Tag Archives: labor

What It’s Like To Sneak Across the Border To Harvest Food

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For most anthropologists, “field work” means talking to and observing a particular group. But for Seth Holmes, a medical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley, it also literally means working in a field: toiling alongside farm workers from the Triqui indigenous group of Oaxaca, Mexico, in a vast Washington State berry patch. It also means visiting them in their tiny home village—and making the harrowing trek back to US farm fields through a militarized and increasingly perilous border.

Holmes recounts his year and a half among the people who harvest our food in his new book Fresh Fruit, Broken Bodies. It’s a work of academic anthropology, but written vividly and without jargon. In its unvarnished view into what our easy culinary bounty means for the people burdened with generating it, Fresh Fruit/Broken Bodies has earned its place on a short shelf alongside works like Tracie McMillan’s The American Way of Eating, Barry Estabrook’s Tomatoland, and Frank Bardacke‘s Trampling Out the Vintage: Cesar Chavez and the Two Souls of the United Farm Workers.

I recently caught up with Holmes via phone about the view from the depths of our food system.

Mother Jones: What sparked your interest in farm workers—and how did you gain access to the workers you cover in the book?

Continue Reading »

Read article here: 

What It’s Like To Sneak Across the Border To Harvest Food

Posted in alo, FF, GE, Holmes, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What It’s Like To Sneak Across the Border To Harvest Food

Who’s Really Behind Campbell Brown’s Sneaky Education Outfit?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Early one morning in July, former CNN anchor Campbell Brown appeared on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, pen in hand, notes fanned out in front of her. Viewers might have mistaken her as a fill-in host, but Brown had swung by 30 Rock in her new role as a self-styled education reformer, a crusader against sexual deviants in New York City public schools and the backward unions and bureaucrats getting in the way of firing them. “In many cases, we have teachers who were found guilty of inappropriate touching, sexual banter with kids, who weren’t fired from their jobs, who were given very light sentences and sent back to the classroom,” Brown, the mother of two young sons, explained.

Brown was there to plug her new venture, the Parents’ Transparency Project, a nonprofit “watchdog group” that “favors no party, candidate, or incumbent.” Though its larger aim is to “bring transparency” to how contracts are negotiated with teachers’ unions, PTP’s most prominent campaign is to fix how New York City handles cases of sexual misconduct involving teachers and school employees—namely by giving the city’s schools chancellor, a political appointee, ultimate authority in the process.

Shortly after it was launched in June, PTP trained its sights on the New York mayoral race, asking the candidates to pledge to change the firing process for school employees accused of sexual misconduct. When several Democratic candidates declined, perhaps fearing they’d upset organized labor, PTP spent $100,000 on a television attack ad questioning whether six candidates, including Republican Joe Lhota and Democrats Bill de Blasio and Anthony Weiner, had “the guts to stand up to the teachers’ unions.” The spot stated that there had been 128 cases of sexual misconduct by school employees in the past five years, suggesting that nothing had been done in response. “It’s a scandal,” the ad’s narrator intoned. “And the candidates are silent.”

Before founding PTP, Brown raised this issue in a Wall Street Journal op-ed in July 2012. But what she failed to disclose was that her husband, Dan Senor, sits on the board of the New York affiliate of StudentsFirst, an education lobbying group founded by Michelle Rhee, the controversial former Washington, DC, chancellor. Rhee made a name for herself as public enemy No. 1 of the teachers’ unions and has become the torchbearer of the charter school movement. In 2012, her “bipartisan grassroots organization” backed 105 candidates in state races, 88 percent of them Republicans. (Senor was also the spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority following the invasion of Iraq and served as a foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney in 2012.)

Writing in Slate, Brown, a veteran journalist, confessed to being naive about the standards for revealing a potential conflict of interest: “If you live in the overlapping world of politics and media, as I am learning, anything less than full transparency can potentially do you in.” She still managed to get in a few digs at the unions. “I failed to disclose,” she wrote, “because I stupidly did not connect the teachers’ unions’ opposition to charter schools to their support for a system that protects teