40 years, that has been what working people across the board have experienced, and whether they are joining unions or trying to form unions in larger numbers than we’ve seen in a generation in recent years or going on strike, whether they’re burning down police precincts or voting for explicitly anti-establishment politicians like Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, that being the linkage that there’s an anti-establishment rage harnessed in there, all of those things are sort of different and even interlocking responses to a crisis that’s been building for our entire lifetimes.

    And I think that’s what drives me so nuts about the ways that the media talks about politics and then those of us who consume the media learn to think about politics and it limits the scope of how we can think. George Orwell wrote this a century ago, I’m not saying anything new here, but I think that’s such an important point because if you don’t have that deeper historical context, if you don’t understand that what people are responding to every two to four years, they’re responding to a crisis that’s been building for 40 or 50. And so in fact, what’s more telling about our political situation, not just here in the US but around the world, is that we are in what many analysts are calling an anti incumbent period. Because again, what we just lived through the past three election cycles we haven’t seen in our lifetime where the incumbent party was voted out each time.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I mean a two party system which we have, which unfortunately, and I think the older I get, the more I realize how bad a two party system is shitty system. But in a two party system, every election is a referendum on reality. And so if reality sucks, you get that pendulum nature that we see in America and that we’ve seen for much of the 20th century and into this century as well where the ping pong and back in America, we don’t have parties that have 40 year runs on top of the government. Why is that? Because all the dissatisfaction with the status quo is always going to be channeled to kicking out the party in power.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    And again, traced along that timeline from when you were born to now, not only has union density just plummeted down to barely 10% in this country, but with that is all the neoliberal poison that has eroded the very foundations of our society, our democracy, everything, corporate consolidation, deregulation, privatization, globalization. These processes have been building up and accumulating. And it’s not that it’s anything new, it’s just that it’s taken this long for so many working people to feel it at this level, I think. And so that, sorry, did you have something to jump in on? No go. Because I think that leads us to where and why unions became such a central point for you, and in the same way that they become a central point for so many people in recent years looking for hope. Yeah. So talk about your path to understanding unions as an important institution. You didn’t start there. You didn’t set out to be a union guy

    Hamilton Nolan:

    And both of us, the fact that we sit here and talk about union so much is weird in media, in politics, unions are still considered this sort of niche story off to the side. And when I started and became a journalist, I didn’t start out to be a labor reporter. I was just like, I want to write about why is America fucked up? Why the rich get richer in the poor, get poorer? Why is there homeless people sleeping on the street and then there’s rich people in the penthouse, basic super basic stuff that all of us are like, why is that so broken? And over the years as I reported on all those things, I found myself repeatedly being drawn back to issues, to labor issues, to worker power, to the decline of worker power and the consequences of that and the ripple effects of that, and learned about the history of unions and the history of labor and the way that that had affected our economy, the way that that had affected our politics.

    And over the years, just pursuing the threads of those really basic questions. Why is America broken in the ways that it’s broken today? I ended up becoming a full-time labor reporter because I found over and over again that labor issues were at the center of all those questions. The inequality crisis was directly spawned by the attack on labor power in this country. And the inequality crisis is the thing that was destabilizing our country in all the ways that manifest in a million different ways, including Donald Trump and a lot of other things. So I mean, I just sort of increasingly covered labor over the years because I was like, wow, this stuff is so important, so important, so important. And at the same time as I was looking around the media and being like, nobody’s really talking about this that much. I mean, people cover politics in really stupid ways, and there’s not that much attention on things that are actually more, in many cases, a union election is more consequential than a political election in the sense of the impact that it’s going to have not just on the lives of those workers, but the ripple effects going to have through the economy, the way it’s going to change the balance of power economically in a city, in an industry.

    Those things have long-term ripple effects down through years and through generations, and they change families and they change people’s lives, and it’s a very, very undercover aspect of America in the media, in journalism. And so I think one of the reasons I kept on writing about labor over the years was just like nobody else was. Not nobody you were doing it, but relatively speaking, not that many people are writing about this stuff. That was actually really important, and that’s still true today, unfortunately.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Just a small aside, please, please support any and all labor journalists that you follow. Support Hamilton Substack. Please support the real news support freelance writers like Kim Kelly, support great labor writers. Publishing for places in these times, Jacobin all over the place, local papers, the people doing the beats in their local area, they’re the only person covering labor stories. Support it, please. Otherwise it goes away.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Max, how did you get into labor?

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, I’ll sort of give a condensed version that hooks into the union question for the same reasons that you do. I feel a little weird when people ask my opinion about unions or I’ve become known as a union guy or someone who knows a lot about unions because I interview a shit ton of union workers and cover a lot of labor stories, but that is not where I started covering labor. I started the podcast that I’m still doing working people. Years ago when I was still a broke grad student, we were living in Ann Arbor, and I say a joke that I almost started the show as a ruse to get my dad to talk about losing our house and losing everything that I had grown up with, losing the American dream in his mind because for years it had just eaten our family away.

    It had taken my father away from me, the lights rum, but no one was there. My parents’ marriage was on the rocks, and that was so stunning to all of us. I was working at warehouses as a temp worker 12 years ago when this was all happening. It was really bad. And we grew up deeply conservative Republicans pro capitalists. The crash was a huge ideological crash for us because we saw how much the system we believed in and that we believed we could work within to make a good life for ourselves was so nakedly rigged in favor of the very people who had caused millions of families like ours to lose everything. And it was our going government bailing them out, and it was our media saying, Hey, the economy’s great while I’m sitting there on a couch with my dad in the house we were going to lose in two years.

    So I started doing labor journalism on my podcast because I did not want my father to go to his grave feeling like a failure. And I kept doing the podcast because I saw how much, and I knew how much pain you accrue as a human being in such an inhuman system that chews us up and spits us out until we have nothing left to give that gets us accustomed to being paid so little and treated so poorly and what that does to your heart and your psyche. I wanted people to have a space to talk about that and to tell the stories of labor through the human stories of regular people. And it was years in the making that I came to understand a, people don’t deserve this. Well, I mean, I knew that from the beginning, but there’s something they could do about it. And that’s how I came to understand, oh shit, they had unions. I am seeing people come to the same conclusion. I’m seeing how they’re improving their lives by struggling together to exercise that, right?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    It’s really like one of the best parts of being a labor journalist. The stuff that we do, and you would probably agree with this, I don’t want to speak for you, but it is just like when I was at Gawker during the recession out of 2008, 2009, I did this series of unemployment stories. So I just had people who had become unemployed right in and tell their story. We published this every week for 40 weeks, 40 week long series, hundreds and hundreds of people telling their own stories. I got more thank you notes from people about that than probably anything I’ve ever written. And I didn’t write any of it. It was all their stories. And just giving people the ability to tell their own stories is such a blessing. And in unions, when I’ve been on book tour most of this year, I’ve been like all over the country and everywhere I go, I meet people who would just be like somebody who has worked in their union for 20 years, 30 years, been a member, been active, been elected, been a shop steward, whatever it is, and nobody’s ever told that person that was important that you did that it was actually important.

    And so I think that’s what we do. We’re very lucky because in a sense you get to let people speak and you also get to tell people that they’re legitimately important in a way that they might have never even heard before.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Yeah, I think that’s beautifully and powerfully put. I mean, I am reminded of it week in and week out, just how much we all need that and how little we all get it. And there’s a hopeful note in that because that’s a gift that we can all give one another, listening to each other and talking to each other, showing your scars, telling your stories. That’s how workers learn that they’re being paid different rates all the way up to, again, the raw human stuff. That is, that’s what labor journalism is about. It’s not about unions, it’s about people struggling for a better life, a good life, and that manifests in the need that you can’t move anymore because of a work-related injury. So you can’t play T-ball with your kids, the life quality of life you lose because of someone else’s greed and negligence. I mean, it comes through in stories like that.

    And there’s so many in Hamilton’s book, there’s so many in the work, in the articles he’s written, the interviews that I’ve done. And I think we all have a duty to sort of try to reconnect with each other on that human level for nothing else, to remind one another that we’re not alone. We’re not worthless. We deserve better than this. And every life is beautiful, and people need to be seen that way before they can see themselves that way and believe that they can even fight for a better world and that they deserve one. And so in that regard, I wanted to bring, I actually brought a prop, which was like, I didn’t expect this to be so relevant, but I have here in my hand for those listening to this, a cup from Tudor’s Biscuit World in West Virginia. I won’t go into the backstory of how I got this cup, but I found myself in Huntington, West Virginia and saw this restaurant that looked like a throwback to the eighties.

    And I was like, oh, shit, I want to get a biscuit and I’m going to get a cup. But then I read your book and I was like, I wanted to throw the cup at the wall. So I wanted to ask, just by way of, again, really bringing us back to the book, there’s a really important story here about Tudor’s biscuit world. I wanted to ask if you could tell us a bit about that, the incredible person at the center of it, and also what this story says about everything you’re talking about, both the need for unions and also the reality that working people are up against when they try to exercise their rights.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    So the book is about, as you said, the gap between the potential that unions have to really, and I completely still believe today, and the seed of this book was being a labor reporter and getting involved in unions myself, organizing my workplace and all this stuff. And you’re like, wow, unions are so powerful. Unions are the tool. All these things that were broken, here’s the tool that can fix ’em all. This is so great. We just need to give everybody unions and we’re going to fix all these problems. And then you get involved in the actual labor movement and you start looking around, you’re like, this shit is broken, and that shit’s broken and they’re not organizing and nobody has unions and people don’t know about you. And it’s like it’s all a mess. So the gap between the potential of unions to sort of save this country innocence, and then the reality of the labor movement and organized labor being broken in a lot of ways is kind of the seed of this book.

    So one of the chapters in the book I want to write about just something which should be one of the most basic things that anybody can do, which is a person organizing their own workplace. Every union started somewhere. And generally it started with one person who’s like, we should have a union here. So I went to West Virginia. Tudor’s Biscuit world is like, if any of you’re from West Virginia, you already know what it is, but it’s like West Virginia’s homegrown fast food chain biscuits and breakfast and stuff like that. People love it. In West Virginia, there was a woman named Cynthia who worked at a Tudor’s biscuit world, tiny town called View West Virginia. She had grown up in a union family. Her dad was in a union. So she, like many people in West Virginia, which has really strong union culture, knew about unions, had connections to unions.

    And after she retired, she got a job at Tudors of Biscuit World. She was there for a while and she was like, these people aren’t paying our overtime. My colleagues aren’t getting their time off. The manager’s abusing us all. And she was like, we need a union. Her dad was in a union to her, it was a very natural thought to have. So she was like, I’m going to unionize this tutor’s biscuit world. She called her husband’s union, which was like the operating engineers. They were like, we don’t really do Tudor’s Biscuit world, but eventually put her in touch with the guy at UFCW who agreed to help her out with this organizing campaign, came out there to Elk View, helped her run a union campaign inside tutors, which little did she know at the time was one of the only fast food union campaigns in the United States of America.

    I mean, you could count on one hand the number of even organizing drives at fast food stores in the United States at that time. So very, very unique thing that she was doing, even though to her it seemed completely natural and normal. And as she went to organize this workplace, which probably had 25 workers at this tutors, tutors sent in the union busting team, the corporate union busting team arrived, and new managers start showing up at work. And this is a very, very small town, LVUS Virginia. And so people start getting threats. Some people start getting bribes, we’ll give you a watch, we’ll give you a promotion, vote against the union. One person at one point, somebody knocked on their door and their kid was getting ready to go to I think the University of West Virginia, and they were like, the scholarship might be in danger if you vote for this union.

    That was the kind of thing that was happening at a freaking fast food restaurant. And so when the vote came around and people got fired, of course, and they lost the vote by only a couple of votes, and failed to successfully unionize this tutors and filed a bunch of unfair labor practice charges, which got upheld, but everybody went and got new jobs because you’re getting paid $8 an hour, $9 an hour at this job in the first place. So it’s just such a story of an uphill battle. And the thing that she set out to do was so basic. It’s something that ideally really, you should be able to do that in a day. You work at a bookstore, you talk to the people that you’re like, we should have a union set up the election. Bam. That’s how easy it should be to form a union at your workplace. And the reality of what a struggle was for her, I think is illuminating story for us and also for the labor movement itself and for the labor movement to look at and be like, why are we unable to provide the resources that people need to successfully accomplish this thing at a fucking 25 person fast food restaurant, much less a 2,500 person factory or on and on.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I want to drill down on that for a second because I think there are two crucial points there. One, about the reality of the past few years and the uptick in organizing, the increasing militancy, the creativity of strike strategies, the voting in of more democratic caucuses and major unions like the UAW and Teamsters and so on and so forth. So there’s been a lot of movement in the movement over the past few years, and we’ve been there covering it, and it’s exciting, and that’s how a lot of people know who we are. But one of the things that constantly freaks me out and stresses me out and bums me out is that we are still living in a kind of time and place and media ecosystem that conditions us to have no long-term memories, no long-term commitment to struggles that even we deeply care about.

    And we see the results of that when strikes the Pittsburgh Post Gazette are still going on, and people have forgotten about ’em, just like we forgot about the coal miners in Alabama. And they effectively lost just like everyone loved the Starbucks drive, but they’re still fighting for first contracts. A lot of those stores that got closed aren’t reopened. A lot of people’s lives have changed and they moved on. We keep talking about the labor wave as if it’s still going unabated, but we’re not dealing with the reality of that people trying to exercise that right, have run into over these past few years. But then there’s also, and this is what I wanted to ask you about on the larger labor, organized labor side, all the way up to the leadership of the a Ffl CIO, current president, Liz Schueller said at the convention that our goal is to organize a million new workers in 10 years. That is such a small dream for such a big crisis. So I wanted to ask you for your thoughts on that. And also we need to be dreaming bigger. What are the bigger dreams that workers and the movement need to be having right now?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, I mean, today 10% of workers in America are union members. That’s the last stop before single digits,

    And there’s no stop after single digits. That’s the last stop on the elevator. So we are in a fucking crisis, man. And the first thing is the world of organized labor, which still, by the way, has 16 million people in America and unions have billions of dollars. And there is a considerable amount of resources in organized labor, even though it’s been weakened for many decades. They need to see it as a crisis. First of all, the leadership of the institutions of organized labor, and I compare it a lot to climate change because it’s like this slow moving crisis. It gets a little bit worse every year, but it goes slow enough that you can kind of ignore it. So it gets a little bit warmer every year and the water comes up this much, but you can kind of ignore, it’s not in your house yet.

    And the same way union density goes down every year, 0.2%, 0.3%. If you’re running a union, you can kind of ignore that. It’s not really destroying what you have, but over time, that leads you to oblivion. The first thing we really need is a sense of urgency among the leaders of the labor movement. And then we need them to open the checkbooks and start from the premise that we need to double the amount of union members in this country. We need to organize the next 10 million people. What you touched on the story of Liz Schuler, the A-F-L-C-O convey, I went to the a Ffl CO convention in 2022, which is like the presidential convention of the labor movement. And there was a new president taking over the Scheller, and she made a big splashy announcement for her introductory speech taking over the A-F-L-C-O. And her big announcement was, we are going to commit to organize a million new workers in 10 years.

    And everybody clapped, it’s like a million sounds big. And so I pulled out a calculator and did about one minute worth of math. And it turns out that if you unionize a million new workers in 10 years, union density will continue to go down because it’s not even enough to keep up with the new jobs that will be created in that time. So the goal, the aspiration of the biggest institution in the union world was to keep declining. And that to me is so emblematic of the fucking problem at the center of organized labor. And it’s interesting because at the same time as a labor reporter, you can go all over the country and meet the most inspiring people you ever met in your whole life in unions, in the labor movement, organizers, local presidents, activists, workers, all these people, brave people, smart people fighting, dedicating their life to this cause. I mean, there’s a bazillion incredibly inspiring stories and incredibly inspiring people inside the labor movement, but the farther up you go, the less inspiring it tends to get. And one of the things I read about in my book is I followed Sarah Nelson, who’s a great labor leader, the head of the Association of Attendants, and she sort of wrestled with the question of how to be a leader of this movement. She’s sitting right there, by the way, she’s in the house tonight.

    But I think the importance of that was sort how do we wrestled the leadership of this movement into the right place, tons of great people in the labor movement, and yet the leadership is so disappointing and it’s hurting us and it hurts us every year continually until we figure out how to fix it.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Well, you anticipated my final question before we open it up to q and a, but if I can, I actually wanted to pose my final question to both you and Sara. A) because, yeah, Sara Nelson features heavily in this book and you learn a lot about Sara, her career and just what an incredible human being and fighter she is and what she’s fighting for. But also, if we recall, we saw this woman on the news a few years ago during the first Trump administration, during the government shutdown saying, fuck this. We’re going to general strike till you assholes get back to work. And that’s what stopped the government shutdown. So I really don’t want to put you on the spots here, but I kind of do and kind of already have. I wanted to ask both of you guys, what can we take from the first Trump administration to really get our heads and hearts right for the fight ahead, moving into a second Trump administration, but also again, in the vein of dreaming bigger, what do we need to correct or expand in this next dark period that we didn’t do in the last administration?

    And then I’ll ask everyone to applaud and we’ll open up to audience questions. But yeah, Sara, I would love if you could answer that question as well.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Alright, I’ll give a quick answer and then you can give a more inspiring answer or whatnot. I mean, we got to get more. The response to where we’re going is to get more hardcore. And the thing that makes me fearful in this moment is not, and I don’t think the people in this room are going to be the problem. I mean, if you’re sitting in this room, we’re probably fairly copacetic in the sense of when you’re faced with fascism, you have to organize more, build the labor movements stronger, fight more or fight back harder. But I think that the Democratic Party, for example, and the portion of this country that coalesces around the Democratic party, there’s going to be a big section of that whose impulse is going to be to compromise this time and to the way that strong men like Trump work is like he makes it so pleasing him is the only way to get anything done.

    And so there’s a very powerful incentive for people in the world of politics on all sides to start kissing his ass, start licking his boots, start compromising. You see the president of the Teamsters taking buddy buddy pictures with him. Why is that? It’s because it’s like, well, this is how you get things done in this. But all that does is empower him more. And so it’s like a downward spiral where you give the strong man more and more power. So I think we got to fight harder. I don’t know if we will, but Sarah, what do you think?

    Sara Nelson:

    All right. Glad I had some bourbon for this. No. Okay, so Max, I could give a lot of answers to this question. First of all, I just want to say that I was back here getting emotional because these two men were sharing very personally and very openly about why this shit matters. And anyway, that was some good stuff, max. That was some good stuff. Okay. So what I’m going to say though is that of course, we got to organize more. We got to take this on. We got to fight, fight, fight. We got to do what Mother Jones said. She said she told the ludlow strikers after they had been gunned down and their tent, that they were sleeping in the cold depths of the Colorado winter while they were on strike against the co barons. And their intensity was burned and women and children were burned in the process.

    She came to Ludlow and she said, you will fight and win. You will fight and lose, but you must fight. And part of the story that’s not ever told is that actually minors came with guns and a lot of spirit in their hearts to chase the militia out to chase the Colorado National Guard out, and they set up their own government there in Ludlow for the next six weeks, and they had their funerals and they took care of each other. And ultimately that went away. But that part of the story is never told. And so that is the power of our solidarity. But what did those people learn from that fight? I mean, they were out in that tent city to start with because the coal company was not even following the laws of the state at that time. They were, in some ways, they were just fighting to just enforce the law because they were all immigrants who spoke 28 different languages in that tent city.

    And one of the reasons for that is because the co Barrons thought we’re going to hire people from different countries who won’t be able to communicate with each other because that is also going to be a way to make sure that we don’t have a union come in. And what they don’t understand at that level, and I’ve met these people, right? I’ve been in a lot of board rooms. They do not have the corner market on smarts, let me just tell you. But what they don’t understand is that when there’s a mine explosion and the mothers are left to tell their children that not only are their fathers not coming back, but they’re not sure how they’re going to be able to take care of them because none of the mothers can get work. They’re going to have to find another man in order to survive, and they’re trying to comfort their kids and figure out how they’re going to put their lives back together.

    You don’t have to speak the same language to understand what’s going on in the heart. So that’s how the union was built. And I think about the last Trump administration, and I’ve really worked at not saying his name, no, it’s really fucking important. Let me just be clear, because our union learned after Carl Icahn fired all the TWA strikers in 1989, that we had to have a different way of striking. And so we looked at creative tactics and we created this strike tactic called chaos, create havoc around our system. And the idea was that we were using this provision of the railway Labor Act that had never been used, that allowed for intermittent strikes to go on strike and off strike. And we decided we would add an element to this, the element of surprise, we were not going to tell you when or where we were going to strike.

    And so at Alaska Airlines in 1993, we struck seven flights and brought this deeply anti-union company to its knees who wanted to settle a contract overnight by fax machine that gave the flight attendants a 60% raise. We asked them if they wanted to meet and talk about it. They said, no, no, no. Every time we meet with you, something bad happens. We just want this over with. And so when I’m watching the government shutdown and seeing what’s going on there, and they’re saying that this is because Trump wants to build his southern border wall for security, for national security for our country, that was a bunch of bullshit. It was a 50 year campaign by the GOP to try to privatize everything in our country because if there had been a terrorist attack, that would’ve accrued incredible power to the executive to say, I’ll take care of it.

    We’re going to make all these changes. If there had been an aircraft accident, same thing would’ve happened. If nothing had happened, they would’ve said, see, it’s a bunch of bureaucracy that we don’t need, and so we’re going to privatize. And so that was really what was at stake. And once we understood that this was not a political discussion between Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell, this was actually an attempt to try to distract people’s so much with the racist fearmongering, xenophobic, racist fearmongering, and keep people focused on all of that and create his own chaos campaign. I’m like, I know this one. We’re going to create a little chaos too. And so we set about talking about a safety strike for flight attendants, and we called on the rest of the labor movement to talk about a general strike because there were 800,000 people either out of work or forced to come to work for free, and another million contract workers who were just out of work with no hope getting anything in return.

    This was a crisis and everyone could see it. And the cab driver in DC as I’m talking about this from one place to another, and I’m getting out of my cab and handing him the money, he turns around and grabs my hand. He’s got a tear going down his cheek and he says, thank you. You’re fighting for me too. You don’t think about this shit. But there was no work going on in DC so he didn’t have any cab fairs, so he couldn’t make a living for his family. So it’s all connected and we’re all connected, and if one person is mistreated, we’re all mistreated. But what we have to understand with this next incoming administration is that we cannot talk about Trump. We need to talk about the people who created Trump, the people who are going to give Trump power like you were talking about, and we need to hold them accountable, every one of them.

    And we can’t think people think about this stuff in terms of red states and blue states. That’s bullshit. There’s working people everywhere, working people to be organized everywhere, working people to defend everywhere. And that’s how we need to approach this next administration. So the one thing I will say is that during that time, people were like, oh my God, which is what always happens in chaos campaigns. They don’t know where the ball is. So they’re like, oh my God, this is amazing. And one thing we learned is that instead of the typical strike coverage where it will say, how long can the union hold out? People are going to start crossing the line the next day, or people are not going to be able to hold out. They couldn’t say that because we weren’t telling ’em when or where we were going to strike, and they didn’t have their normal playbook. So all of a sudden they had to report on the issues that the workers were fighting for. And so we took control of the narrative, we took control of the schedule, we took control of the situation, and that’s what we as working people can do if we understand that this is all of our fight. But during that time, all these reporters were covering this and they were like, wow, this is amazing. And the one person who asked the question, yeah, but how are you fucking going to really do this was Hamilton Nolan.

    So when he said, I’d like to write a book and I’d like to follow you around for a year, I was like, I don’t know. I is. This guy’s going to see right through me. And you did follow me for the worst year of my life. Thanks very much for doing that. But no, I mean, this is a really important book, and if all you do is read the intro and the last chapter, you’re going to know how to fight this next administration and how to take this on. But if you also want to hear some really inspiring stories about people who are trying to make this work and people who have won fights against all odds, read this book. And then the last thing I’ll just say is that laws do not give us power. We have power when we decide to come together and use it. Yes.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    Let’s give it up for Sarah Nelson and Hamilton, Nolan, yo

    Sara Nelson:

    And

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Max Alvarez.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    All right, man. I’m like, I’m crying, I’m cheering. I’m like, there’s a roller coaster here. So we want to open this up to questions. We know you all have questions for Hamilton, please, yeah, flag analysis down so we can get your questions and everyone can hear ’em also. Yeah, the recorder is going. We will have the audio for this published at the Real News. So if you’d prefer to ask a question but not on recording, Hamilton and I will be available afterwards.

    Analysis:

    And there’s so much to get into, so much thank you for such a rich discussion that we could talk for hours. Guess what, we don’t have ours. So we want to keep our questions and comments relatively brief and truncated so that we can get a few in. And we have one question here, and then we’re going to take a couple more hands.

    Audience Member 1:

    And I apologize because usually I don’t do this and I talk shit about people who do. But I’ve got three questions and you don’t have to take, I’m going to ask them, but you don’t have to take any of them. We can take one. So there are not red states and blue states, but there are red counties and blue counties. How do you do the organizing in those red counties? Two is that we’ve had a number of folk like Susan, but also high powered folk like feign at UAW, who’ve actually taken a different approach to labor. Could you talk about their approach to organizing? And then there are three different identities that we’re trying to navigate as workers. So one is our identities as consumers, the other is our gender identity. And then finally, and I think it’s most important actually, is our racial identity because all those things are related to organizing and how we think about ourselves as workers. How do you think about how our successful unions navigating those identity dynamics? Again, you don’t have to take any of them, but the questions are still important.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I try to give a sort of broad answer that maybe touches on most of them at least. I think the thing about red states and blue states and red counties and blue counties goes to the heart of why this stuff is so important, particularly in this time that we’re in, where that is held up as such a strong divide in this country. And every election gets stronger. The two sides of the media, the two sides of politics, the two sides of everything. And people think that that is an unbridgeable gap, that this country is going down a road that we’re going down that is actually getting worse and worse, and the divide is getting starker and starker between red and blue. And when, to me, the one thing that can bridge that gap and that can close that gap and erase the distinction between red and blue is the labor movement.

    Because I’ve been all over the country, I’ve been in red states and blue states and red counties and blue counties, and working people have common interests. And the fact that the labor movement is weak and that people don’t have access to unions is why they don’t think about that. And they don’t think in those terms. They think in terms of Fox News and CNN and M-S-N-B-C, and that’s not the real story, and that’s not the real story of politics is not Democrats and Republicans. It is working people building their power. And so I think the labor movement gets more important, the starker that red and blue divide gets, because it is the one thing that can bridge that gap and bring working people together. I always think of when the Warrior met coal strike was going on in Alabama, which was the longest strike in America, they had a big rally in Brookwood, Alabama, way out in country Alabama.

    Sarah Nelson was there, a bunch of labor leaders were there, and thousands of united mine workers were there. This is country ass Alabama, and it was the most integrated event that I have ever been to in my life. I grew up in the south. I’ve never been to an event that integrated apart from maybe a football game. And this was everybody in that community there. And they were all talking about the evil private equity firm that was stepping on the necks of the workers. And I guarantee that most of those people were probably Trump voters. Oh, no,

    Sara Nelson:

    I’m sorry. I went to the first week of that strike, and at that first rally, people were real skeptical about the union. They were pissed, so they were out on strike, but they were not sure that they liked their union. And it was not an integrated event. The black workers were over here, the white workers were over here. They were all staying about as far as they could from the union stage where we were having this rally. And they were not talking about who the villain was either. They were just mad. And so after being on strike for six months, I’ll hand it back to Hamilton because that’s what we have to recognize too, is that when we’re out on the picket line and we are defining our issues together, suddenly what our differences are don’t matter as much anymore because we’re all human beings fighting for the same thing.

    And you suddenly start to see people differently and you start to hear their stories too. You start to understand those stories better, so you start to understand why the strike matters to them, and then you start to feel connected to why you’re not just fighting for yourself, but you’re fighting for the person next to you too. And so this is where we have the opportunity to break through these gender identities and race identities, and not to wash them away, but to celebrate them and find the strength in that. Because I’m telling you, max, I’m going to fight fucking harder because I heard your story about your dad. That’s what this is about.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    There you go. I mean, yeah, give it up and to pile on here, I mean, I can’t stress enough that this is the conclusion that you come to doing the work that we do at the Real News, right? I mean, you hear these stories week in, week out. You can’t help but be affected by them, and you can’t help but feel a duty to not give up on people and to help them fight the fight that needs to be had so that this kind of shit doesn’t happen on the regular. And this is by way of addressing a question about red counties, blue counties, and where the rural urban divide really kind of comes into that. Because like Hamilton has for this book, I mean, we are out there not just interviewing union workers in dense urban areas. We are out there reporting on family farmers in Wisconsin who are the last few hanging on as big agriculture has taken over the entire rural landscape and wipe generations of knowledge, of pride, of land ownership off the board and swallowed it up into the gaping maw of corporate America.

    It’s still there. It just looks a little different. And the names on the sides of the trucks are different in rural America, but the same monster is destroying the fabric of our society, whether you live in a red county or a blue county, I see it all the time, not just in the conditions that workers are living under the declining quality of life and access to basic public services and higher cost of living, yada, yada, yada. But I’ve been in deep red Trump country, places like East Palestinian, Ohio, sitting on the stoops of deep red Trump voting Republicans who will say to me, he is like, yeah, look, I don’t care that you’re a socialist weirdo from Baltimore, but because you’ve been there talking about our stories, you’ve been interviewing us, you’ve heard what we’re going through and you keep showing up. And then we got unions to show up and we got environmental justice groups to show up.

    We got residents from other sacrifice zones or people living near other rail lines who didn’t want to happen to their communities. What happened to East Palestine? And it was like when, to Sarah’s point, the Hamilton’s point when we’re all there standing in a room talking about the shit that is impacting all of us and how we are all effectively fighting off different tentacles of the same corporate monsters and Wall Street vampires and bought off like corrupt government systems and bureaucrats. I mean, we realized very quickly how much all the shit that they used to divide us and how it all comes down to that human connection and sharing stories that melts that shit away like that. And then when you work in common struggle to address those things, you build the working class consciousness and movement that everyone keeps talking about. There’s some great recipe.

    What’s the messaging that we got to get to get a working class movement? There’s no fucking message. Just go and be there for each other, fight for one another, struggle together. See one another as human beings who deserve better than this and who are in fact the solution that we are waiting for all of us, right? You do that, you learn more about each other. You become less scary to your coworkers who look different from you, right? I mean, you’re forced to stand next to a burn barrel and talk stories about your kids in school and you realize that they’re friends and you deal with a lot of the same shit. You build solidarity through struggle, not through carefully curated messaging that I think you got to touch grass to do that. You got to talk to people to do that. You can’t just do that all online.

    You can’t do it in your own little reality bubbles. We’re all living in those reality bubbles. So whatever we do, it has to help people break out of them because our social worlds have gotten so much smaller over the past 50, 60, 70 years, and that went into hyperdrive with Covid. More people went underground or socially distanced and more of their connection to the outside world was being mediated by a screen. And so we’re seeing people sharing the same physical plane, but they’re not living on the same plane of reality. And that is a big reason why Grifters like Trump and the GOP are so able to convince working people that their neighbors are their enemy. You break that through struggle. You break that through being there. You break that through being the face behind the headline and behind the kind of scary archetypes that people are fearful of. Sorry, that was a long answer.

    Analysis:

    I’m watching our time, so let me just take, I know we had a couple hands, I just wanted to see what the hands were in the room. So one, two. So I’m going to come here and then I’m going to move right that way.

    Audience Member 2:

    Thanks for this inspiring discussion. Something I’ve been thinking about a lot, which is kind of related to what we’re talking about is that we’re in a moment of record distrust with the government and with media and the Trump administration has made clear their plan to demolish what’s left of our social safety net. And so I’m spending a lot of time thinking about what the next steps are going to be. It was a poll that found that people, people’s leading source of election news is other people, they’re not going, people are avoiding the news, they’re not trusting the news, they’re going to social media. So you’ve talked about the of organizing and unionizing and building solidarity. What I want you to dig into more is how can we use that to actually reach people and educate people and build trust and actually get information out to people who need it to hear it.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    I don’t know if you figured that out. Let me know because journalism is, that’s what journalism tries to do. That’s what journalism is. That’s what Max does every day. That’s what I do every day. And you have a career in journalism and you’re constantly thinking about the very question, well, we got all these great super important stories. How do we make everybody listen to ’em? How do we make people care about this? How do we make people read this? How do you make people see this? The only answer I know I could make up an answer, the only answer I know is just keep doing the work. Just keep doing the work. Just keep writing the stories. Just keep recording the interviews. Just keep publishing the podcast. Just keep putting it out, keep putting it out. And over years it will come to people. And I’ve been in a million, just like Max has panel discussions and meetings and blah blah where people are like, what’s the magical solution to make these story make everybody learn about the Starbucks union and blah blah?

    You just got to keep telling the stories and telling the stories and telling the stories and write this story and write this book and write the next book and do this podcast and do the next podcast and keep talking. And for us, and that goes for everybody. If you think this stuff is important, tell somebody else. Talk to somebody else. You write the story, you do the story you tell the people. This spreads by word of mouth, it spreads through the media, spreads through independent media. There’s not a magical solution. But the thing we have going for us is that this shit actually is important and it actually is dramatic and actually is a good story and actually is something that people want to know about and need to know about. And that spreads through the power of itself.

    Analysis:

    See, we’re going to take two more right here and here.

    Audience Member 3:

    Alright, I’m going to steal 30 seconds for a quick relevant announcement. I work with the Baltimore Amazon Workers Support Network and organizing campaigns are one on the inside. Often what a support committee can do is kind of minimal, so we chip away as best we can. But there’s one thing that I want to let you guys know about tonight. We’re trying to find people who might be salts at Amazon. Assault is a person who takes the job in order to help with organizing a union. We have some friends on the inside, especially down at Sparrow’s Point. So if anybody here is interested in the work of our committee or might be assault or might know somebody who’s looking for a job or labor sympathetic or whatever, we’re trying to find people to get our friends on the inside some support. And I have one quick question and I’ll get right to it.

    It’s pertinent to Amazon. To Amazon. And what about your title? I’m surprised that you guys have never gotten around to talking about why that title The hammer. Yeah, we do have a lot of different identities to work with, but some of us believe that working people should be at the heart of the matter and there’s a reason for that. The potential power of working people. Amazon, for example, fits into the whole discussion about what they call choke points, which is mainly a transportation warehousing. Amazon calls ’em fulfillment centers. Were just off the longshoreman strike. There was the railroad workers. The postal service, it seems to me has been just a scratch away from something breaking there. Old thirties song that the farmer is the man that feeds them all, but the transportation workers are the people who move it all. So that’s one kind of pressure point. I’d like to get you on that topic of choke points or any other pressure points.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, thank you. First of all, it’s salting Amazon, a noble thing to do with your life. I hope somebody here does that. And then when you finish, you call me a max and we’ll write a story about it. So thank you for that announcement. The book is called The Hammer because a union is a tool, a union is a tool that you wield to express your own power that you already have. When you give people the means to have a union, you’re not telling ’em what to do. I’m not telling you what position you should have. I’m not telling you what you should ask for. I’m not telling you what you want, what you should fight for. It’s giving people the means to exercise their own power. And all workers have labor power inherently. We all have power as workers because we can all not work. That’s the heart of our labor power. But the only way to exercise that power is to have the union. You got to have the hammer to do the work. And so the labor movement is a hammer to me. It’s a tool that we need to give everybody to exercise their own power.

    Maximillian Alvarez:

    I think there’s a really, that dovetails with how I was going to respond to your question, right? Because I think I want to get to the choke points point in a second. But I think one of the pitfalls there, which you obviously know about, you guys are strategizing about this, but I’m more talking about the average person who’s cheering this on but doesn’t know a lot about how it works. I think that people who don’t know how organizing works and don’t talk about it, but they see it and they cheer it on and they see the power that we all see in unions in the labor movement, but again, have less first person contact with the realities of that, it becomes more of a strategy that forsakes the human reality that everyone needs to, we need to organize everyone everywhere. I mean there’s a moral political and in fact a self-fulfilling need to have that mentality that can be forsaken if we only focus on the most strategic points and people can then lower in their head the priority of someone organizing it.

    Tudor’s biscuit world, obviously if we’re trying to take down capitalism, yeah, the choke points are more important for the amount of damage we can do. But in terms of the people harnessing the power that has been left slumbering inside of us or wasted away for our employers, the power that we actually have to make the world and to remake the world again into something better. I mean, that’s the power that you see in the eyes of people who take that fateful step in their workplaces to say, we deserve better than this and we’re going to be the ones to do something about it. We are going to change our circumstances and not just be, as Kurt Vonnegut would say, the listless play things of enormous forces. We take that step into our own power. And I see every day Hamilton sees, Sarah sees, you guys see in Amazon, when people start doing that shit themselves and they start working together, they see in fact the power that they always had.

    But that if so many of us feel powerless, it’s because we’ve never experienced that. Maybe we’ve never exercised it. Maybe we’ve been, I didn’t know about unionization when I was a warehouse worker. I thought you either quit and find another job or you stay and take it. So that step, getting people to take that step into believing that they have power and that they do have power, like every working person, everyone needs to feel that be part of it. We need to fan those flames anywhere and everywhere they are because that is the larger necessity for building a grassroots working class movement of movements. People like leading the charge. That’s how we put the working class at the center. Now to quickly return to your question about choke points, again, I think there is such a huge argument for why salting at Amazon is such a noble and necessary calling right now.

    And it’s what we were talking to workers about in Bessemer, Alabama when they were trying to unionize on Staten Island when they were unionizing is that look at Amazon, look at them taking everything over. I watch who watches football. Has anyone seen how much Amazon’s got its tentacles into the NFL? I mean, this is the second largest private employer in the country. This is one of the biggest international behemoths that’s only getting bigger and bigger and bigger owned by one of the most wealthy people in the history of the world. And we as working people have fucking no say over what they do. They just keep encroaching more and more into our lives. And so it was a band of workers in Bessemer, Alabama, hollowed out de-industrialized majority black, like twice the national poverty rate, Bessemer, Alabama, who were leading this charge to bring Amazon to the table and say, we are going to have a say in what you do. That’s why this is fucking important. It’s a testament to the very thesis of Hamilton’s book. You want to wield that hammer against Jeb Bezos, go salted Amazon, build that power. And then my larger point is that we just need to build it anywhere and everywhere that we can.

    Analysis:

    Let’s take this last question.

    Audience Member 4:

    Good evening. And I want to thank you first for the message and I’m seeking tools because we already have a union, but we have the public sector and the private sector. And because of the Janus rule, you have people that work with us that don’t pay the union dues. So I’m looking for tools to fight that, to fight the people that don’t want to pay into the union. But because we are union representatives, we still have to represent them. And I don’t mind representing everybody, but we can’t fight in the public sector. Does that make any sense?

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah.

    Audience Member 4:

    And I probably wouldn’t be here tonight if it wasn’t for my coworker here who’s very young and so excited about coming here tonight because she wants to be in the neighbor movement, but we don’t have any tools to fight with. So we here to find tools.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Yeah, it’s a great question. And Janice, what you mentioned is the Supreme Court ruling that made the whole public sector right to work. Meaning that if you have a union or workplace, you can’t force anybody to pay union dues. So you get a situation where you can have a union and people can choose not to pay dues and they become what we call free riders and they’re basically, they get the union contract and they don’t pay their fair share and it can eat away the power of the union. And that’s what you’re experiencing and what people like you in public sector unions all over the country experience. I think one aspect is, one thing you see is that people who go through an organizing campaign and they go through that struggle to win the union, they tend to be really jazzed up and fired up about the power of the union.

    But sometimes when there’s a union that’s been in a workplace for a long time and people just get hired into it, they kind of take it for granted. They take that contract for granted. They don’t really appreciate the struggle that went into building that and winning that and maintaining that. The work that people like you got to do just to maintain the power of that union. And so it can become hard to inspire people. And what I saw reporting in my book and reporting all over the place is that unions in right to work states, unions that are successful in right to work situations. They just do a shit load of internal organizing all the time. Meaning that they are constantly talking to the members of that union about what the union is doing, why it’s important, why you need to come to this meeting, what the meeting’s about, what issues are facing us, what issues is the union fighting on.

    Everything. You have to constantly be talking and internally organizing the people in that workplace. There’s a chapter in my book about the culinary union, Las Vegas, which is a private sector union, but it’s in a right to work state. Nevada’s a right to work state, and yet this union has managed to successfully organize the entire casino industry in Nevada, the entire Vegas strip. They’re one of the most powerful unions in Nevada. And how do they do it even though it’s right to work and people could choose not to pay dues. They do it by constantly, constantly, constantly talking to all the members in that union. They got lists, they’re coming to your apartment and knocking on your door, hi, I’m here from the union, I’m here. We’re having a citywide meeting four times a year. We’re getting everybody together in the union. We’re talking about our issues. So it’s just work, work, work, work, work. Constant, constant talking to people. And I don’t think there are any shortcuts to that process. And it can be a real pain in the ass as you know if you’re doing that work is hard. But just talking to people about what the union is, what is it doing, why it’s important, and why they need to pay those dues and what they’re getting for those dues is the path that I see work in unions that make that work. Powerful,

    Powerful.

    Analysis:

    I was trying to figure out what word I wanted to choose, but your words are the right coda for this discussion that has been very, very necessary. Loved all the questions they were necessary questions and the beginning, not the end of a conversation this evening, but certainly the beginning. Some more convos and organized. I need you all to give up a final red Emmas round of applause for Max Alvarez and Hamilton Nolan.

    Hamilton Nolan:

    Thank you Red Emma’s. Thank you, Max Alvarez.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • After 11 weeks on strike, behavioral health workers at Kaiser Permanente’s Southern California offices will head back to the bargaining table on Jan. 9. 2,400 members of the National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW) have been manning picket lines across Southern California since Oct. 21, 2024. At the heart of their struggle is a fight to push California’s largest healthcare provider to bring Southern California workers’ pay, pensions, and working conditions up to the level of  their Northern California counterparts, and to solve the chronic understaffing crisis that has plagued Kaiser SoCal mental health clinics for years. 

    The quality of patient care in Kaiser’s Southern California system has dropped precipitously for over a decade, long before the start of the strike. These conditions have only worsened since workers walked off the job last October. Now, as the strike enters its 11th week, workers and patients are increasingly concerned that if Kaiser continues to drag their feet at the bargaining table, behavioral health care for the nearly 5 million enrollees in Southern California will remain interrupted, with potentially devastating consequences. Workers and patients alike say that an improved contract will drastically improve the quality of mental health care that enrollees receive.

    For patients seeking care, wait times are a stressful hurdle

    For patients seeking behavioral health care within the Kaiser system, the process is stressful, even retraumatizing. Even before the strike began, patients and behavioral health workers complained that Kaiser continued to impose an illegal “non-quantitative treatment limitation,” or one-appointment-at-a-time rule, which disallows patients from scheduling multiple mental health appointments at the same time. As a result, some patients are forced to wait weeks or even months between mental health appointments, effectively preventing them from accessing regular behavioral health care. 

    For some patients, these extended wait times can mean the difference between life and death. Patients like Ezekiel Koontz have found the process of securing regular therapy appointments to be “arduous,” even with their particularly emergent case. Koontz, who survived multiple suicide attempts, described being subjected to a revolving door of therapists and waiting six weeks or more for a therapy appointment. “Kaiser constantly, kind of… throws you around and around [and] for me, in my case, I was constantly waiting for months and months between appointments while I was suicidal,” Koontz said.

    “It’s very rare that a patient ends up with a therapist at Kaiser that sees them regularly and for the duration of time that they need them,” said Jeremy Simpkin, a case manager who has been with Kaiser for five years. “For the most part, it is a revolving door.” He says certain things have improved over time, but clarified that other processes like the external referral system, which allows patients to access behavioral health care that Kaiser doesn’t provide (programs like dialectical behavior therapy, for example), are often byzantine and demoralizing for patients who are forced to navigate them.

    A mountain of complaints from behavioral health providers about the deteriorating conditions inside Kaiser’s behavioral health clinics and patient experiences like Koontz’s led the NUHW to file a complaint with the DMHC in 2018. A lengthy investigation by the DMHC found that Kaiser had broken state law numerous times, finding that, “[w]hile the [Kaiser Health] Plan has worked to address [maintenance of adequate provider networks and effective and functional quality assurance programs], despite multiple enforcement actions, and comprehensive corrective action plans, the Plan’s shortfalls have continued and have impacted the Plan’s ability to ensure adequate and timely access to behavioral health services to its enrollees.” In 2023, the DMHC issued a $50 million fine against the plan (the largest in state history), and required that Kaiser enter into a settlement with the DMHC to correct the issues that had plagued employees and patients for over a decade. 

    The union maintains that, despite the detailed corrective actions laid out in the 2023 settlement, Kaiser has continued to fall short of the settlement’s objectives. Patients have continued to suffer long appointment wait times, high provider turnover, and lack of access to emergent mental health programs that would improve their chances of recovery. Koontz blamed their frustration with the process on Kaiser itself, saying, “I keep having very well meaning people [therapists] offer me everything because they really do want to see the best for their patients… Kaiser is not a human. Kaiser is a company that wants your money. And so while the people are genuinely trying to do what they can for, you know, people like me, who, again, nearly died multiple times, it doesn’t seem like anyone’s really capable of that, of actually making good on many of the promises that they genuinely want to keep.”

     “I keep having very well meaning people [therapists] offer me everything because they really do want to see the best for their patients… Kaiser is not a human. Kaiser is a company that wants your money.

    These issues have only worsened since the strike began, despite Kaiser’s promises that there were comprehensive contingency plans in place. The union alleges in a new complaint filed with the DMHC that, since the start of the SoCal strike, Kaiser has routinely failed to “provide timely and appropriate individual treatment” for enrollees, among other issues. According to the complaint, filed Dec. 20, 2024, “Kaiser’s practices constitute violations of multiple California laws… Patients who do not receive timely and appropriate [Substance Use Disorder] care are more likely to experience relapses and other harms, including death. NUHW has confirmed relapses among Kaiser’s Southern California enrollee[s] since October 21, 2024.” 

    A new, similar complaint filed Jan. 4 with the California Department of Health Care Services also alleges that Kaiser “failed to provide required mental health services for parents and families at Fontana Medical Center NICU and PICU, leaving patients at risk of not receiving critical care.” According to the union, Kaiser has repeatedly understaffed the two critical care units since workers began their strike last October, which has affected dozens of patients.

    For Koontz, the options that Kaiser has offered them while workers are on strike have been inadequate for their needs. Kaiser has offered Koontz and other patients the option of seeing a new therapist, but it’s unclear if they will be able to return to sessions with their regular providers after the strike is over. Additionally, the union alleges in their new complaint that, in some cases, temporary staff covering caseloads in Kaiser’s addiction medicine clinics during the strike are only working in two-week rotations, placing undue stress on the patients who are in need of their services. 

    The therapeutic relationship in behavioral therapy is often the most important aspect in determining how successful a patient is in reaching their therapeutic goals. In short, patients must be able to stick with a therapist long enough to build a relationship of trust and open communication. The revolving door, as some call it, doesn’t allow for that relationship to be built. “In my experience, how would you expect to have a meaningful connection with somebody who you know is only there because Kaiser doesn’t want to pay the person you’re normally there with?” Koontz said. “Are you going to realistically have a connection with somebody who you know is going to vanish?”

    “What they’re offering is stabilization, not care,” Koontz continued. “They’re trying to make sure we don’t off ourselves in between, because that looks really bad for their bottom line. You know, people can’t pay when they’re dead.” 

    Striking workers worry about the quality of care that their patients are receiving while they walk the picket lines. “There’s a lot of major worries for the patients, and that was from the very beginning. Knowing that even though Kaiser is saying, ‘We’ll provide comprehensive care and people will get therapy while you’re out,’ we know that that’s not happening,” Simpkin said. Simpkin added that while the striking providers feel anxiety and concern for their patients while out on strike, they know that this new contract will have an immediate positive effect on their patients. “We wholeheartedly believe that what we’re striking for will immediately and directly improve the [sic] patient care,” he said.

    A union fighting for their patients, and themselves

    Striking Kaiser workers believed that many of these long-standing problems could be addressed at the bargaining table, and negotiations began in late July 2024. When negotiations failed to produce a new agreement before their previous contract expired at the end of September, workers began preparing for a strike and walked off the job in late October. There have been no negotiations since the first week of the strike. In December, Kaiser finally allowed a bargaining date to be scheduled for Jan. 9 after state lawmakers weighed in and urged the health plan to get back to the table.

    The union has prioritized solutions in their proposals that have already been proven to have a positive impact on patient outcomes in the wake of the Northern California strike in 2022, where behavioral health workers walked off the job for 10 weeks in order to secure a contract that would improve working conditions for themselves and, by extension, their patients.

    In a Dec. 23, 2024, press conference by the union, NUHW President Emeritus Sal Rosselli made a statement underscoring this fact, saying, “There is no reason for Kaiser to be fighting us at the bargaining table, because what we’re proposing isn’t anything that the vast majority of Kaiser employees [don’t] already have. What we’re proposing are prerequisites for Kaiser to live up to the [2023] settlement agreement: end the chronic understaffing of its mental health clinics and provide behavioral health care that meets state standards and the needs of its patients.” 

    Among the proposals that NUHW is bringing to the table are pay parity with their Northern California counterparts, restoration of pensions for newer Southern California employees, and more time to work on patient care duties outside of face-to-face appointments. Improved working conditions, pay, and benefits would certainly make the job more competitive in an already competitive behavioral health care market, meaning that Kaiser can maintain safe staffing levels and reduce turnover. This, in turn, translates directly into better patient outcomes for Kaiser’s enrollees.

    For workers like Simpkin, who began his Kaiser career working in Northern California, there’s no reason for Kaiser to refuse the terms laid out by the union. He says that the NorCal contract already drastically changed the lives of the workers and their patients for the better. “I saw it happen in Northern California,” he said. “It doesn’t fix all of the problems. There’s still a lot of work to do. But as soon as we started implementing those contract changes in Northern California, the working conditions improved, the patient care [and] conditions improved. People’s morale improved. They were able to hire more people. People stayed in their jobs. So I know that it will work, because I’ve seen it.”

    “As soon as we started implementing those contract changes in Northern California, the working conditions improved, the patient care [and] conditions improved. … I know that it will work, because I’ve seen it.”

    Still, the delayed bargaining schedule has signaled to some workers that Kaiser remains unwilling to work with the union to come to an agreement, before more of their patients fall through the cracks. “If something was really important to you and you wanted to resolve it right away, you wouldn’t wait, you know?” said Jade Rosado, a striking licensed clinical social worker in Southeast LA County. “So that’s what that tells me, that was my initial reaction, like, oh, they’re really not serious.” 

    From her place on the picket line, Rosado has received positive feedback from patients and community members alike. Despite their frustrations, the focus remains on Kaiser’s inaction in maintaining a continuity of care that meets patient needs. “The feedback that we’ve gotten, even from the community when we’ve been on the picket line, it’s been supportive,” Rosado said. “I’m sure that there are people that are frustrated too—patients that are frustrated that are not getting the care that they need. So while they support us, they’re also frustrated.”

    As Rosselli told reporters at NUHW’s Dec. 23 press conference, “Instead of working with its behavioral health professionals to improve care, Kaiser is trying to cement their second-class status at the expense of its nearly 5 million patients in Southern California.” Despite these scheduling setbacks, the union is ready to get back to the bargaining table on Jan. 9 and work to come to an agreement. In the meantime, spirits are still high on the picket line, with workers hunkered down for the long haul. Rosado credits the solidarity she shares with her fellow union members as having a galvanizing effect. “Even though this is hard, like, we’re gonna get through it,” she said. “We’re gonna be okay. We have each other, and we’re supporting each other, and we got this.”

    If I did kill myself, what would Kaiser think? They wouldn’t blink. I’m just a random guy, another number that just vanishes off their list.

    As Kaiser continues to cancel appointments and force patients through a confusing external referral process, patients’ ongoing care remains in limbo. For Koontz, they hope that Kaiser will come to the table ready to come to a solution, but they worry that further delays in negotiations will create an untenable situation for their own recovery, and are skeptical that Kaiser even cares in the first place. “But also realistically, though, I’m just truly being completely honest, if I did kill myself, what would Kaiser think? They wouldn’t blink. I’m just a random guy, another number that just vanishes off their list. Who cares? It is a very impersonal system.”

    The Real News has reached out to Kaiser for comment about these patient concerns, and will update the story when they respond.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) has flamed Elon Musk and the right over his support of H-1B visas, saying that the program in its current form is another tool for corporations to exploit workers and line billionaires’ pockets with the fruits of the abuse. “Elon Musk is wrong,” Sanders said on social media on Thursday. “The main function of the H-1B visa program is not to hire ‘the best and…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In dark times like these, shining a light on successful efforts to reverse our country’s extreme inequality is more important than ever. As we looked back on 2024, we actually found plenty to celebrate. Here are 10 inspiring wins that deserve more attention. Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee voted overwhelmingly in April to join the United Auto Workers, a landmark win for…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Silicon Valley and tech billionaires are lining up to support the incoming Trump administration. With the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, as one of Trump’s closest advisers, Trump has hosted Amazon billionaire Jeff Bezos and Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg for dinners at Mar-a-Lago. Amazon, Meta and OpenAI’s Sam Altman have all announced donations of $1 million each to Trump’s inaugural committee.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Union workers broke open the cookie jar in 2024, after years of stagnant wages and rising prices. With strikes and the threat of strikes, workers did more than forestall concessions: They gained ground. Union workers in the private sector saw 6 percent real wage rises for the year. Just the fear that workers would organize drove up wages at non-union employers like Delta Airlines, Amazon…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Thousands of Amazon workers on Thursday launched the largest strike against the retail giant in U.S. history, pressuring the company at the height of the holiday period to follow the law and bargain with those who have organized with the Teamsters union. The strike includes warehouse workers and drivers at seven distribution centers in some of Amazon’s largest markets, including New York…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Starbucks workers launched five days of escalating strikes across the United States on Friday, accusing the coffee giant of reneging on its commitment to engage in productive bargaining talks with the union that now represents more than 11,000 baristas at over 500 stores nationwide. The walkouts will start in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Seattle on Friday before expanding “coast to coast” amid…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.


  • This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Seg1 3splits

    Thousands of Amazon workers on Thursday launched the largest strike against the retail giant in U.S. history, pressuring the company at the height of the holiday period to follow the law and bargain with those who have organized with the Teamsters union. The strike includes warehouse workers and drivers at seven distribution centers in some of Amazon’s largest markets, including New York, Atlanta and San Francisco; Teamsters have also set up picket lines at many other warehouses nationwide. “We’re engaging in a coordinated action to try to put the pressure on Amazon to stop breaking the law, come to the table,” says Connor Spence, president of Amazon Labor Union-IBT Local 1, which represents workers in New York. “This is an unfair labor practice strike over their refusal to bargain.” We also speak with Ronald Sewell, an Amazon associate in Georgia, who says workplace safety is a major driver of worker discontent, including insufficient access to water and overheating. “The danger is real. It’s not something that we’re making up,” says Sewell.


    This content originally appeared on Democracy Now! and was authored by Democracy Now!.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Read RFA coverage of this story in Uyghur.

    Chinese exports of tomatoes, chili peppers, marigolds and other farm products grown in the far-western region of Xinjiang are tainted by forced labor as well as the coercive transfer of land from Uyghur peasants to Chinese businesses, new research shows.

    The growing of these goods is also tainted by the forced assimilation and political indoctrination of Uyghur workers, according to 136-page report by Adrian Zenz and I-Lin Lin of the Washington-based Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation.

    Dozens of Western companies, including Kraft Heinz, Nestlé, Del Monte, PepsiCo, McCormick, Unilever and L’Oreal, are importing these goods, although they often enter supply chains through intermediaries, blurring their origin, the report found.

    The report identified 72 international companies and 18 Chinese firms with production in Xinjiang or supply chain links, or a risk of such links, to the region’s agricultural products.

    “It means that we have a much bigger system of forced labor and forced land transfer that is affecting many agricultural communities in Xinjiang and is directly serving the political goals of the regime to achieve political long-term transformation of these populations and taint the supply chains as a result,” Zenz told Radio Free Asia in an interview.

    Sources of information

    The investigation used planning documents from various Chinese administrative levels, state reports, budgets, academic papers, propaganda narratives and witness reports.

    It was also based on internal state documents, corporate documents, information from the Made-in-China website, data from e-commerce platforms, the global supply chain intelligence platform Sayari and the U.S. customs database ImportInfo.

    Bottles of Heinz Tomato Ketchup, a brand owned by The Kraft Heinz Company, are seen in a store in Manhattan, New York, Nov. 11, 2021.
    Bottles of Heinz Tomato Ketchup, a brand owned by The Kraft Heinz Company, are seen in a store in Manhattan, New York, Nov. 11, 2021.
    (Andrew Kelly/Reuters)

    Chinese companies implicated in Uyghur forced labor included COFCO Tunhe Tomato, Xinjiang Chalkis, which processes tomatoes and fruits, and Chenguang Biotech Group, a high-tech firm that specializes in the extraction and application of plant active ingredients.

    The three companies operate subsidies in the United States or Europe and have been implicated in rights abuses in Xinjiang, the report says.

    The report singles out U.S. ketchup-maker Kraft Heinz for ongoing collaboration with China’s COFCO Tunhe Tomato, providing the Chinese company with tomato seeds and technical collaboration.

    It also says cosmetics maker L’Oreal buys products from non-Chinese-based intermediaries in Asia whose supply chains are connected to Chinese-based companies or to suppliers of products whose domestic goods are sold in Western supermarkets.

    Unilever Pakistan Foods, a Unilever subsidiary, buys tomato products from COFCO Tunhe Tomato and exports them to the U.S. Canada and the United Kingdom.

    Abuses in Xinjiang

    The Chinese government has come under attack in recent years for abuses in Xinjiang that include the mass detainment of the mostly Muslim Uyghurs who live in Xinjiang and the use of Uyghur forced labor there.

    “Xinjiang operates the world’s largest contemporary system of state-imposed forced labor, with up to 2.5 million Uyghurs and members of other ethnic groups at risk of coerced work,” the report says.

    RELATED STORIES

    UK Parliament confronts ‘Italian’ tomato puree made with Uyghur forced labor

    EXPLAINED: Xinjiang’s largest cotton producer turned 70; not everyone is celebrating

    In Italy, lawyers file Uyghur forced labor complaints about tomato paste

    INTERVIEW: ‘We have zero tolerance for the importation of products made with forced labor’

    The report also cites pressure on Uyghurs to give up the right to farm their land to commercial operators who coerce them into wage labor in processing bases operated by Chinese agribusinesses.

    The report’s findings show that land-use transfer shares in Xinjiang grew nearly 50-fold between 2001 and 2021, indicating a “staggering scale at which ethnic peasants were rendered landless and then pushed into state-mandated work.”

    “This is resulting in profound livelihood changes and [the] tearing apart of organic communities, ensuring that Uyghurs are more easily and thoroughly controlled, surveilled, and assimilated,” it says.

    The U.S. government and over 10 Western parliaments have declared that the abuses in Xinjiang amount to genocide and crimes against humanity. The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, which took effect in the U.S. in June 2022, prevents companies from importing any goods produced in Xinjiang unless they can prove forced labor was not used.

    ‘Vicious lie’

    When asked to comment on the report, Liu Pengyu, spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington said China has “repeatedly emphasized that the so-called ‘forced labor’ issue is a vicious lie fabricated by anti-China forces.”

    “Xinjiang implements proactive labor and employment policies, effectively safeguarding the basic employment rights of people from all ethnic groups,” he said via email.

    Adrian Zenz, a researcher at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, testifies during a special House committee hearing dedicated to countering China, in Washington, March 23, 2023.
    Adrian Zenz, a researcher at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, testifies during a special House committee hearing dedicated to countering China, in Washington, March 23, 2023.
    (Carolyn Kaster/AP)

    Liu accused the U.S. of repeatedly spreading rumors and stirring up trouble regarding Xinjiang by using human rights to engage in political manipulation and economic bullying in an attempt to undermine the region’s prosperity and stability and curb China’s development.

    Liu further said that Zenz, known as Zheng Guoen in China, is a member of a far-right organization established by the U.S. government, and a key member of an anti-China research institution set up and manipulated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

    “He makes a living by fabricating anti-China rumors and slandering China,” Liu said. “His so-called report has no credibility, academic value, or academic integrity.”

    Company responses

    Zenz and Lin said they contacted the companies named in the report with detailed requests for comment, but several could not be reached, while others provided invalid email addresses.

    Some did respond. U.S. ketchup-maker Kraft Heinz said it used COFCO-supplied tomato products only in China and Central Asia, despite information by the researchers that its subsidiaries in Indonesia and India also bought tomato paste from COFCO in 2023 and 2024.

    French cosmetics manufacturer L’Oreal denied a direct supply chain relationship with suppliers linked to Xinjiang, but did not address the indirect supply chain ties outlined in the report.

    Tomatoes are harvested in Bole, capital of Bortala Mongol Autonomous Prefecture, in northwestern China's Xinjiang region, Sept. 12, 2024.
    Tomatoes are harvested in Bole, capital of Bortala Mongol Autonomous Prefecture, in northwestern China’s Xinjiang region, Sept. 12, 2024.
    (Gou Lifeng/Xinhua News Agency/Reuters)

    U.S. spice-maker McCormick didn’t comment on specific allegations, but said its policy prohibits the use of forced labor in its supply chain.

    American fruits and vegetables distributor Del Monte said its multiple COFCO Tunhe suppliers certified that they did not use forced labor.

    Concern over findings

    Rushan Abbas, executive director of Campaign for Uyghurs, said the research findings present the most comprehensive evidence of the Chinese Communist Party’s genocide against the Uyghurs extending deep into the agricultural sector, affecting global supply chains, and implicating major international brands.

    “The forced transfer of land rights from Uyghur farmers to Chinese corporations, combined with coercive labor practices and political indoctrination, represents yet another facet of the regime’s systematic assault on Uyghur rights and identity,” she said in a statement.

    “Of particular concern is the ongoing strategic relationship between Kraft Heinz and COFCO, a state-owned enterprise in East Turkistan that actively participates in the surveillance of Uyghur households and enforces policies linked to cultural assimilation and forced labor,” Abbas said, using Uyghurs’ preferred name for Xinjiang.

    The Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, a ‍group of international lawmakers from democratic countries focused on relations with China also raised concern over the report’s findings.

    “Disturbingly, goods linked to forced labor are being sold worldwide under trusted, household brand names deceiving consumers and perpetuating the cycle of exploitation,” 46 lawmakers from the group said in a statement.

    Edited by Roseanne Gerin and Malcolm Foster.


    This content originally appeared on Radio Free Asia and was authored by Mettursun Beydulla for RFA Uyghur.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Teamsters launched what the union described as “the largest strike against Amazon in U.S. history” on Thursday morning to protest the e-commerce behemoth’s unlawful refusal to bargain with organized drivers and warehouse workers across the country. Workers in New York City, Atlanta, San Francisco, and other locations are expected to participate in Thursday’s strike…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Jacobin logo

    This story originally appeared in Jacobin on Dec. 14, 2024. It is shared here with permission.

    While left-wing governments hold power across most of Latin America, ultraright social forces remain a threat. In Bolivia, powerful left-Indigenous social movements have managed to keep an insurgent right wing at bay since the devastating coup of 2019. But a growing political crisis for the plurinational state highlights the urgent need to maintain unity in the face of an ever-powerful right.

    The coup of 2019 was a catastrophic attack on Bolivian democracy. It saw the rapid ascent of ultraright conservatives from the lowland city of Santa Cruz — the axis of regional-class antagonism to the then President Evo Morales and his party, the Movement Toward Socialism, or MAS — directed by businessman Luis Fernando Camacho, the leader of the business group Comité Pro Santa Cruz and former leader of the Nazi youth group Unión Juvenil Cruceñista (UJC).

    The coup unfolded when middle-class protesters took to the streets to dispute Evo’s victory in that year’s elections. As the protests escalated, the head of the armed forces “suggested” Morales resign, forcing him into exile in Mexico.

    In the resulting power vacuum, the right-wing evangelical Jeanine Áñez seized the presidency, and as social movements resisted, she presided over two mass killings — of nine protesters in Sacaba, Cochabamba, and of ten protesters blockading the Senkata gas plant in El Alto who were shot dead by a military exempted from criminal liability by a sudden presidential decree.

    Áñez swiftly reestablished diplomatic ties with the United States and Israel, with whom Morales had had strained relations. Clutching a giant Bible, Áñez declared, “The Bible has returned to the government,” as she paraded through the government headquarters. Soldiers were filmed burning the Wiphala flag, representing highland Indigenous peoples, signifying a new turn against the decolonizing policies of the state. A frenzied crackdown on leftists ensued as the coup government issued arrest warrants against journalists and MAS-supporting politicians.

    A year later, Bolivia’s left-wing party, the MAS, staged a stunning political comeback. It came after campesinos, Indigenous groups, and the Central Obrera Boliviana (COB), Bolivia’s major trade union federation, brought the country to a standstill by forming roadblocks to demand that the dictatorship government hold elections. Faced with the insurgent popular forces, the government buckled.

    In the elections that followed, the MAS swept to power in a landslide, repudiating the neoliberal and racist policies initiated by Bolivia’s elites. Those elites remain, nonetheless, active and powerful.

    Dissecting the Right

    In a recent article in Nueva Sociedad, Cristóbal Rovira argues that as in Europe, far-right political projects are on the rise everywhere in Latin America. In the 2019 coup in Bolivia, two key strands of right-wing mobilization emerged, the newest being the self-styled pititas — urban, young, middle-class protesters. Some were students at the universities in La Paz, such as the Universidad Mayor de San Andrés (UMSA), whose then rector, Waldo Albarracín, was a longtime critic of the MAS.

    Their modus operandi was the formation of makeshift string barricades in the streets. They shared memes likening Bolivia to a dictatorship, and their protest chants decried Morales’s “communism” and compared Bolivia to that old bogeyman, Venezuela.

    The pititas were joined by a more dangerous element: the ultraright concentrated in the wealthy eastern region of Santa Cruz with ties to Brazilian fascists and Washington, DC. This faction coalesced around Camacho, who went on to become governor of Santa Cruz in the 2021 regional elections. His old organization, the UJC, launched a campaign of terror in Santa Cruz in the wake of the coup, setting off bombs outside the headquarters of the local peasant union.

    The coup of 2019 was a catastrophic attack on Bolivian democracy.

    The formation of the UJC in 1957 is linked to the arrival in Bolivia of German Nazis who fled Europe after World War II. In recent decades, it has functioned as a kind of paramilitary group protecting the interests of loggers and agribusinesses. It seeks to establish an autonomous Santa Cruz state, and it uses racist rhetoric to castigate the highland Indigenous “savages” associated with the national government.

    The far right also exploits the long-standing cultural divisions between the eastern and western regions, the Andean highlands and the lowlands, respectively. Until the mid-twentieth century, the city of Santa Cruz was an isolated backwater, presided over by white elites who viciously exploited the small and dispersed Indigenous populations who lived in the wider region. The discovery of oil and gas deposits in the 1960s generated huge economic growth. Today Santa Cruz is the powerhouse of Bolivia, fueled in the past two decades by the expansion of the agricultural frontier for soy production, logging, and livestock, which are devastating the biodiverse landscapes and usurping Indigenous territory.

    In these eastern territories, vast tracts of land are still owned by a small wealthy elite, many of them having acquired the land during the dictatorships of the 1970s and ’80s. One of these landowners is Branko Marinkovic, the openly fascist descendant of wealthy Croatian immigrants, who, as minister of economy and public finance under Áñez, was rewarded with 34,000 hectares of land. In 2008, Marinkovic was arrested and went into exile in the United States and, subsequently, Brazil after orchestrating an assassination attempt against President Evo Morales.

    Cruceño elites — those associated with the Comité Pro Santa Cruz — have fashioned an identity as cambas to refer to their lowland identity, which they juxtapose with the racialized and often pejorative term collas, meaning highland Indigenous peoples. They are well integrated with the far right regionally. Marinkovic, for example, is a close associate of Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president; earlier this year, he was detained at Ezeiza airport in Buenos Aires, where he was on his way to meet Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei, for dinner.

    Unlike the right-wing supporters of Milei and Bolsonaro, who were able to win national power at the ballot box, the ultraright in Bolivia remains heavily concentrated in the east of the country and has not yet been able to court wider support translating into electoral success nationally. In June 2022, Áñez was sentenced to ten years in prison for her role in the coup, and that December, Camacho was kept in preventive detention on charges of terrorism and embezzlement of funds. Despite their imprisonment and relative marginality, however, the forces that brought these two figures to prominence remain significant.

    Defending Democracy

    The ill-fated coup attempt of June 26, 2024, showcased the commitment of Bolivian movements to resisting threats to democracy. Troops led by an aggrieved army general sent a tank into the presidential palace in La Paz in what many feared was an effort by the military to seize power in the context of an ongoing internal conflict within the MAS. General Juan José Zúñiga demanded the release of Añez and Camacho.

    Although the “coup” fizzled out of its own accord within a few hours, Bolivia’s social movements immediately rushed to take a stand. “We will take to the streets. We will defend democracy!” declared Guillermina Kuno, an Aymara leader of the Bartolina Sisas, Bolivia’s national union of Indigenous peasant women, at a press conference. Social movements flooded Plaza Murillo in a show of strength against military interference.

    Unlike the right-wing supporters of Milei and Bolsonaro, who were able to win power at the ballot box, the ultraright in Bolivia has not yet been able to court wider support translating into electoral success nationally.

    The incident nonetheless bodes ill for a country still reeling from the 2019 coup. It certainly would not be the first time that military leaders had subverted democratic rule in Bolivia. Amid a litany of military coups, one of the most tragic in recent history was the putsch led by Luis García Meza in 1980. Troops entered the headquarters of the trade union federation and kidnapped socialist party leader Marcelo Quiroga, who was tortured and killed. As a result, almost the entirety of the labor movement leadership was forced into exile.

    In the late 1970s and ’80s, the peasant movement was a fierce defender of democracy in Bolivia in the face of authoritarian regimes. The MAS has its early origins in the mobilizing strategy of that peasant movement. It first came to power in 2005 under Morales, on the back of a cycle of uprisings between 2000 and 2004 led by peasants, miners, workers, and Indigenous groups against the privatization of the country’s resources and other neoliberal policies.

    With revenues from the newly nationalized oil and gas industries in the late 2000s, the economy boomed, and inequality reduced drastically. Social spending transformed the lives of the poor people, workers, Indigenous communities, and women. In a country marked by deep racial discrimination against Indigenous peoples, the state newly proclaimed the importance of Indigenous languages and ways of living.

    An Uncertain Future

    Today Bolivia’s left is mired in a new crisis. The country’s economic outlook is deteriorating. Diesel and basic food prices are rising sharply, putting pressure on ordinary people and exacerbating social tensions. The economic boom of the 2000s created a new middle class that is now seeing its fortunes turn and the value of its savings tumble.

    Marcelo Quiroga once observed that “nonrenewable natural resources are today’s bread and tomorrow’s hunger.” A legacy of the colonization of the Americas by Europeans in the fifteenth century, Bolivia’s economy remains stubbornly reliant on the export of primary commodities. It is one of the poorest countries in Latin America. Revenues from hydrocarbons have plummeted since the glory days of the 2000s, and foreign exchange reserves have dried up. Due to the collapse of exports, Bolivia has run out of dollars, which in turn means it cannot import diesel.

    Meanwhile, a bitter rift in the ruling MAS party between those loyal to Evo Morales, the ex-president, and Luis Arce, the current president, is crippling the Left. Both Arce and Morales want to run as the MAS candidate in the 2025 elections.

    In December last year, the country’s Plurinational Constitutional Court ruled that Morales was not eligible to run again under the constitutional term limits. But this has not deterred Morales from amassing a considerable support base in a massive march to La Paz to demand that he be allowed the candidacy.

    Morales has the loyalty of some sectors within the social movements, but he is unlikely to win favor with the electorate as a whole. A recent poll suggests that 65 percent of voters would not vote for him. Indeed, one of the major factors behind the coup in 2019 was Morales’s decision to overturn a referendum in which the electorate decided he should not be able to run for a fourth term in office, then prohibited by the constitution.

    The COB, led by Juan Carlos Huarachi, remains loyal to Arce, while the peasant union is split down the middle; there are, in effect, two parallel organizations within it, loyal to Morales and Arce, respectively. These divisions are having a corrosive impact on the unity of workers’ and Indigenous peoples’ movements, which is the base of the MAS.

    In the context of economic hardship, a number of social sectors have organized blockades to demand action by Arce on the economy. Not all of these sectors are in favour of Morales, however. The Ponchos Rojos, a highland Aymara peasant force, which has historically been highly autonomist, is not pro-Morales but has been protesting vociferously against Arce in recent weeks.

    Camacho has recently called for replacing masista — socialism — with the Cruceño model of growth: agrarian extractivism that enriches agribusiness elites without the state redistribution offered by the MAS. There is a deep risk that as the internal conflicts intensify, the right wing will again seize the chance to commandeer democratic institutions, entrench inequality, and reverse the socially oriented policies of the MAS. Bolivia’s leftist movements have trounced the ultraright before. Whether they can continue to do so is uncertain.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • Workers at a Amazon warehouse and delivery center in New York announced approval of strike authorizations on Friday, giving the retail giant — who have refused to negotiate for months — until Sunday to come to the bargaining table or risk a major work stoppage at the height of the holiday shopping season. The unions representing Amazon workers at two New York City facilities — the JFK8…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  •  

    FAIR: Reporting on California’s Fast-Food Minimum Wage Raise Comes With Side Order of Fear

    Conor Smyth (FAIR.org, 1/19/24): “The history of debates over the minimum wage is filled with claims about the detrimental effect of raising the wage floor that have repeatedly flopped in the face of empirical evidence.”

    In September 2023, California passed a law requiring fast food restaurants with more than 60 locations nationwide to pay workers a minimum of $20 an hour, affecting more than 700,000 people working in the state’s fast food industry.

    Readers will be unsurprised to hear that corporate media told us that this would devastate the industry. As Conor Smyth reported for FAIR (1/19/24) before the law went into effect, outlets like USA Today (12/26/23) and CBS (12/27/23) were telling us that, due to efforts to help those darn workers, going to McDonald’s or Chipotle was going to cost you more, and also force joblessness. This past April, Good Morning America (4/29/24) doubled down with a piece about the “stark realities” and “burdens” restaurants would now face due to the law.

    Now we have actual data about the impact of California’s law. Assessing the impact, the Shift Project (10/9/24) did “not find evidence that employers turned to understaffing or reduced scheduled work hours to offset the increased labor costs.” Instead, “weekly work hours stayed about the same for California fast food workers, and levels of understaffing appeared to ease.” Further, there was “no evidence that wage increases were accompanied by a reduction in fringe benefits… such as health or dental insurance, paid sick time, or retirement benefits.”

    Popular Info: What really happened after California raised its minimum wage to $20 for fast food workers

    Judd Legum (Popular Information, 12/3/24): “The restaurant industry provided a distorted picture of the impact of the fast food worker wage increase.”

    In June 2024, the California Business and Industrial Alliance ran a full-page ad in USA Today claiming that the fast food industry cut about 9,500 jobs as a result of the $20 minimum wage. That’s just false, says Popular Information (12/3/24).

    Among other things, the work relied on a report from the Hoover Institution, itself based on a Wall Street Journal article (3/25/24), from a period before the new wage went into effect, and that, oops, was not seasonally adjusted. (There’s an annual decline in employment at fast food restaurants from November through January, when people are traveling or cooking at home—which is why the Bureau of Labor Statistics offers seasonally adjusted data.)

    The industry group ad starts with the Rubio’s fish taco chain, which they say was forced to close 48 California locations due to “increasing costs.” It leaves out that the entire company was forced to declare bankruptcy after it was purchased by a private equity firm on January 19, 2024 (LA Times, 6/12/24).

    As Smyth reported, there is extensive academic research on the topic of wage floors that shows that minimum wage hikes tend to have little to no effect on employment, but can raise the wages of hundreds of thousands of workers (CBPP, 6/30/15; Quarterly Journal of Economics, 5/2/19). Media’s elevation of anecdotes about what individual companies have done, and say they plan to do, in response to the minimum wage hike overshadows more meaningful information about the net effect across all companies in the industry.

    WSJ: California's Fast Food Casualties

    The Wall Street Journal (12/28/23) said last year that “it defies economics and common sense to think that businesses won’t adapt by laying off workers.” Since that hasn’t happened, does the Journal need better economists—or more sense?

    And what about agency? The Wall Street Journal (12/28/23) contented that “it defies economics and common sense to think that businesses won’t adapt by laying off workers” in response to the new law. But why? Is there no question lurking in there about corporate priorities? About executive pay? About the fact that consumers and workers are the same people?

    The question calls for thoughtfulness—will, for example, fast food companies cut corners by dumping formerly in-house delivery workers off on companies like DoorDash and Uber Eats, which are not subject to the same labor regulations? How will economic data measure that?

    That would be a story for news media to engage, if they were interested in improving the lives of struggling workers. They could also broaden the minimum wage discussion to complementary policy changes—as Smyth suggested, “expanded unemployment insurance, the Earned Income Tax Credit, a job guarantee, and universal basic income.”

    The narrow focus on whether a Big Mac costs 15 cents more, and if it does, shouldn’t you yell at the people behind the counter, is a distortion, and a tired one, that should have been retired long ago.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • Two outgoing independent senators, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, voted on Wednesday to block the renomination of Lauren McFerran, who currently heads the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an agency that oversees workers’ rights protections in the United States. McFerran’s renomination would have allowed her to serve another five-year term and blocked…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Every morning, for years, Josana Pinto da Costa would venture out onto the waterways lining Óbidos, Brazil, in a small fishing boat. She would glide over the murky, churning currents of the Amazon River Basin, her flat nets bringing in writhing hauls as the sun ascended into the cerulean skies above.  

    Scorching temperatures in the Brazilian state of Pará have now made that routine unsafe. The heat has “been really intense” this year, said Pinto da Costa in Portuguese. It feels as if the “sun has gotten stronger,” so much so that it’s led her to shift her working hours from daytime to the dead of night.

    Abandoning the practice that defined most of her days, she now sets off to the river in the pitch dark to chase what fish are also awake before dawn. It’s taken a toll on her catch, and her life. But it’s the only way she can continue her work in the face of increasingly dangerous temperatures

    “A lot of our fishing communities have shifted to fishing in the nighttime,” said Pinto da Costa, who advocates nationally for fisherfolk communities like hers through the Movimento de Pescadores e Pescadoras Artesanais do Brasil, or the Movement of Artisanal Fishermen and Fisherwomen of Brazil. 

    An aerial of a fishing town with lights and boats on the water at night
    Fishing boats float in the harbor at the historic Old Town district of Belém at night in November 2023.
    Ricardo Lima / Getty Images

    Moving from daytime to overnight work is often presented as the most practical solution for agricultural laborers struggling with rising temperatures as a result of climate change. But it is no longer simply a proposal: This shift is already underway among many of the communities that catch, grow, and harvest the world’s food supply, from Brazil to India to the United States. Studies show the most common means of adapting to rising temperatures in most crop-growing regions has been to start working when it’s still dark out, or even to shift to a fully overnight schedule

    “The obvious piece of advice that you’ll see given is, ‘Work at night. Give workers head torches,’ and so on,” said Zia Mehrabi, a food security and climate researcher at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “But the reality is, that can lead to other rights violations, other negative impacts.” 


    That’s been the case for Pinto da Costa and her fishing community in Brazil. Nighttime work has been an additional hardship for a community already struggling with the impacts of climate change. The region has experienced decades of severe drought conditions, causing fish to die off and physically isolating people as waterways dried up

    Research shows that regularly working during the night is physically and mentally disruptive and can lead to long-term health complications. Nighttime fishing is also threatening social and communal routines among the fisherfolk. A daytime sleep schedule can curb quality time spent with loved ones, as well as limit when wares can be sold or traded in local markets. 

    It’s also impacting their ability to support themselves and their families through a generations-old trade. “We’ve actually been working more hours with less food, with less production,” said Pinto da Costa, noting that working at night has made their work less efficient and led them to find less fish. “This is across all regions of Brazil,” she added. 

    The impact of a shift to nighttime hours is an understudied piece of the puzzle of how climate change and rising temperatures threaten the world’s food supply and its workforce. But for many experts, and those on the front lines, one thing is clear: Overnight work is far from a straightforward solution.

    “It’s a very scary time for us,” said Pinto da Costa.  

    fishermen silhouetted against a boat at sunset or sunrise
    Fishermen walk on their boat as they fish in the Tapajos river in the Pará state of Brazil in August 2020.
    Andre Penner / AP Photo

    Outdoor workers, with their typical midday hours and limited access to shade, face some of the most perilous health risks during periods of extreme heat. A forthcoming analysis — previewed exclusively by Grist — found that, on average, the amount of time considered unsafe to work outside during a typical 9-to-5 workday will increase 8 percent by 2050, assuming greenhouse gas emissions stay on their current trajectory.

    Led by Naia Ormaza Zulueta, a Ph.D. student at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and Mehrabi, the analysis measures the number of extreme heat days by geographic region, and then breaks down daily and hourly temperatures by the estimated amount of population exposed. The research reveals that an estimated 21 percent of the global population already faces dangerous levels of heat stress during typical workday hours for more than a third of the year. By 2050, without cuts to planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions (known as the “business-as-usual” scenario), that portion will jump to 39 percent. 

    “The number of days that people will experience a violation of their rights to a safe climate is going to substantially increase, but then also the number of possible working hours in a season, and productivity, is going to be substantially reduced,” said Mehrabi. “It’s a massive lose-lose situation.” 

    Their analysis finds that outdoor agricultural workers will encounter the largest health-related risks, with laborers in some areas being hit harder than others. 

    India, in particular, is projected to be one of the countries whose workforce will be most exposed to heat stress under the business-as-usual climate scenario. There are roughly 260 million agricultural workers in India. By 2050, 94 percent of the country’s population could face more than 100 days in a year when at least one daytime working hour exceeds a wet-bulb temperature of 28 degrees Celsius, or 82.4 degrees Fahrenheit — a conservative threshold of what is considered safe for acclimatized workers experiencing moderate rates of work. (Unacclimatized workers, or those unaccustomed to working in such environments, will face greater levels of heat risk at the same temperature and amount of work.) 

    In Brazil, another of the world’s top agricultural suppliers, heat risk is not as dire, but still poses a substantial risk for outdoor workers, including Pinto da Costa’s community of fisherfolk. By 2050, roughly 41 percent of the country’s population could experience more than 100 days a year when wet-bulb temperatures exceed the recommended threshold for at least one hour a day, according to the Boulder team’s analysis. 

    Mary Jo Dudley, the director of Cornell University’s Farmworker Program and the chair of the U.S. National Advisory Council of Migrant Health, said that the analysis is significant for what it reveals about the human health consequences of extreme heat, particularly as it relates to the world’s agricultural laborers. She’s seeing more and more outdoor agricultural workers in the U.S. adopt overnight schedules, which is only adding to the burdens and inequities the wider workforce already suffers from. This is poised to get worse. Zulueta and Mehrabi found that 35 percent of the total U.S. population will experience more than 100 days of wet-bulb temperatures exceeding 28 degrees C, or 82.4 degrees F, for at least one hour a day every year by 2050.

    “This transition to a nighttime schedule pushes an extremely vulnerable population into more difficult work conditions that have significant mental and physical health impacts,” said Dudley.  

    Rebuking the human body’s circadian rhythms — that 24-hour internal clock that regulates when you sleep and wake — ramps up a person’s risk of health complications, such as cardiovascular disease and types of cancer, and diminishes their body’s ability to handle injury and stress. Working untraditional hours also can reduce a person’s ability to socialize or participate in cultural, communal activities, which are associated with positive impacts on brain and body health

    Women are particularly vulnerable to the social and economic impacts of transitioning to nighttime schedules. Despite making up nearly 45 percent of artisanal fishers in Brazil, women receive lower pay than their male counterparts. That means that when harvests decline with nighttime fishing, their margins are even smaller.

    In the Brazilian state of Bahia, tens of thousands of women fishers work to collect shellfish en masse, while in Maranhão, women fisherfolk herd shrimp to the shore using small nets. Clam harvesting in Brazil’s northeast is also dominated by women. Because these jobs traditionally happened during the day and close to home, they allowed women to balance cultural or gendered family roles, including managing the household and being the caregiver to children. Shifting to evening hours to avoid extreme heat “poses a fundamental challenge,” said Mehrabi. “When you talk about changing working hours, you talk about disrupting families.”  

    Two women stand in the water near a beach gathering fish into buckets
    Two women clean fish at the Xingu River on the Paquicamba Indigenous Land in the Brazilian state of Pará in September 2022.
    Carlos Fabal / AFP via Getty Images

    Overnight work comes with other risks too. In many areas of Brazil, nighttime work is “either impossible” or “very complicated” because there are procedures and regulations as to when fisherfolk in different regions can fish, said Pinto da Costa. Nighttime fishing is regulated in some parts of Brazil — measures that have been shown to disproportionately impact artisanal fishers.

    Even so, says Pinto da Costa, many are braving the risks “just to reduce the amount of exposure to the sun.”

    “Honestly, when I saw that this was accepted in the literature, that people were giving this advice of changing their working shifts to the night, I was shocked,” said Zulueta, the author of the Boulder study, citing a paper published earlier this year where overnight work is recommended as an adaptation tool to reduce agricultural productivity losses to heat exposure. Under a policy of “avoiding unsafe working hours,” shifting those hours to the nighttime “is not a universally applicable solution,” she said.  


    Growing up a pastoralist in Ahmedabad, India, Bhavana Rabari has spent much of her life helping tend to her family’s herd of buffalo. Although she now spends her days advocating for pastoralists across the Indian state of Gujarat, the routine of her childhood is still ingrained in her: Wake up, feed and milk the herd, and then tend to the fields that surround their home. 

    But extreme heat threatens to change that, as well as the preservation of her community. When temperatures soar past 90 degrees F in Ahmedabad — now a regular occurrence — Rabari worries about her mom, who hand-collects feed for their buffalo to graze on. Other pastoralists are nomadic, walking at least 10 miles a day herding cattle from region to region in the hunt for pastureland. 

    A man and a woman tend to a herd of goats
    Bhavana Rabari kneels while tending a herd of goats and sheep near Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India, in 2022.
    Courtesy of Bhavana Rabari

    “If we lose our livestock, we lose our culture, our dignity,” said Rabari. “If we continue our occupations, then we are dignified. We live with the dignity of our work.” 

    But rapidly rising temperatures are making it hard to hold on to that dignity of work. “The heat affects every life, every thing,” said Rabari. 

    Working overnight is a tactic Rabari has heard of other agricultural workers trying. But the idea of tending to the herd in the dark isn’t something she sees as safe or accessible for either her family or other pastoralists in her community. It’s less efficient and more dangerous to work outdoors with animals in the dark, and it would require them to overhaul daily lives and traditions. 

    “We are not working at night,” said Rabari. But what the family is already doing is waking up at 5 a.m. to beat the heat, collecting milk from their buffalo and preparing products to sell in the market during the dusky hours of the morning. 

    Rabari’s family and other pastoralists across Gujarat are increasingly in an untenable position. Hotter temperatures have already caused pastureland to wither, meaning animals are grazing less and producing less milk. More unsafe working hours means lost work time on top of that, which, in turn, changes how much income pastoralist families are able to take home.

    The result has been not adaptation, but an exodus. Most pastoralists Rabari knows, particularly younger generations, are leaving the trade, seeking employment instead as drivers or cleaners in Ahmedabad. Rabari, who organizes for women pastoralists through the Maldhari Mahila Sangathan, or the Pastoral Women Alliance, says women are most often the ones left behind to tend to the herds. 

    They “have to take care of their children, they have to take care of the food, and they have to take care of the water,” she said. “They face the heat, they face the floods, or the excess rain.”


    Halfway across the world, April Hemmes is facing off against unrelenting bouts of heat amid verdant fields of soybeans and corn in Hampton, north-central Iowa. A fourth-generation small Midwestern farmer, Hemmes works more than 900 acres entirely on her own — year in and year out. 

    The Midwest is the largest agricultural area in the United States, as well as one of the leading agricultural producers in the world. It’s also an area that has been battered by human-caused climate change. In fact, scientists just recently declared an end to the drought that had devastated the region for a whopping 203 weeks. The conditions impacted crop yields, livestock, the transportation of goods, and the larger supply chain. 

    Hemmes has the luxury of not having to face the same degree of heat stress that Rabari and Pinto da Costa are confronting elsewhere in the world, per the Boulder analysis. When compared to India and Brazil, the U.S. is on the lowest end of the worker health impact scale for extreme heat. And yet, heat is also already the deadliest extreme weather event in the U.S., responsible for more deaths every year than hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes combined

    A woman drives a piece of farm equipment through a field
    April Hemmes harvests a soybean field on her farm in Iowa in September 2018.
    Courtesy of April Hemmes and Joe Murphy

    A few years back, while building a fence on her farmland, Hemmes suffered her first bout of on-the-job heat exhaustion. Suddenly, her heart started to race and her body felt as if it began to boil from within, forcing her to abandon her task and head indoors, away from the menacing heat. It was a wake-up call: Ever since, she’s been hyper-cautious with how she feels when tending to her fields.

    This past summer, the heat index repeatedly soared past 100 degrees in Hemmes’ corner of Iowa. She found herself needing to be extra careful, not only pacing herself while working and taking more frequent breaks, but also making sure to get the bulk of the day’s work done in the morning. She even began starting her day in the fields an hour or so earlier to avoid searing temperatures compounding with brutal humidity throughout the afternoon. 

    “This [farm] has been in my family for over 125 years,” she said. “I do everything from banking to planting to spraying, everything. So it’s all on me, and it’s my family farm. I’m very proud of that.” In 1993, her dad and grandfather both retired, and she took over operations. She’s been more or less “a one-woman show” since. Keeping her farm well-managed is a responsibility she doesn’t take lightly. “You do what’s best for the soil. Because that’s the inheritance of future generations,” she said. 

    A point-of-view photo of a piece of farm equipment moving over green rows of crops
    April Hemmes’ view as she plants cover crops on one of her fields in May 2024.
    Courtesy of April Hemmes

    When Hemmes looks at how to prepare for a future with hotter working conditions, she knows one thing: Nighttime work is out of the question. 

    Not only are summertime mosquitoes in Iowa “terrible after dark,” but Hemmes says some of the chemicals she uses are regulated, restricting her from spraying them during the nighttime. In addition, she would need to get lights installed throughout the fields to alleviate the risk of injury when she uses equipment, and she would be even more fearful of that equipment breaking down. 

    “It would take more energy to work at night,” said Hemmes. “I think it would be far more dangerous … to work after the daylight was gone.” 

    Like Pinto da Costa and Rabari, Hemmes is involved in advocacy for her community. With the United Soybean Board, Hemmes advocates for women in agriculture. With more resources at her disposal than Pinto da Costa and Rabari, Hemmes is focused on how to ensure solo-farming operations like hers have access to the technology they need to overcome heat spells — and never have to seriously consider an overnight harvest schedule.

    On her own farm, she’s invested in “expensive” autonomous agriculture technology that allows her to take breaks when she needs to from the blistering sun. And she would like to see more precision technology and autonomous agriculture tools readily applied and accessible for farmers. She currently uses a tractor with an automatic steering system that improves planting and plowing efficiency and requires much less work, which she credits as one of the pivotal reasons she’s able to successfully manage her hundreds of acres of fields on her own. 

    She also hopes to see farmers tapping into their inherent flexibility. “What farmers are is adaptable,” she said. “I don’t have an orchard on my farm, but if I did, and I saw this thing [climate change] coming, you know, maybe you look at tearing the trees out and starting to plant what I can in those fields. Maybe the Corn Belt will move up to North Dakota. Who knows, if this keeps progressing?” 

    In Gujarat, Rabari and the Maldhari Mahila Sangathan are working to secure better representation for pastoralists in policymakers’ decisions about land use. The hope is for these communities to inform policies that would allow pastoralists job security and financial safety nets as climbing temperatures make it difficult to work and turn a profit.

    Women pastoralists in particular are entirely left out of these policy spaces, said Rabari, which isn’t just an issue of exclusion but means their unique ecological knowledge is lost, too. “We have a traditional knowledge of which grass is good for our animals, which grass they need to eat so we get the most meals, how [they] can be used for medical treatment,” she said.

    A woman kneels in a dry field with pots and pans strewn on the ground
    A woman named Madhuben boils camel milk in Gir Forest, Gujarat, India, in January 2021. Madhuben is a nomadic pastoralist who walks at least 10 miles a day, herding her cattle from region to region in the hunt for pastureland.
    Courtesy of Bhavana Rabari

    Pinto da Costa and the Movimento de Pescadores e Pescadoras Artesanais do Brasil are also advocating for monetary relief from the Brazilian government to offset the losses her fisherfolk community has faced from climate change and shifting work hours. In addition, she is looking for technical support to improve fisherfolk’s resources and equipment.

    “I have maintained my energy and motivation to continue to fight for our rights,” said Pinto da Costa.

    For all, it’s a race against time. Eventually, even working at night may not be enough to keep outdoor agricultural work viable. The Boulder researchers found that an overnight working schedule will not significantly alleviate dangerous heat stress exposure risk in key agricultural regions of the world — particularly across India. After all, heat waves don’t only happen during the day, but also take place at night, with overnight minimum temperatures rising even more rapidly than daytime highs

    Zachary Zobel, a scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center who has separately researched the impact of overnight work adaptations on global agricultural productivity levels, said the Boulder team’s analysis has a “novel” result, and lines up with what his team has found.

    “Warming past 2 degrees C, which we will experience over the next 30 years, would mean that even overnight shifts wouldn’t recover productivity,” said Zobel. 

    “How do you solve a problem like that?” Mehrabi said. “The reality is that the workers most at risk are the people contributing least to the climate change problem. That’s not to say that we can’t have better policies around hydration, shading, health. But it’s just kind of trying to put a BandAid on a problem. It doesn’t actually deal with the problem at its root cause, which comes down to this trajectory of fossil fuel consumption and emissions.”

    This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Extreme heat is forcing farmers to work overnight, an adaptation that comes with a cost on Dec 11, 2024.

    This post was originally published on Grist.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed Good Jobs First’s Arlene Martinez about Amazon‘s subsidized misconduct for the December 6, 2024, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

     

    Jeff Bezos

    Jeff Bezos (CC photo: Daniel Oberhaus)

    Janine Jackson: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” So wrote Upton Sinclair in 1934. It’s hard not to think about that as we see corporate news media report on Amazon, whose leader is, of course, the owner of the Washington Post, but whose influence as retailer, landowner, policy shaper is multi-tentacled in ways you and I probably don’t even know.

    That outsized, multi-front power is behind the resistance to Amazon, the urgent need to illuminate what a private company on this scale can do in the country and the world’s political, consumer, regulatory, labor ecosphere, and what needs to happen to address that power.

    Arlene Martinez is deputy executive director and communications director at Good Jobs First. She joins us now by phone. Welcome back to CounterSpin, Arlene Martinez.

    Arlene Martinez: Hi. Thanks for having me.

    Good Jobs First: Amazon’s a Bad Actor, and Governments Should Stop Rewarding it

    Good Jobs First (11/29/24)

    JJ: You wrote recently, with colleagues, that the #MakeAmazonPay campaign was about calling attention to Amazon‘s

    mistreatment of workers, disregard for consumers whose data it misuses, bullying of small local businesses and accelerating climate destruction, especially during the holiday shopping season.

    That’s before we get to how we the people enable all of that through government subsidies, which we will talk about.

    But first, let’s talk about some of the documented complaints and concerns about Amazon‘s day-to-day practices, the way they operate. Because it’s not about “hating them because they’re beautiful.” It’s not about jealousy because they built a better mousetrap. This is concern about things that just shouldn’t happen, period, right?

    The Nation: Amazon Says Its Injury Rates Are Down. They’re Still the Highest in the Industry.

    The Nation (5/2/24)

    AM: That’s right. And I really liked the way that you opened up our conversation here, because it’s really hard to overstate just how powerful Jeff Bezos is, and how many areas Amazon is in, and the way that they run their business across all the different areas that they touch, how harmful it is, whether you’re talking about the environment, and all the data centers that they’re building as they capitalize on AI, artificial intelligence. Or the way that they are so punishing to workers that the injury rate is several times that of any other warehouse company. How they drive down wages wherever they locate. How they squeeze small businesses; a report from the Institute of Local Self-Reliance found that 45 cents of every dollar that a business made selling on the Amazon platform went to Amazon.

    So I could just go on and on, but there are so many ways that Amazon harms the entire ecosystem of business worldwide. And one of the worst parts about it, and there are a lot of bad parts about it, is that we are subsidizing that, because communities are giving Amazon billions of dollars in direct cash payments. They don’t have to pay their taxes, or they’re given straight cash, or reduced land, whatever the case may be. And that doesn’t even begin to include the procurement and other public contracting money that they received. I’ll open there.

    JJ: Well, and I want to get into that. I think for many folks, maybe they’ve heard about workers being cheated out of wages, but that is so crucial to the subsidy conversation. But let’s start with the fact that we do have evidence that Amazon is under-serving their workers, not just in terms of wages, but also in terms of health and safety, and what do we know about that?

    Violation Tracker: Discover Which Corporations are the Biggest Regulatory Violators and Lawbreakers Throughout the United States.

    Good Jobs First: Violation Tracker

    AM: We run a database called Violation Tracker, where we look at over 450 regulatory agencies that we get data from, so we can begin to see part of Amazon‘s behavior toward its workers. We capture how much money Amazon has stolen from its workers, in the form of wages, and we also look at some health and safety violations.

    One of the reasons that Amazon‘s dollar total is so much lower than, for example, Bank of America, which has billions and billions and billions of dollars in penalties and fines—Amazon‘s comparative total is so much lower because the federal agencies that are in charge of protecting workers only have the authority to give thousands of dollars in fines, versus a regulatory agency that oversees banks that can give billion dollars in fines in one single case. So what we see is, as bad as Amazon‘s record is, and it is bad, it would be worse if we treated workers with the same care and with the same concern that we do as investors who got cheated on an investment.

    JJ: That’s so deep, because it speaks to, like, folks might want to get mad at a corporation, like Amazon, but then you also have to understand the weakening of the regulatory agencies that are meant to be addressing that. It’s not as simple as one might hope it would be. And folks have heard, for example, on this show, talking about the IRS saying, “We understand that rich people cheat more on their taxes than poor people, but it’s easier for us to go after poor people, because it’s much simpler.” And so a company like Amazon can just make things so complex, in a regulatory framework, that it’s very hard to address the harm that they’re doing. It’s kind of a big-picture problem.

    Arlene Martinez

    Arlene Martinez: “So many of the issues with Amazon, and the reason that Amazon exists in the first place, is because we’ve lacked a lot of the regulatory mechanisms to contain it from ever becoming this big.”

    AM: Yeah, that’s right. So many of the issues with Amazon, and the reason that Amazon exists in the first place, is because we’ve lacked a lot of the regulatory mechanisms to contain it from ever becoming this big. If, for example, some of the antitrust legislation had been implemented and upheld, Amazon never might have been able to grow to this size. That’s why it’s been so promising in recent years to see the FTC and Lina Khan really take on corporate giants like Amazon, which have essentially become monopolies and dominate entire spaces. So it really is a big structural issue.

    I get asked a lot about, should people just not shop on Amazon? Well, that would be nice. I mean, I don’t shop on Amazon, but that isn’t the answer. Like I said, it would be nice, but the answer is really these structural problems that enabled Amazon to get so big in the first place. And these regulatory agencies need to flex their muscle to make sure that Amazon is broken up, or contained, or not allowed to dominate entire industries and sectors the way that it is.

    And you’ve probably seen it’s moving into even more areas. Now it’s going into chips, and now it’s going into pharmacies and healthcare. And its goal is to dominate the world, and it’s headed there without some proper agency there flexing their muscle to rein it in.

    JJ: I wanted to pull you out on one question, which is data centers, which is, we hear, and folks at the local media level may hear, Amazon‘s coming in, and they’re going to locate here, and that’s going to provide jobs. And sometimes what they’re talking about is data centers. Why don’t data centers equal jobs? Can you talk a little bit about that?

    ProPublica: How a Washington Tax Break for Data Centers Snowballed Into One of the State’s Biggest Corporate Giveaways

    ProPublica (8/4/24)

    AM: Data centers are essentially huge warehouses that just store big, basically, server farms. They’re just running data all the time, and there’s very few people that are needed to actually staff these facilities. So they don’t create many jobs, because there aren’t many functions that are required as part of these data centers. I mean, there’s the construction phase, and then a few dozen people that are needed to staff them.

    And yet they’re getting what’s often several million dollars per job. We did a study in 2016 that looked at the average for the Apples, the Googles, the Amazons, the Metas, was about $2 million per job. But we’ve seen a lot of cases now where it’s a lot higher per job, and a community can never make that money back.

    But I think the other question, too, and I think what gets missing from a lot of stories that I see about data centers, is why data centers are getting subsidized in the first place. When you think about what an incentive was supposed to even do in the first place, it was to spur something to happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen.

    We know that AI is the future. These companies are racing to build data centers, because they have to, to remain competitive. So there is absolutely no business case to be subsidizing companies to build a data center, especially considering the low job return.

    NPQ: Corporate Economic Blackmail and What to Do about It

    Nonprofit Quarterly (8/7/24)

    JJ: In this deep piece about corporate government giveaways, you cite Neil deMause, who is a FAIR favorite, who, with Joanna Cagan, wrote Field of Schemes about subsidizing sports teams’ building of new arenas, and it’s kind of a familiar template, where folks say we’re going to bring in profit, and yet it’s something that would happen anyway. There’s kind of a—it’s not even a bait and switch, it’s just misinformation that is put forward to cities, when something like a sports team, or something like an Amazon, says, “We’re going to bring a lot of stuff to your community, and therefore you should subsidize our taxes.”

    And some of us are like: “Well, wait, you’re a business. You’re going to make a profit here. Why would we subsidize it?” There’s kind of a big-picture misunderstanding here.

    AM: Yeah, and part of it is that it just becomes irresistible for a lot of politicians to have the opportunity to stand next to a Jeff Bezos, or some other high-ranking official, or a billionaire owner of a sports team. And then you have access to these box-level seats that you couldn’t afford on your own. And all of that is really irresistible. So there’s really a very human element to giving subsidies that are proven to not drive economic development, like a stadium, which study after study has shown does nothing to improve the lives of residents in that community, but it just becomes very irresistible.

    And I think on a local level, too, with someone—I was a reporter for many years, covering a lot of city council meetings and school board meetings, and knowing that these council members, most of them who are part-time, get a few hundred dollars a month in pay, they want to do good for their community, and they think bringing in an Amazon is a good move for their community, without realizing what they’re really doing is bringing in a company that hurts their workers, pays them very little and damages their existing small businesses in their community. But they’re thinking they’re doing a good thing.

    JJ: Well, and part of it is a kind of numerical thing where media talk about, “Well, these folks will pay this money in taxes,” and that makes it sound like it’s a profit. There’s kind of a basic math problem that sometimes happens here. When you talk about tax breaks to be given to whatever entity, media can sometimes present that as though that’s money that’s going into the tax coffers, which is not what’s happening.

    NPQ: How the Tax Subsidy Game Is Played: A Consultant Shares Corporate Secrets

    Nonprofit Quarterly (8/3/22)

    AM: That’s right. I mean, there’s a lot of companies that really profit based on the size of the incentive. There are a lot of site location consultants, for example. The bigger the subsidy, the more their percentages. So their drive is to get the biggest subsidy possible, even though it isn’t in the best interest of their community.

    JJ: Subsidies are sold to communities as profit, as though it’s going to be money, somehow, that’s going to go right into the community, when that’s not the way it plays out.

    AM: Yes, and this is a big issue in our space, in terms of the media coverage that we often see. It’s because you get what are called “economic impact reports,” and I say “economic impact” in quotes because it isn’t actual economic impact, and it’s nowhere close to being a cost/benefit analysis. What it does is it takes this big, big smorgasbord of everything, every dollar that’s spent on construction phase, or supply chain, or the entire salary sometimes of a worker is included in this economic impact report. And a lot of times you have no idea what’s actually in there, because the people who produced it say it’s proprietary, and they won’t give it to the public.

    And a lot of times, those people that are hired to produce the economic impact report, and we see this a lot in the stadium space, are people who are working for the team owners, or who are working for Amazon, they will be the ones producing these economic impact reports. So you have a real conflict of interest that I think is missed sometimes in the reporting, and just makes these studies bogus.

    When I talk to reporters about how to cover and report on economic development incentives, I tell them to ask for everything that went into that economic impact report. And if they don’t release it, then don’t include their numbers, and say that they won’t give it to you.

    JJ: That gets right to the point of transparency, which I just wanted to ask you about. I think that, whether you understand an issue or don’t, transparency about what’s happening ought to be ground zero. And yet that is difficult to get from some corporations, and also from some government agencies. But journalists should have that as a basic fundamental.

    AM: Yes. And we also run these databases called Amazon Tracker and Subsidy Tracker, and both of them look at companies that have received subsidies. And you’ll see, among Amazon subsidies, and also Subsidy Tracker, which is broader, you’ll see a lot of entries that say “undisclosed,” because even though a company is getting public money, they’re not releasing the value of that subsidy. Reporters should insist on that, and make it really clear in stories when they’re not getting it.

    Real News Network: Chasing clicks through ad money, media does PR for Amazon while ignoring human costs of ‘Prime Day Deals’

    Real News Network (7/22/23)

    JJ: And I’ll end on that. But I will say that, obviously, I’m angry about media for my job, but it’s not that they don’t do critical stories sometimes; it’s this connecting of the dots. So when I see a storyline that says that Amazon or Walmart is a “successful business,” and then I see another story that says, oh yeah, a lot of their workers still need to rely on public assistance to not starve. But then on the other page, I’m still reading Amazon as a “successful business.” So I feel like at a certain point, it’s not about there’s never any good stories or critical stories. It’s about a failure to connect the dots, to say, “What does it mean for a company to be ‘successful’ right now, and what harm is required to get to that?”

    AM: Those are all such great points, and it’s true that we have seen a lot of really amazing reporting around Amazon, and Bloomberg is the outlet that reported about how Amazon was driving down wages in the warehouse sector, because they took an industry-wide look, and were able to see that anytime Amazon entered a community, wages dropped for the entire sector, including non-Amazon workers.

    And the Morning Call in Allentown, Pennsylvania, wrote one of the first stories, 12 years ago, to report on ambulances being placed outside of Amazon warehouses, rather than Amazon investing in air conditioning and heating for their workers. So they were getting ill from heat exhaustion.

    So there has been a lot of amazing reporting, but I think you’re right in connecting all those dots, it’s very hard to see. And when Amazon releases a press release about how they gave a $500,000 loan, reporters repeat that as if it’s some gift, even though it might not include the fact that Amazon got a billion dollars in that same community as a subsidy. So it is a mixed bag.

    JJ: I appreciate the bright critical spots. I’m upset about the fact that it doesn’t seem to get stirred into an understanding of what we, as a democratic society, should ask from corporations, and why do we call a company “successful” whose workers need to rely on public assistance? There’s some kind of connected story that’s not happening there.

    Promarket: “Business Journalism Fails Spectacularly in Holding the Powerful to Account”

    ProMarket (5/30/17)

    AM: I’ll just add, I remember as a reporter—and I was a reporter for many years—I was very fixated on holding government accountable. Really felt like that was a big role of mine, and I spent a lot less energy thinking about holding corporations accountable. And now that I’ve left the space, and I’m in this nonprofit watchdog space, and a lot of my work involves corporate governance, and overseeing their practices, I really see those gaps even more stark, and how, in general, I think journalists don’t do the best job about covering companies, and we could do a lot better, which is why I think shows like yours are so helpful, why I hope organizations like ours are useful, so that we start putting the same kind of scrutiny on corporations that we have long done on governments.

    JJ: I will just add, we hope for journalists to look to see critically powerful actors, and those powerful actors are in corporations, and they’re in government. And then here’s us, we the people, and that’s where we would look for journalists to look out for the public interest, however that is affected by whatever forces are in power, and that’s why I appreciate your work.

    AM: Thank you so much.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Arlene Martinez. She’s deputy executive director and communications director at Good Jobs First. You can find their extensive work on Amazon and other corporate and government accountability on GoodJobsFirst.org. Arlene Martinez, thank you so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    AM: Thanks for having me, and thanks for your work.

     

    This post was originally published on FAIR.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Five incarcerated people in Alabama are fighting to push forward a lawsuit, Stanley v. Ivey, challenging the state’s power to punish prisoners who resist forced labor. Despite a state constitutional provision abolishing slavery that was passed in 2022 by referendum, Montgomery County Circuit Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, arguing Governor Kay Ivey and Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner John Hamm were protected by state sovereign immunity. Emily Early, Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights‘ Southern Regional Office, joins Rattling the Bars to discuss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ ongoing fight to have their case appealed. 

    Studio / Post-Production: Cameron Granadino


    Transcript

    Mansa Musa:  Welcome to this edition of Rattling the Bars. I’m your host, Mansa Musa.

    The 13th Amendment of the United States Constitution says that slavery is legal — And they use the term involuntary servitude — They say that anyone duly convicted of a crime can be enslaved and labor can be used for slavery purposes.

    Now, the question becomes what happens when a state take that clause and say it no longer should be used? And the state that’s being talked about was one of the crown jewels in slavery, the state of Alabama.

    Recently in the state of Alabama, prisoners filed a suit challenging utilization of forced labor and for the abolishment of slavery as we know it. The court ruled that the defendants in the case had qualified immunity and the prisoners had no standing in bringing this suit forward.

    Joining me today is Emily Early. Welcome, Emily.

    Emily Early:  Thank you. Thank you so much for having me.

    Mansa Musa:  And Emily, tell our audience a little bit about yourself and where you’re from before we unpack this tragedy that’s going on down in Alabama.

    Emily Early:  Sure. Well first, again, I’d like to thank you for having me on your radio show to educate your audience about this really important issue that exists very much so in many of our own backyards and many people don’t know about forced prison labor and slavery that happens inside the prison walls.

    I am an attorney with an organization called The Center for Constitutional Rights, which is a racial and justice advocacy organization founded in 1966. We are headquartered in New York, but we are expanding into the South through our Southern initiative, of which I am the head. My official title is the associate director of our Southern regional office, and I’m also a trained attorney. And again, I live in Atlanta, but I have colleagues who are part of this Southern initiative who reside in Alabama and who are helping to lead the litigation that I’m here to talk about today, as well as another colleague in Atlanta, and one in Jackson, Mississippi.

    The case name is Stanley v. Ivey, and, again, was brought on behalf of six individuals who are incarcerated inside of Alabama prisons. I will note that one of our original six plaintiffs, Mr. Dexter Avery, sadly passed away a couple of months ago while he was in the custody of the Alabama Department of Corrections. So I wanted to note that, unfortunately, and to make sure that we say his name in the course of this interview.

    The suit was brought on behalf of these individuals who have been punished for not working, or refusing to work. And the defendants whom we sued are the governor of Alabama and the Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner.

    The claims that we brought were intended to, if you will, give teeth or force to the constitutional amendment that the voters of Alabama overwhelmingly voted in support of in November of 2022 that got rid of the exceptions clause, or the prison loophole clause that you were talking about, Mr. Musa, earlier, that exists, though, in Alabama’s state constitution.

    After the ratification of the 13th Amendment, each state that decided to become a part of the union also had to ratify their own versions of the 13th Amendment. And so Alabama, like many other states, has its own version of the 13th federal amendment that also excludes from the prohibition of slavery persons who are duly convicted of the commission of a crime. And so in November 2022, voters voted to ratify the constitution to get rid of that prison loophole, or that exceptions clause, as it’s referred to.

    Nonetheless, the state government, including the governor herself and the Alabama Department of Corrections commissioner, John Han, enacted executive laws that still proceed to punish people and threaten to punish people for refusing to work and not working. And our clients have been subjected to those laws that were passed, very much so in violation of the 2022 constitutional ratification.

    So our suit, again, was filed, like I said, in May of this year. Intentionally we filed on May 1 because we recognize that this lawsuit is not only about pushing up against and eliminating this prison-industrial complex, the system of mass incarceration, but it is also very much an issue of labor rights and ensuring that individuals who are choosing to work and who do work under their own free will have the right protections of safety, adequate pay, fairness, and are treated with dignity and humanity. And this system of forced prison labor inside of the Alabama Department of Corrections that still exists, notwithstanding the constitutional amendment, is very much so not providing workers these principles, these rights, this concept of justice.

    So in early August of 2024 of this year, our case was dismissed by the Montgomery County circuit court for not actually qualified immunity but what is called sovereign immunity and standing. The court gave absolutely no reasoning whatsoever in its two-sentence dismissal of this lawsuit.

    But what sovereign immunity effectively is, it says that the state or the sovereign, it’s a doctrine that derives from British law that says that the king, the sovereign cannot be sued. And if the king or the sovereign or the head of state is sued then, as a matter of policy, everything that the sovereign does could be subjected to a lawsuit.

    And so this doctrine of sovereign immunity was created centuries ago, and it’s adopted into many states common law, in statutes, even in federal law in one form or another. And again, that just says that the government and officers and instrumentalities of the state cannot be sued. However, there are rules that have to be met or elements that have to be met before sovereign immunity even can be triggered before it comes into play. And even if those elements are met, there are exceptions to sovereign immunity.

    So our position is that sovereign immunity does not apply to this case because our clients are seeking what’s called forward-looking or prospective relief, meaning an injunction to stop the governor and the Alabama Department of Corrections from enforcing these laws that violate Section 32 of the Alabama Constitution that outlaws prison slavery, and also a declaration that declares that what these laws are doing violate Section 32 of the constitution. So because that’s the form of relief that our clients are seeking, sovereign immunity doesn’t apply.

    Mansa Musa:  I mentioned earlier that we interviewed two members of a union who was involved with being co-plaintiffs in a suit, and I want our audience to know that, as you clarify, Emily, this not necessarily having anything to do with what y’all talking about, but the reality is that they complained about the same conditions that you’re complaining about and that’s being brought to the court’s attention, the inhumanity, the cruel and unusual punishment that’s taking place as it relates to men and women that’s in the Alabama prison system.

    But talk about why you think that the state of Alabama, specifically the governor and the Department of Corrections, why you think that they’re taking such a staunch position to ensure and maintain this forced labor system. Because as you said, the state of Alabama, the citizens in the state of Alabama ratified the constitution eliminating any use of forced labor by getting rid of the exception clause in the state constitution. Why do you think that they’re so adamant about holding fast to this particular position?

    Emily Early:  Well, I think it’s because of two justifications among others, but the two I’ll focus on here today are profit, number one, and you talked about that earlier in the interview. And number two is controlling the bodies that are inside of the prison system, which are overwhelmingly Black and low income. And as it concerns the motivation of profit, the prison system in Alabama — And I would also go as far as to say in many other states — Could not function if they did not rest on, rely on the labor of incarcerated individuals.

    Incarcerated workers inside of Alabama Department of Corrections prisons, they cook the food that incarcerated individuals eat. They clean the bathrooms, the hallways, the dormitories, the grounds outside of the four prison walls. They also work — And this is a piece that I haven’t covered as much, but our lawsuit also focuses on this — They are also contracted out to private industries.

    Even some of the restaurants that we frequent often in our very own communities, McDonald’s or Buffalo Wild Wings, they’re also cooking and cleaning and performing at these fast food restaurants. And then they take a van that they have to pay for, it comes out of their own pay, that Alabama Department of Corrections transports them to and then picks them back up, and then they come back and then they sleep back inside of the prison walls.

    And there also are some incarcerated individuals who are performing security functions because the staff, the prison system is so understaffed and overworked. And so sometimes there are even individuals who are performing some of those same security functions that correctional officers would perform. So it definitely is profit. The Alabama Department of Corrections makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of the backs of Black and Brown bodies inside of the prison system.

    And the second justification for why the state is resisting and forcing this constitutional ratification, which relates to the first reason, is it is an extension, the prison slavery is an extension of slavery, a method used to control and dehumanize and subjugate individuals who are Black in society. And because they are now in this system of incarceration, I think there is very much an attitude, not just among the state government, but, unfortunately, among many in our society and in our community, that we can just do away with people who are inside of prison walls.

    And that is not the case. That should not be the case at all. And they still deserve to be treated with dignity and humanity. And if they choose to work, then they should be provided with the same protections that those in the free world have.

    Mansa Musa:  I want to unpack that as well because I was locked up 48 years prior to getting released. And at one time during my incarceration, I worked what we call industry, that’s what most prisoners referred to it as, industry. And they have with Maryland, MCE, Maryland Correctional Enterprises, and Maryland Correctional Enterprises is legislated by the state of Maryland. This particular corporation is legislated by the state of Maryland and all the labor for, they automatically get, they don’t have to bid for no contracts for state property to make the furniture, anything relative to the state. The chemicals that’s used in the institutions and in government buildings, the uniforms that the officers wear, the clothing that we wear, all these products are made by prisoners in MCE. The furniture for the state house is made by prisoners in MCE.

    One, we wasn’t getting minimum wage. Two, we didn’t have no healthcare plan. Three, we couldn’t buy into social security. And four, in order to get any type of, which was considered money, we had to do an enormous amount of work in order to get a bonus.

    And I was looking at the state of Alabama, the fact that they outsourcing the labor in Alabama and the fact that they’re outsourcing it. And most of these people in the work release or pre-release environment, they’re not getting, one, they’re not getting minimum wage, and, if I’m not mistaken, in some cases they’re paying for their own room and board. And you can correct me if I’m wrong on that. I know they’re paying for transportation.

    And the last thing I noticed in the conversation we had was that in order to maintain the labor pool, they was denying people parole or the ability to progress through the system because they didn’t want to lose their labor. In y’all suit or y’all fact finding, did any of this come up?

    Emily Early:  As far as the parole piece, it’s not something that we have highlighted directly in the suit, however, it’s something we’re very keenly aware of, that the rate of parole grants in Alabama is abysmal. It’s very, very low. And for that reason, we actually are representing a couple of our clients who are clients in the forced prison labor, Stanley v. Ivy case, in their parole hearings. And even there in our representation, at least on the first try, two of our clients were denied parole.

    But that’s something that we’re keenly aware of. And I agree with you, Mr. Musa, that yes, the denial of parole, I think, is tied, in one way or another, to the state’s need to keep people incarcerated to continue to profit off of their labor and to continue to keep the system running.

    Mansa Musa:  Another observation that was made in our previous conversations was that the fact that the utilization of prison labor automatically stopped, infringes on the rights of people having society to work. So I got cheap labor on the prison-industrial complex. I can take this labor, the same labor, and outsource it to, like you say, fast food restaurants, butcher shops, anywhere that they need labor, and they could have unions there, and I’m undermining the unions and undermining the ability for people to get minimum wage or living wage because I got cheap labor.

    Do you think that this has something to do with the fact that it’s the relation between the business community has a hand in ensuring or maintaining this particular standard of slavery in the Alabama prison system? Is a connection between the business community in conjunction with the governor or the state in order to maintain cheap labor? Because if I got cheap labor and they don’t have to unionize, I don’t have to pay health, medical benefits, they don’t have to buy into social security, their pension, or none of that. Have you seen that?

    Emily Early:  No, I haven’t seen that necessarily, if I’m understanding your question correctly. I think what I do agree with, and I’m gathering from your statements, is that individuals who are incarcerated within the Department of Corrections in Alabama but are contracted out to private employers don’t have to be paid health insurance, 401k, if they qualify for it, and I think that is the case. However, and many of the folks that we did speak to — And I’m not saying this is the case across the board — But many of the folks whom we spoke to in our investigation were paid the same as free world workers and I think have to be paid. They cannot be paid less.

    But what happens is the State Department of Corrections takes out 40% of their paycheck and it goes back to the state prison system. And so while they may be paid the same as some individuals who are free world workers, they don’t have the same take home pay. And that’s because the Department of Corrections is taking out its own cut, fees for transportation, fees for laundry, fees for the commissary. Right there, you mentioned room and board, and that is the case as well where, in some jails and prisons, individuals have to pay for their own incarceration.

    Mansa Musa:  My understanding is that they don’t have the right to say, I don’t want to work. If they don’t work, then they’re being punished even if they’re being given, in the state system they call it infractions. They’re being given disciplinary charges for refusing to work. Is that something that came out in the course of your investigation or gathering the facts of the suit?

    Emily Early:  Sure. So if people have been assigned to work and they are unable to work for whatever reason, or even if they refuse to work because the conditions are not safe, as happened with one of our clients, Mr. Reginald Burrell, who was injured while working at a furniture store in the free world community and was disciplined for saying he was not going back because it was not a safe environment.

    That very much so is what is happening inside of the Department of Corrections where individuals, they cannot work, they refuse to work, they exercise a choice that they should have to not work for whatever reason, and then are consequently written up. That has happened to each of our plaintiffs. That threat remains and is ongoing because of these laws that the Alabama governor and the Department of Corrections commissioner and the Alabama legislature enacted after Section 32 of the constitution was ratified.

    So each of those provisions, they relate to one another. And what they effectively do is authorize disciplinary reports and write-ups for literally refusing to work or failing to work or failing to report to work.

    And the consequences of those disciplinary write-ups are extra duty, so individuals can be assigned even more work, which can effectively lengthen their sentence; They can lose privileges such as visitation with family and friends who come to visit them, which is very key to their survival and mental health and stability while on the inside; They can also be transferred to more dangerous prisons, which has also happened to some of our clients as a result of a disciplinary write up; They also can lose their good time credit, which is a system where folks earn, effectively, days of time that can be knocked off their sentence for good behavior. But if they’re written up, then they can lose a lot of good time, which, once again, extends or re-extends their sentence.

    So they’re being punished over and over and over again, even though they were sentenced to incarceration and, effectively, are now being sentenced to labor, to slavery, to involuntary servitude inside the prisons.

    Mansa Musa:  And you know what, as you was talking, I was reminded of, I think the case was Sardin v. O’Connor, it’s a US case that came out with the concept of in order to prove an 8th Amendment claim or a claim relative to the conditions, you had to show atypical and significant hardship. You had to show that whatever you was complaining about was atypical and had significant hardship on you.

    And I remember when they first came out with this concept, a lot of legal scholars unpacked it and was showing how difficult it was to meet this standard. But I was looking up in the Alabama prison system, it’s one of the most cruel, inhumane prison systems in the country. Some of the prisons — And that’s one of the things I was made aware of in terms of getting people to work — They threaten to transfer them to some of the more notorious prisons in order to pretty much get them to change their mind about not wanting to work.

    But talk about going forward, what do you think the standing, what do you think the court, the higher court, going to do in terms of recognizing y’all claim that they don’t have sovereign immunity and that what y’all arguing and the issue that y’all raising has standing?

    Emily Early:  Sure. So we’re not sure what the court will do, but of course our hope is, and we think we’re right, is that the court will reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of the case and the judgment that the circuit court entered in favor of the defendants, and remand or send the case back to the circuit court. So the case would then be reinstated, and we would continue to litigate the case.

    We think that we are right on the law. We think that the circuit court was absolutely wrong on sovereign immunity. It’s very clear that this is a case that does not trigger sovereign immunity, and even if it does, it meets one of the exceptions. And on standing, we think that our clients have fled the claim that shows that they were injured by these three laws, the Executive Order no. 725, the Administrative Regulation 403 that was promulgated in response to the executive order, and then the Alabama statutory code provision that also punishes folks for refusing to work, that all these laws have harmed our plaintiffs, and the defendant’s continued enforcement of these laws harms our plaintiffs, and the lawsuit that they have brought for injunctive and declaratory relief will redress or resolve those harms.

    So we think that they have the standing necessary to raise these claims to enforce their right under Section 32 of the Alabama Constitution. So again, we think we’re right on the law, and we can only see what the court will say once the defendant submits their brief and we submit a reply brief. We are also requesting oral argument, so there may be an opportunity for us to go before the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals to have our day in court on behalf of our clients to plead our case.

    Mansa Musa:  OK. Thank you, Emily. And as we close out, tell our audience how they can stay on top of this or keep being informed about what’s going on with this lawsuit, and how they can track some of the work that y’all are doing.

    Emily Early:  Sure. Well, they can absolutely follow us on all the major platforms. Again, our organization is the Center for Constitutional Rights. Our website is ccrjustice.org. And this case is titled Stanley v. Ivy, and it’s currently pending in the Alabama Civil Court of Appeals. You can find a specific case page also on our ccrjustice.org website about Stanley v. Ivy. So if you just Google it, you can get updates. And again, we do try to update our casework on all the major social media platforms.

    Mansa Musa:  Thank you very much. You rattled the bars today, Emily. And we want to remind our audience that we’re talking about humanity. We’re talking about people who has been duly convicted, but the sentence was what they were serving. The crime, you have crime and punishment, the crime that I committed, and then the punishment is the time that I’m given. The punishment is not that I be leased out in forced labor and subjected to inhumane working conditions and don’t have no redress.

    And so we asking that you really look into this situation that’s going on and ask yourself, would you want to wake up one day and find out that you cannot refuse to work? And that if you refuse to work, that you’re going to be subjected to more punishment, more cruelty, only because someone chooses to ignore the will of the citizens of the state of Alabama.

    Thank you, Emily. We appreciate you.

    Emily Early:  Thank you so much for having me.

    Mansa Musa:  And we ask that you continue to support The Real News and Rattling the Bars. It’s only because of The Real News that you get this kind of coverage of what’s going on in Alabama, what’s going on throughout the United States of America and the world. And guess what? We’re actually the real news.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.


  • This content originally appeared on The Real News Network and was authored by The Real News Network.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • In November, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) sided with Amazon workers in ruling that it is illegal to force workers to attend mandatory anti-union propaganda sessions, upending a doctrine of U.S. labor law that has existed since 1948. The anti-union propaganda sessions, which are formally referred to as “captive audience meetings” are a controversial practice that has long been…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • For nearly 90 years, the wealthiest country in the world has allowed thousands of disabled people to be paid mere pennies on the dollar. Now, after decades of advocacy from disability justice activists, the U.S. Department of Labor has finally announced plans to end the exploitative practice. Any move to reverse a decades-old injustice is cause for celebration. But as a second Donald Trump…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • 30 years ago, in 1994, then-US Labor Secretary Robert Reich issued a prescient warning to all Americans: “We are on the way to becoming a two-tiered society.” Reich also predicted that, as wealth inequality continued to explode in the US, working people would be consumed by righteous populist rage that could be easily manipulated; the rise of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement decades later proved Reich to be devastatingly right. In this special livestreamed edition of Inequality Watch, Taya Graham and Stephen Janis continue their deep dive into the history and political repercussions of our historic wealth imbalance by talking to Robert Reich himself. In this wide-ranging discussion, the former Labor Secretary explains how wealthy oligarchs have bought off our democracy, profited from dividing us, and smothered serious efforts to mitigate the climate crisis as well as popular progressive policies like universal healthcare and affordable housing.

    Production: Stephen Janis, Taya Graham
    Studio Production: David Hebden, Cameron Granadino
    Written by: Stephen Janis


    Transcript

    The following is a rushed transcript and may contain errors. A proofread version will be made available as soon as possible.

    Taya Graham:

    Hello. My name is Taya Graham and welcome to the Inequality Watch on The Real News Network. Now, as you may or may not know myself and my reporting partner, Stephen Janis, normally host the police accountability report. But we also focus our investigative reporting skills on another topic we think is just as important, the explosion of economic inequality in the US.

    It’s an issue that affects almost everything we do. It’s why our healthcare system pushes so many into bankruptcy. It’s why working people have been working longer and harder. Yet, the real wages have barely risen over the past 40 years. And it’s why discussions about problems like climate change are submerged, no pun intended, in a tsunami of misinformation. It is in a sense the issue that none of us can afford to ignore.

    On our last Inequality Watch, we spoke with legendary economist, Richard Wolff. And we discussed one of the most obvious symptoms of this unequal system, billionaires. We examined not just the impact of billionaires on our election, but how wealth influences and often constrains our political debate and how we approach complex social problems.

    I mean, think about the last election and the debates that defined it. Did we hear a word about how our country bankrupts people who get sick? Did we hear anything about living wages or a real and thoughtful debate about how to create affordable housing or fight climate change or really save social security? Of course not.

    Instead, billionaires who pumped hundreds of millions of dollars into campaigns and super PACs and think tanks have corralled common sense by conjuring false conflicts that prompted us to fight amongst ourselves and they get richer. And the mainstream and social media have gleefully and gainfully fueled our culture wars.

    But there is a good reason for this, because the system that sustains extreme wealth is not only flawed, but absolutely constructed in a way that is self-sustaining. And it does so in part by blinding our minds to the truth. It’s like inequality is making us sick. And the political movement that could save us is prevented from revealing a cure.

    But today, we’re going to find it and take a healthy dose of economic justice medicine to allow us to overcome the disease that ails all of us. And I will also be in the live chat to answer questions for you when I can. And to do so, we are so lucky to be joined by one of the foremost thinkers on this subject, Robert Reich. The former Clinton labor secretary, has been at the forefront of debates over the impact of inequality on our society, constantly steering our deranged national discourse towards sense and sanity through facts, insight, and expert analysis.

    He is a champion of labor and the rights of workers. But he’s also a soothsayer who predicted the rise of our politics of disillusionment merely three decades ago due to, you guessed it, rising inequality. Let’s just watch a brief clip of him talking about it in 1994, almost 30 years ago through the day. I would love to play every moment of this video. But when I get a chance, I will post a link in the chat for you.

    Robert Reich:

    If American business continues to pursue short-term profits at the price of insecurity and falling living standards for a large portion of our society, it will sooner or later reap the bitter harvests of popular rage. The American public is basically pro-business. But that support rests upon an implicit bargain. And American business betrays that bargain every time it fires an older worker in order to hire a younger one at a lower cost. Every time it provides gold-plated health insurance to top executives, but it cuts health insurance or denies health insurance to its regular workers.

    Every time it labels an employee who had been a full-time employee an independent contractor for the purpose of getting that employee off the payroll and lowering various benefits. Every time it discards its workers, rather than investing in their future capacity to produce and produce more and produce better and produce smarter, particularly when profits are booming. What America must do fundamentally is empower every man and woman to earn their way into the new middle class.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. You can see we have the right guest for the topic at hand to say the least. I mean, do we have Nostradamus here or do we have an economist who actually took the time to look at the impact of globalization and computerization and automation and rabid corporate profit-seeking and actually saw the impact it would have on people?

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. It’s really interesting because when I watch that clip, I have an epiphany because we had been at the Republican National Convention and we had talked to people and tried to push them on like, “What specific policies?” And there was this real sense of nostalgia and angry nostalgia in the people that we talked to.

    And I think now when I’m watching the clip, I get the sense that what they were nostalgic about was a time period when this country actually cared about the middle class and working class. I think they were really … They would be angry about immigration or something, but it seemed to me all focused on this idea, we need to go back. But go back to what? Go back to when there were people who were leading this country who actually cared about how policies affected working-class people.

    And I think that’s what this clip foretells, that these devices would come forward and just basically define the future, which is what we saw at the Republican National Convention.

    Taya Graham:

    Stephen, I think that’s an excellent way to categorize some of the grievance that we saw, as well as it was nostalgia as well. And it was nostalgic as well. That’s a really excellent point.

    Stephen Janis:

    But a twisted form of nostalgia, too, that doesn’t see the future and really doesn’t see any possibilities. And that’s what Professor was talking about there.

    Taya Graham:

    But before we go back to Professor Reich, I want to revisit some of the ideas from our last show so we can build on them. Now, this is a method we use on the show to add some context to the facts of how wealth inequality impacts all of us. So, last time, we came up with a way of categorizing billionaires to help us understand this idea. We wanted to discuss the relationship between how extreme wealth is acquired and how that process infiltrates our political discourse, shapes public policy, and influences how we vote.

    So, I want to take a minute to review these ideas so that we can explore their mechanics, and I want to examine the operating system of our inequality economics. So, Stephen, we came up with three types of billionaires that we argued had an outsized impact on our political discourse. Can you review them for us quickly and tell us why they’re important?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, we came up with carbon billionaires who are billionaires that make money off fossil fuels. We had conflict billionaires who are billionaires that make money off creating social media and a media ecosystem that thrives off of discourse, discord and strife and anger. And then we came up with capture billionaires are the people who extract money through private equity or through investment bank or whatever.

    So, we came up with those three to say, “Here is a political economy that emerges from these three billionaires.” And especially today, we’re going to focus on the conflict billionaires because of the way their ecosystem has created this public square that is all about conflict and not about solving problems. So, those are the three just quickly overview of how they work.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. So, that was a great summation. And so, for the purpose of our discussion today though, I just want to focus on one genus of billionaires, specifically the conflict variety. That’s because I think they have create, what we would call, a conflict-rich environment. And the reason I make this point is because we need to keep this idea in mind as we unpack this subject with our guests. This means the waters, so to speak, are muddied by this so-called conflict environment.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. Yeah. I mean, the problem is one thing we saw talking to voters, like I said, they had very little grasp of policy. And I think that’s because we’re all immersed in a conflict, kind of what you said, like a conflict-defined ecosystem of information that makes it impossible to really discuss complex policy. You’re just basically there to dunk on people. And really a lot of the voters seem really misinformed in many ways about their own self-interest. So, we’re trying to create a way of analyzing that and looking through the lens of conflict economics and, by extension, conflict media.

    Taya Graham:

    I’d just like to add that this very immersive information complex that we’re confronted with daily uses a very specific conveyor to decide what we see and read. So, what rises to the top of the algorithmic ladder gets there because it generates the most antipathy and the most animosity. I mean, social media companies have literally helped fuel ethnic conflict and civil wars, and that’s where the conflict billionaires pave the way for extreme wealth without accountability. You can’t fight the power, so to speak, if we’re fighting each other.

    So, we need to remember that as we try to evolve our thinking about this topic of economics, because that system can simply bury the information, bury the discussion, and bury the analysis that seeks to hold it accountable. And that brings me again to our guest, former labor secretary and labor rights champion, Robert Reich.

    Let me give or at least try to give a brief introduction. His latest is The System: Who Rigged It, and How to Fix It. He served as the secretary of labor in the Clinton administration for which Time Magazine named him one of the 10 most effective cabinet secretaries of the 20th century. And of course, he has a Substack, Robert Reich, a YouTube channel named after him, and he’s the co-founder of Inequality Media, a nonpartisan digital media company whose mission is to inform and engage the public about inequality and the imbalance of power in our society.

    And if any of you watching want to learn more about the economics of inequality, please follow Professor Reich and his colleagues at Inequality Media. Professor Reich, welcome to the Inequality Watch, and thank you so much for joining us.

    Robert Reich:

    Well, thank you, Taya. Thank you for inviting me. And Stephen, it’s very, very good to talk with you as well.

    Stephen Janis:

    Thank you.

    Taya Graham:

    So, first, if you don’t mind, it would be great if you could give us some sense of the historical perspective on the magnitude of inequality at this moment in our history. And maybe even more importantly, what did you see 30 years ago that told you this extreme inequality was on its way? What did you see that no one else could? Or was it that other people saw it but refused to admit the truth? I mean, how did you know?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, I don’t want to take credit for knowing what other people did not know. I think that, “Oh, Washington, DC has a tendency to exaggerate things that are politically powerful and self-politically like conflict.” But submerge, as you suggested, Taya, a few minutes ago, submerge some of the real important structural issues that we ought to be talking about.

    And as secretary of labor, it seemed to me very important to talk about those structural issues. I took some heat for it, but I think it was worth it. You mentioned before that the conflict industry, particularly with regard to social media, tries to sell various time and goods and services on the basis of conflict, and that’s absolutely right. But there’s something else going on here as well, and that is that the more we are angry with each other, working-class people, middle-class people in America, the less we look up and see where all the wealth and power in our society has actually gone.

    It’s gone to the top and it’s gone to the top in a fairly short amount of time. I mean, starts in the late ’70s, early 1980s, the Reagan administration and the deregulation of Wall Street, globalization through trade, the ability of companies to put the squeeze and really corrupt and overwhelm their labor unions. And finally, the ability of companies to monopolize their markets all contributed to this extraordinary rise in inequality, which can only be compared I think to what happened in the late-19th century, early-20th century. It was called then the First Gilded Age, or it was called the Gilded Age really is the First Gilded Age.

    Because what we’re seeing right now is comparable, the same degrees of inequality, the same robber barons, that’s what we used to call them in the First Gilded Age. There are robber barons. There are people who are abusing their wealth and using it to essentially corrupt our democracy.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wow. Professor, so is it okay if we refer to this as a Second Gilded Age from on, that would be helpful. There’s this idea, this notion, that politics are irreparably divided. But how much of that divide is a result of the economic inequality and the forces of inequality you talked about? I mean, is it really a divide or is it really just that this sometimes unexpressed notion of inequality is driving us to loathe each other in some way?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, I think you have a huge number of people in this country, Stephen, who although they’ve worked harder than ever, they’re playing by the rules. They are not getting ahead. Now, the American dream used to be that if you did play by the rules and you worked hard, you would do better and better economically over your lifetime and your children would do better than you. And that was what happened in the first three or four decades after the Second World War.

    We created the largest middle class the world had ever seen, larger than America had ever seen. And people did better and better and better, and their children did better than they did. But that all came apart. It came apart in part because of corruption, because the rules of the game changed, because you had a really fundamental shift in the structure of the economy brought about by a few extremely wealthy people and extremely big corporations.

    Now, we can get into the details of what happened. But I think the important point for this discussion is that the Republicans effectively used this anger and frustration and disillusionment to go after cultural elites. The Democrats did not use this anger, frustration, and disillusionment to go after, to me, the real culprits, which were economic elites.

    Stephen Janis:

    Agreed. Agreed by that.

    Taya Graham:

    Wow. That’s a powerful analysis.

    Stephen Janis:

    I mean, it really is interesting how the anger has been misdirected quite efficiently by Republicans. They’ve been very, very effective at that, at scapegoating, as I think you’ve talked about before.

    Taya Graham:

    Yeah. And the Democrats have, unfortunately, missed the vote there.

    Stephen Janis:

    No. The Democrats have been the recipients of it, because they seem like institutionalists and elitists at this point. And it just does what the Professor’s talking about. All the anger just rises and makes them incapable of articulating a vision of a fair future for people.

    Taya Graham:

    And it is ironic that they’re considered the elitists, but at the same time you see them with the great celebrities. But then, of course, the Republican Party, you have a cabinet full of billionaires. So, how’s that not elitist? But I actually wanted to address something and I have this clip I wanted to share with you because there had been criticism of a policy that had occurred under the Clinton administration, which is NAFTA with regard to alienating the working class and costing jobs for blue collar workers. So, I just want to play your critique from your Coffee Klatch podcast and just have us all take a listen to it.

    Robert Reich:

    I was very proud to be part of the Clinton administration. I was a cabinet member of the Clinton administration. But that was an administration that embraced NAFTA and Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization and deregulated Wall Street, got rid of the basic, basic 1930s acts that would’ve separated and did separate investment from commercial banking.

    Said to Wall Street, “Go ahead, do whatever you want.” And put antitrust and monopolization on the backburner and said, “Big companies, you want to merge, go ahead.” And did not actually move toward labor law change and reform.

    Taya Graham:

    Now, Professor Reich, we can’t go back in time and undo NAFTA. But what can be done going forward? Is there any way we can fix the damage that occurred in a meaningful way or is there just no way to put the genie back in the bottle?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, we can put the genie back in the bottle. In fact, I think the Trump administration, ironically, is talking about very, very large tariffs on Mexico and on Canada. Now, I’m not suggesting this is a good thing. But it certainly goes back to the years before NAFTA. I think the real issue here is developing a set of policies, and I do not expect the Trump administration filled with billionaires and planning to give them even more of a tax break will do this.

    But the real issue is how to equip every American, even those without college degrees, with what they need to do well in this new economy. I don’t think we need to take globalization for granted. I don’t think we need to take for granted that Wall Street is going to become the center of the economy. I think that’s been an extraordinarily bad thing for most workers.

    We should not take for granted that big companies are going to be as profitable as they are or as big as they are. They should be broken up. We can change the structure of the economy to make it an economy that works for everybody instead of working for just a handful of people at the top.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. I mean to your point there, which is interesting and my next question is, first of all, I’d like to know what you think about things like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Infrastructure Act in terms of addressing those issues, but also explain why the voters we talked to seem so unaware of these policies. They’re massive industrial policies, which I would think would be good for working people, but the people we spoke to just aren’t aware of them.

    So, for the first question is, is that a good way to address what you’re talking about having these industrial policies? And secondly, why doesn’t it permeate the political discussion and why are voters unaware of these things that could be beneficial to them?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, they’re unaware, I think, in large part, because the Biden administration did not know how to tell them about it. I mean, voters when they just see Inflation Reduction Act or they see policies or they see an Infrastructure Act or they see numbers attached to these things and their eyes glaze over. They have no idea what they mean.

    I mean, to talk about these things in a practical way, you’ve got to go back to people’s kitchen tables and say, “This is what this means in terms of your pocketbook. It’s going to happen not now, but it’s going to happen six months from now.” Or “This is what the goal is and you can check in along the way and let’s see whether you are doing better and your children are doing better and you’re getting better jobs.” But there was no attempt to do that. No contextualizing, no narrative, no story, just a bunch of policies.

    Stephen Janis:

    No story. Yeah. I’m sorry. Just to follow up. But do you think in terms of addressing the need for people who don’t have college degrees to have good jobs, are those the policies that you would think would be best to do? I just want to make sure to clarify that. Do you support that industrial policy or do you think that it’s not going to work in the long run?

    Robert Reich:

    I think that those policies are very important. They’ve already started to work, but they’re just the beginnings. I mean, people need, for example, paid family leave. They need help with caregiving to children and to elderly people in their families who need care. Most people need help with housing. We have a housing crisis across the country. I mean, these are kitchen table issues. But the political classes really not directly dealing with them.

    Stephen Janis:

    That’s interesting.

    Taya Graham:

    I just wanted to follow up just to try to understand how a system like this develops in DC. I mean, you’re obviously very pro-worker, very pro-labor person. Can you understand how a concept and a policy like NAFTA happens? I mean, couldn’t they foresee the impact it would have on workers? I mean, did it happen because corporations were picturing greater profits and they were influencing the process? I mean, can you help us understand what happens in the DC bubble, so a policy like this gets pushed forward and the American worker ends up hurt?

    Robert Reich:

    It happened because big corporations and very wealthy people who stood to gain a lot of money pushed the George H.W. administration to negotiate the North America Free Trade Act. And then it was very hard for Bill Clinton and the Clinton administration to do an about-face. In fact, the same forces that actually got NAFTA to be enacted in the first place were still there under the Clinton administration.

    Organized labor, now this is important. Organized labor constituted about a third of the entire private sector workforce in the 1950s and 1960s. But by the time of the Clinton administration organized labor was down to about 10% of the private sector workforce. Today, it’s down to 6% of the private sector workforce. So, in other words, you’ve had a total collapse of organized labor as a political force. It’s just not there.

    Taya Graham:

    Wow.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah.

    Taya Graham:

    Stephen, we covered the Republican National Convention. I think you wanted to ask him about some of the grievances that we saw.

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, we asked about that. I do want to ask you something just and delve into the personal with you, because we watched your documentary, Saving Capitalism, which is excellent. And the thing that struck me after going through all your stuff is the consistency in your care for working people, your support of working people, and the idea that government should be effective in some ways, which shouldn’t seem revolutionary, but it kind of is.

    But I was just wondering, I was wanting to know your earlier story. How did you come to this philosophy that seemed to guide you through your life? Was it something a book you read at one point or experiences when you were younger? I felt like it left me wanting to know more about you in terms of how you arrived at this worldview that has been consistent.

    Robert Reich:

    Well, it’s interesting to me that you would ask the question, because this worldview is so basic to me and to everything I experienced, particularly as a young person. The Civil Rights Movement convinced me that government could play a very important part in giving people opportunities and overcoming oppression and bigotry. The anti-war movement, the Anti-Vietnam War movement of which I was a part, convinced me that if people came together and expressed themselves and mobilized and organized, they could change the course of government policy and bring about better consequences.

    I was weaned on the notion, my parents and grandparents, that under Franklin D. Roosevelt government really did save the country, that saved the economy, saved the working class, saved the middle class. So, it didn’t strike me as very unusual. What strikes me as unusual is the idea the government is somehow the enemy. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan was president when he said, “Government is the problem.”

    Government is not the problem. I mean, the problem really is the corruption of government by big economic interests that have changed the rules to make sure that they do better and better and better, and everybody else is essentially stepped on.

    Taya Graham:

    You mentioned something in 1994 and that video just … I really want everyone to watch that because it was so prescient. You mentioned something that few people saw, not only the trajectory that would create a two-tiered system, but that people would begin looking for scapegoats. And it seems that your prediction was accurate, especially in light of the heated conversation around immigration where the loss of American jobs and benefits is blamed on immigrants. Let’s just take a listen to a piece of that clip and then I’ll ask you a question so you can respond.

    Robert Reich:

    Middle-class families have not been able to regain their footing. They push these coping mechanisms about as far as they can go, and they still feel that they are losing the American dream. My friends, we are on the way to becoming a two-tiered society composed of a few winners at a larger group of Americans left behind whose anger and whose disillusionment is easily manipulated.

    Once unbottled, mass resentment can poison the very fabric of society, the moral integrity of a society, replacing ambition with envy, replacing tolerance with hate. Today, the targets of that rage are immigrants and welfare mothers and government officials and gays and an ill-defined counterculture. But as the middle class continues to erode, who will be the targets tomorrow?

    Taya Graham:

    It makes me think of that saying “What’s past is prologue.” I mean, it’s just so prophetic and they seem to predict perfectly, these recent culture wars have been inflamed by social media companies that profit from the outrage. And I do think it can be argued that there are some problems at our border with how immigrants are processed in our country.

    But to see that foreign-born people who are producing food or working in fields or working in food processing plants or working in our dairies or harming us, it seems like a rhetoric designed to avoid looking at the real culprits of our economic distress. So, I would like to know what you would say to people who are being inundated with this divisive and arguably inaccurate rhetoric to explain why the scapegoating is occurring and who it really benefits.

    Robert Reich:

    Well, the scapegoating benefits the people who really are behind the corruption of our American politics, the big corporations, very wealthy and Wall Street. Now, it benefits them because they’re off the hook. They are not seen by anybody as the real culprits, because the Democratic Party is not focusing on them. The Democratic Party doesn’t want to bite the hands that feed them. The Republican Party is basically their handmaidens.

    And so, who is it out there who people understand to be the causes of stagnant wages, insecure jobs and lack of healthcare, lack of … well, everything that we’ve talked about that people need. I think it really comes down to a very simple proposition and that is that people understand that there’s a problem. There’s a huge problem that the economy is really not working, but they want to know why.

    And if one party is making up excuses, talking about the deep state and immigrants and blaming communists and saying Democrats are socialists and just making up all kinds of scapegoats. And the other party that is the Democrats are not actually talking about the corruption that comes from huge money infecting our politics from big corporations and from wealthy people and from Wall Street.

    Then who are you going to believe? Well, you don’t have much choice. You’re only given the Republican story. This is what one of the big tragedies of our time. The Democratic Party has not just turned its back on the working class. The Democratic Party has actually stopped telling the accurate story about why the working class and the middle class are in such trouble today.

    Stephen Janis:

    Professor, how much do you think that problem is? Because Democrats embraced, and I know this is a fraught word, neoliberalism, because I’ve covered a lot of local governments and state governance and it’s always public-private partnerships. We’re going to solve this with a tax break for a corporation. This will solve everything.

    How much of the Democrats succumb to the notion of neoliberalism has made it almost impossible for them to articulate an argument that they really care about the working class so that their policies are focused on the working class? How much is neoliberalism a problem?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, neoliberalism is at the core of the problem for the Democrats. If by neoliberalism you mean privatization, deregulation, international trade, all of the things that basically the big corporations and the wealthy and Wall Street wants. But the underlying problem has to do with money. Once the Supreme Court began opening the floodgates to big money and politics, and I’m talking about really before the cases that we all know about, I mean it really starts with Buckley versus Valeo in the early-1970s.

    Once the Supreme Court begins to open American politics to that corruption, then there’s almost no end to it. Because the corruption changes the rules of the game. And the rules of the game being changed enables the wealthy to become even wealthier, the big corporations to become even bigger, and then they can turn around and use even more of their money to corrupt the process even further. It’s a ratcheting effect that is extraordinarily dangerous.

    Taya Graham:

    I was thinking about one of the messages that seem to underlie almost all of our political debates, which is the idea that it’s a zero-sum game. In other words, all policies lead to either winners or losers. But you wrote a book that suggests otherwise, called The Common Good. Can you talk about this idea a little and maybe why it seems or maybe just feels almost impossible to really discuss and embrace the common good in the current political environment?

    Robert Reich:

    I think most Americans, average people, your friends, people in your community understand the notion of the common good. People are generous. I mean, they see somebody who is in trouble on the sidewalk and they respond to those people. They see somebody who is in a car crash and they immediately call the police and they respond.

    This is not rocket science. This is not a perversion of the public norms. No. The common good is alive everyday reality. The people who are the first responders, the people who are nurses and nurses’ aides and social workers and teachers, they all understand the common good. The people who don’t understand the common good, unfortunately, are trapped in a system in which big money has corrupted them and big money has corrupted the part of the system that they exist in.

    Stephen Janis:

    So, that brings up a really interesting point because there’s this internal debate in the Democratic Party about they went to left or they need to go more left or center. But really, it’s about a discussion about policy and how do we get to this point, we’re saying something like Medicare for All, which makes common sense, is an ideological position? Why do we think of policies that make sense, speaking to the idea of the common good, policies that help people are somehow leftist or ideological? It doesn’t really make any sense. Why do we view them way? Is that the wrong way to view them?

    Robert Reich:

    It’s completely the wrong way to view them. I don’t even know what left and right means anymore. Because people who are associated with the left do talk the language of the common good. People with a right talk the language that is most conducive to the rich, getting richer, to big corporations and Wall Street and very wealthy people doing even better. Why can’t we all speak the language of the common good? Shouldn’t that be the political debate we’re having or we should have?

    Stephen Janis:

    I think so.

    Robert Reich:

    I frankly don’t understand it. And it becomes even stranger today because when people say Democrats should move to the center, what’s the center in democracy and fascism? I don’t understand what the center is.

    Stephen Janis:

    It’s kind of a hybrid, an impossible hybrid. You can’t have a hybrid of autocracy and democracy. But yeah. No. I’m glad you made that point, because I really feel like we get lost the minute this debate starts like, well, they wanted Medicare for all, so they went too far radical for the people of this country. Or they want to have job programs or things that are … It just makes no sense and we can’t get trapped in that. I mean, Professor …

    Robert Reich:

    Particularly, Stephen, when you look at other advanced nations that are not even as wealthy as we are, that are wealthy, but they’re not even as wealthy as the United States. They have paid family leave. That’s common. They provide their people by law with four weeks or five weeks vacation every year. I mean, that’s the law. They provide medical care to almost everybody. They provide access to college that is almost free to everybody. I mean, these are standard common goods in most other advanced nations. We are the outlier. We are the extremes with regard to catering to the big corporations and the financiers and the very, very wealthy.

    Taya Graham:

    I was actually really excited because you’re a former cabinet member, so I thought you would have some interesting insights into President Trump’s cabinet picks. And one that I’m particularly interested in is the proposed department of government efficiency, which has been tasked to look for government waste and inefficiency. And in my opinion isn’t a bad idea in theory.

    But the fact that not one but two billionaires are in charge is something that I find extremely problematic. I mean, they’re great at accruing capital, but treating something that’s a public good as a for-profit enterprise, from what I’ve seen in my own city, Baltimore, doesn’t necessarily benefit the public. So, I was just wondering, is there any way that a Department of Government efficiency could be useful and what would that look like and do you think this one has any potential?

    Robert Reich:

    Yeah. The most useful thing that something like this could do would be to look at what are called tax expenditures. Now, when I say that word, people’s eyes glaze over. But I’m going to say it again, tax expenditures. These are things like the mortgage interest deduction or all of the benefits that corporations get from a rapid appreciation, depreciation or all of the other specific tax breaks and loopholes for Wall Street in the tax code.

    If you go after them, I mean, look at the carried interest tax loophole that goes really to hedge fund managers and to private equity managers. There is literally no reason for that loophole. That’s inefficient. It means that everybody else has to pay more in taxes. Let’s get rid of it. And look at the mortgage interest deduction. I mean, I can understand for low-income or middle-income homeowners. But why should homeowners who are earning over $500,000 a year and are living in mansions, why should they get a mortgage interest deduction? Get rid of it.

    And we could go through all of the special loopholes and tax breaks that have been put into the tax code because big corporations and wealthy people have the clout to get them. Start there. Elon. Elon, are you hearing me? There.

    Stephen Janis:

    Wait. Professor, I just want to assure you, we did a documentary called Tax Broke, which we did for five years, follow tax breaks given to corporate developers. Any time …

    Taya Graham:

    Yeah. And if you want to talk about people’s eyes glazing over talk to them about tax increment financing.

    Stephen Janis:

    Anytime you want to talk about tax breaks for corporate entities, you just call us up. Anytime, because we can talk about it for hours. And I agree. It’s like this invisible economy or invisible landscape that just gives so many benefits to people who don’t need it.

    Robert Reich:

    It’s huge. Stephen, here’s another thing that Elon and Vivek Ramaswamy are to be focusing on, all of the government contractors, government contracting, and the spending we do as taxpayers for government contractors is so much greater than the direct government spending on government employees. I mean, go after the contractors like SpaceX, for example.

    Stephen Janis:

    I don’t know if that’s going to happen though.

    Taya Graham:

    Wow.

    Stephen Janis:

    That would be interesting, yes, to see if he turns on himself. I would be …

    Taya Graham:

    Maybe Vivek will do it.

    Stephen Janis:

    And to this idea, because you’re bringing up … I mean, God, I can’t tell you how much corporate tax breaks infuriate me. But that conversation never seems to make it to the surface, because of the media ecosystem we’re in. There are people like you who are doing this. But how do we get of above and beyond? And so, the discussion is about things that you point out that really matter, like tax breaks. How do we get beyond the system we’re in right now of a media that seems to just only provide us with conflict?

    Robert Reich:

    I mean, you know better than I do. One of the great frustrations of my life, at least, is that the media, the mainstream media and Fox News and Newsmax, whether you’re talking about the right or even the center, they don’t go after what’s really important. They don’t try to educate the public about what the public needs to know.

    They just tantalize or they talk about scandals. But they don’t talk about reality. And I don’t know how to change that. I mean, there’s more money to be made in getting people upset and fearful, but you talk about some of these tax breaks that are warranted. You can make people pretty outraged. Why don’t we do that?

    Stephen Janis:

    It’s a great question. I was watching CNN and they had an expert on social security and he kept talking about how social security was going to be insolvent. But he never brought up the idea that there’s a cap on social security taxes. And I was like, “Bring it up.” And I was screaming at the television set. And doesn’t that stuff infuriate you? I mean, come on. You know that if they lift the cap on social security, we could be much more solvent, right?

    Taya Graham:

    Absolutely.

    Robert Reich:

    Most people do not know. Most people know that they have to pay social security taxes.

    Stephen Janis:

    100%.

    Robert Reich:

    But they didn’t know that Elon Musk finishes paying his social security obligations at 18 seconds past midnight January 1st of the year. I mean, this is what people need to understand.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah.

    Taya Graham:

    That’s such an excellent point. I just wanted to follow up because you were the director of the Federal Trade Commission. And please correct me if I’m wrong. But you wanted children not to be targeted by companies selling sugary and unhealthy foods. And it seemed to me your reward for that was having the FTC being starved of money until it shut down. So, I was just wondering if that effect of corporate interest on our government is still that naked or do you think this could happen to other government agencies, especially under the new administration?

    I mean, as a reporter, to me, it’s an astonishing story. It’s just they cut the money off because they didn’t like the fact they were going to lose out on their sugary cereal money. So, I was just wondering, is this something that could happen again and what can we do as investigative reporters, journalists, people to try to engage with this?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, it is going to happen again. It’s already happening. I mean, look at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is really helping and protecting a lot of people. They may not know exactly how they’re being protected, because it’s a little bit complicated. But that’s one of the places that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, they want to eliminate.

    Most people don’t know that the federal government provides federal aid to education that’s mostly goes to poor school districts. So, you get rid of the education department and you’re hurting a poor kids. That’s what you’re really doing. Most people have no idea, and yet that’s going to go on as well.

    Taya Graham:

    Wow.

    Stephen Janis:

    So, you have one final question.

    Taya Graham:

    Well, I was actually curious about how important you think independent media is right now, non-corporate media, like your inequality media or maybe Professor Wolff’s Democracy at Work. Do you think it can make a difference, because there is so much noise, but how important do you think it is right now?

    Robert Reich:

    Non-corporate media is extraordinarily important. But here’s the problem. You have to have some way of financing your media. Now, subscription services are useful to some extent, but it’s expensive. It takes a bigger chunk out of the paycheck of a low-income person than a high-income person. So, how do you finance the media you need?

    Years ago, we thought national public radio and public television were good things, and they ought to be financed out of taxpayers’ funds. But they’ve been vilified by the right. Well, what’s the alternative? Social media has become too often a kind of cesspool of disinformation. How do you make social media work? Well, you certainly don’t put Elon Musk in charge of what used to be Twitter.

    Taya Graham:

    I just have to ask you something, and this may seem like an extreme question. But there are billionaires, you can tell I’m a little obsessed with them, who really poured their money into political campaigns. I mean, Vice President Harris received support. I mean, she raised over a billion dollars. But Trump was no slouch, and he had at least 50 billionaires, including Elon Musk, pour money into his campaign.

    So, my question is, is that when there are individuals with this extreme wealth and they’re able to influence our politicians, I believe they’re thwarting the will of we the people. So, this may sound radical, but are billionaires, authoritarians, and are they actually actively undermining our democracy?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, some billionaires are. I mean, I don’t think it’s sensible to simply say every billionaire is abusing his or her status and power and money. But when they put money, their own money, their own billions of dollars, or their own hundreds of thousands of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars into a campaign or into somebody’s campaign to prevent somebody from getting into office or into a campaign that is an issue campaign, that is a corruption of the political system. That kind of abuse I think has to be stopped.

    The Supreme Court has been proven wrong in terms of its series of decisions that said that money is the equivalent of speech and corporations are people. I mean, it’s absolutely absurd.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. But I just wanted to say, I mean, it’s interesting because a lot of times when I was watching some of your discussions, especially in the documentary, you were talking about how money equals power. But that’s a lot of concentrated power in a billionaire. Isn’t that inherently unhealthy to have so much power in like 800 people who can really shape, as Taya said, our system in ways we don’t even understand?

    Robert Reich:

    It is. And if we had a sensible tax system, the tax wealth, we would not have that kind of problem. But we can’t get that kind of tax system because the billionaires and people who are almost billionaires have too much power. You see, that’s the chicken and egg dilemma we’re in right now. And short of a revolution. And I don’t know what that means. I don’t know how we get out of that chicken and egg dilemma.

    Stephen Janis:

    I know. I know. I mean, a revolution would be interesting. I’d love to cover it. I mean, it might not be fun. But I often think about that because it’s so entrenched in our political system and that power is immovable or immutable in many ways. It’s made immutable by that. And how we could go back to say the 1950s, when what? I hear this, and I don’t know if this is right, Professor, but there was a marginal tax rate of 92% or something on the highest earners. I don’t know how we get back to that or is it even possible?

    Robert Reich:

    First of all, it was not quite that.

    Stephen Janis:

    Okay.

    Robert Reich:

    Once you include all of the deductions and tax credits, it was more like 52%. But can you imagine 52% tax rate federal on the highest earners would be impossible to enact today. And that was under the Eisenhower administration.

    Stephen Janis:

    He’s Republican.

    Robert Reich:

    That was not even a Democratic administration.

    Stephen Janis:

    I know. I know. Amazing.

    Taya Graham:

    I just had to ask you one more question because I had recently watched your documentary, Saving Capitalism. And there’s something that you said in there that was haunting me. And so, this is paraphrasing a little bit. But you essentially said that people, regular, non-wealthy people have literally 0% impact on public policy. And to me that is a terrifying statement. Could you elaborate on it a little bit and just help us understand it and if there’s any remedy?

    Robert Reich:

    Well, that actual conclusion comes from a study done by two political scientists, a very famous study in which they looked at something in the order of 1,800 random public policy issues before Congress during a limited period of time, even before the Citizens United decision. So, this is before we had the degree of corporate money in politics.

    And their conclusion was that the concerns of average Americans have an insignificant effect on public policy that corporations and very wealthy people and Wall Street really did determine the public agenda. Now, this was again before Citizens United opened the floodgates to big money in politics.

    I think that we have got to have a constitutional amendment that stops big money in politics that restores the notion that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Those two notions. And also, we have public financing of elections so that small donors are matched by a public fund, and that gives an incentive to politicians who agree to limits on their own funding to seek public funding instead.

    Taya Graham:

    That’s excellent. Professor Reich, we cannot thank you enough for your time. And I do want you to know that in your honor, I did wear my Union Steward pin. I’m a communication worker’s union steward. So, I just want you to know I wore that in your honor, Professor.

    Stephen Janis:

    This is a union shop here.

    Robert Reich:

    I appreciate that. And I appreciate the time with both of you. These are big and important issues. They’re not going away. My concern is that they’re getting worse.

    Taya Graham:

    Yes.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah.

    Taya Graham:

    Ours as well.

    Stephen Janis:

    Ours as well. Well, thank you so much.

    Taya Graham:

    Thank you, Professor.

    Stephen Janis:

    And remember, anytime you want to talk about tax breaks, call me.

    Taya Graham:

    Yes. Tax increment, financing, payment, loop taxes, we’re the ones to call.

    Robert Reich:

    I want to talk about it all the time. So, I’ll call you all the time.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. Great. I look forward to it.

    Stephen Janis:

    Thank you so much.

    Robert Reich:

    Bye-bye.

    Taya Graham:

    Thank you.

    Stephen Janis:

    Bye.

    Taya Graham:

    So, first, I just have to thank our guest, Professor Robert Reich. I don’t think there is a more distinct or important voice in the struggle against and search for solutions to inequality. His willingness to take the time to share his insight with us is invaluable, and we so deeply appreciate it.

    Stephen Janis:

    I just hope he calls me about tax breaks because …

    Taya Graham:

    I do too.

    Stephen Janis:

    I feel like I’m out in the wilderness here. No one wants to talk about tax breaks. They think I’m kind of weird and obsessed.

    Taya Graham:

    I know. We can only talk to each other about tax increment financing. It’d be nice to talk to someone else about it.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. So, maybe I hope he does keep his promise and give me a call.

    Taya Graham:

    I actually want to go back, maybe get my CPA or something, so I can actually understand the tax code. It seems like that’s where all the money hides.

    Stephen Janis:

    Yeah. That’s where all the action is.

    Taya Graham:

    Really is. Who would’ve thought.

    Stephen Janis:

    In this great inequality divide we have.

    Taya Graham:

    Very true. So, I just want to do a little closing speech here. So, if you don’t mind, we’re just going to jump right in.

    Stephen Janis:

    Can’t wait to hear it.

    Taya Graham:

    Okay. So, now, after diving deep into the two forces shaping and breaking the American economy, one thing is crystal clear. Both wealth inequality and globalization are symptoms of the same disease. That disease is a system designed to prioritize the profits of the few over the well-being of the many.

    And the stories may differ whether it’s a billionaire dodging taxes or a factory worker losing their job to offshoring. But the results are eerily similar, a hollowed-out middle class, skyrocketing inequality, and a political system that seems incapable or unwilling to fight back. So, let’s break it down.

    Globalization in its current form has done more than just shift manufacturing overseas. It’s created a race to the bottom where corporations scour the globe for the cheapest labor and the fewest regulations, leaving American workers to pick up the pieces. Wealth taxation, or rather, the lack of it ensures that profits from this exploitation stays concentrated at the top, untouched by the very policies that could help level the playing field.

    Together, these two forces create the two-tiered economy we’ve spent this conversation dissecting, a system where the rich live by a different set of rules than everyone else. But here’s the kicker, it doesn’t have to be this way. The solutions we’ve discussed implementing a wealth tax, we’re writing trade agreements to prioritize workers over corporations, maybe even investing in green jobs and infrastructure. These aren’t just pipe dreams. These are viable evidence-backed policies that could transfer our economy into one that works for everyone.

    And the question isn’t whether we have the resources or the tools, it’s whether we have the political will. And that’s where the stakes get even higher. Because as Robert Reich so astutely pointed out, the wealth isn’t just money, it’s power. The billionaires who dodge taxes and the corporations that exploit globalization aren’t just enriching themselves. They’re shaping the very policies and systems that allow them to keep doing it.

    It’s a feedback loop that corrodes democracy leaving the rest of us stuck in a system that feels increasingly rigged. So, what do we do? First, we need to change the narrative. The idea that taxing billionaires or reigning in globalization is somehow radical is a lie perpetuated by those who benefit from the status quo.

    What’s radical is allowing an economy where the wealthiest 1% own more than the bottom 90%. What’s radical is ignoring the voices of millions of workers while bending over backwards for corporations. And what’s truly radical is thinking we can continue down this path without catastrophic consequences.

    Now, second, we need to build power not just in Washington, but in our own communities, whether it’s organizing unions to demand better wages, supporting candidates who will fight for economic justice, or simply having conversations that challenge the myths of trickledown economics and free trade. The change starts with us. The billionaires might have the money. But history has shown us time and again, that people united around a common cause can be an unstoppable force.

    So, as we close, I want to leave you with this. The fight against the two-tiered economy isn’t just about money. It’s about dignity. It’s about whether we value people not for the profits they generate, but for their inherent worth as human beings. And it’s about whether we’re willing to demand an economy and a democracy that reflects those values. And the stakes couldn’t be higher.

    But I think the solutions are within reach, and it’s up to us to decide whether we’ll keep playing by the rigged rules of the game or whether we will rewrite them entirely. Let’s make the choice together while we still can. Okay. Stephen, you know how I love to speechify. Is there anything you would like to add?

    Stephen Janis:

    Well, I mean, it’s really interesting having come after. That’s a pretty hard act to follow. But I will say that movement building strikes me as very difficult and a very, let’s say, dicey proposition in the media ecosystem we talked about before, because it’s not structured around accumulating some epistemology or knowledge of a subject like we do with tax breaks. It’s more about emotion and being aggrieved.

    And I just worry about that. I worry about the type of system we have to come to some conclusions about specific things we want to. You have to change something specific. You can’t just say, “We’re going to fight for change.” It’s got to be something that looks specific. And we spent all these years, for example, trying to change this horribly unequal system about tax breaks for developers. And it’s been very hard and we’ve been on our own. And we even received pushback from people who I think would actually think it was a good idea.

    And the Democrats completely punted on it, wouldn’t even allow a vote on the bill that would’ve shown people what happened. Now, we’ve talked about this before, but I worry about that because it’s hard. It’s really hard to permeate people’s TikTok lives and say, “Okay. This is a very complex issue, but we don’t change it. And I think if we don’t address that, it’s going to be very hard to bring about real change.” So, that’s my opinion.

    Taya Graham:

    I think you’re right. And I just wanted to speak to some of the folks in the comments and in the live chat who ask about my analysis. And I’ve seen a few people say, “Taya, you’re a criminal justice reporter. The police accountability reporter.” I still am. But my reporting has always at heart been about government accountability and that’s exposing corruption or inequity. And whether that’s blue or red, it doesn’t matter to me.

    Right now, I think the greatest inequality and justice isn’t necessarily coming from left to right or Demo-Republican. It’s the top 10% versus the bottom 90%. It’s like the top 1% is driving the car of our democracy and the two parties in the back seat, and we’re the ones being taken for the ride.

    Stephen Janis:

    So, you’re doing Dave Chappelle.

    Taya Graham:

    So, my analysis will always be based on searching for policies that do the most good for the most people. And as far as I can tell, that’s not how billionaires think. But as always, I do want to know your thoughts in the comments. You know I read them and I answer as many questions as I can. And I really do appreciate your input and insights. I always have more to learn, and that’s why I love being a reporter. You get to keep asking questions.

    Stephen Janis:

    Absolutely.

    Taya Graham:

    And I want to thank you all for being patient, for watching us and joining us. And of course, we have to thank our great studio, David and Cameron and Adam and Jocelyn, and Kayla and James and our editor-in-chief, Max. See you all in the comment section. This is Taya Graham and Stephen Janis reporting for The Real News Network.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  •  

    Right-click here to download this episode (“Save link as…”).

     

    Workers protesting their treatment by Amazon, with a sign reading "Jeff Bezos Go Back."

    Progressive International (11/25/22)

    This week on CounterSpin:  Few corporations have changed the US business and consumer model more than Amazon. So when that corporate behemoth buys one of the country’s national newspapers—it’s a conflict writ large as can or should be. But things as they are, reporting on Amazon has in general looked more like representing that conflict than confronting it.

    Good Jobs First monitors megacompanies like Amazon and their impact on our lives. Their database, Violation Tracker Global, notes more than $2.4 billion in misconduct penalties for Amazon since 2010. The most expensive of those fines have been connected to the company’s anti-competitive practices; the most frequent offenses are related to cheating workers out of wages and jeopardizing workers’ health and safety. Arlene Martinez is deputy executive director and communications director at Good Jobs First. We’ll talk to her about the effort to #MakeAmazonPay.

     

    Amazon Spheres

    Amazon Seattle HQ (cc photo: kiewic)

    Also: A few years back, Amazon, like it does, dangled the prospect of locating a headquarters in New York City. And the city, like it does, eagerly offered some $3 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to entice the wildly profitable company to bring its anti-union, environmentally exploitative self to town. The deal fell through for reasons, one of which was informed community pushback. We talked about it with journalist Neil deMause, co-author of the book Field of Schemes. We’ll hear just a little of that conversation today.

     

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  • “During the Great Depression of the 1930s, the US economy almost completely collapsed,” historian Dana Frank writes in her new book, What Can We Learn from the Great Depression? “By 1933 a third of all those who’d had jobs were unemployed; another third were scraping by with lesser work. Racism, far from collapsing, festered and metastasized as insecurity rippled through the country, pushing people of color even further downward… As we face our own crises today—a precarious economy, outrageous inequality and poverty, growing racism, climate change—and lie awake at night, facing our own fears, these stories from the Great Depression offer us new and often surprising insights into our own time, our own choices.” In this live episode of Working People, recorded at Red Emma’s cooperative bookstore, cafe, and community events space in Baltimore, TRNN Editor-in-Chief Maximillian Alvarez speaks with Frank about her new book and what taking a fresh look at poor and working people’s struggles in the dark 1930s can teach us about how to navigate our own perilous moment in history.

    Additional links/info below…

    Permanent links below…

    Featured Music…

    • Jules Taylor, “Working People” Theme Song

    Studio Production: Max Alvarez
    Post-Production: Jules Taylor


    Transcript

    A proofread transcript will be made available as soon as possible.

    This post was originally published on The Real News Network.

  • A Wisconsin judge has ruled that an anti-union law passed over a decade ago is in violation of the state constitution’s equal protections provisions, a finding that could allow public sector employees to once again collectively bargain with their government bosses. Wisconsin’s Act 10 law, passed in 2011, bars most state employees from being able to negotiate, through their unions…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Amazon workers and their allies are participating in a series of global actions aimed at holding the online retailer “accountable for labor abuses, environmental degradation, and threats to democracy,” according to the labor group UNI Global Union. Dubbed “Make Amazon Pay,” the campaign is set to last from November 29 to December 2 and will include strikes and protests across six continents…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.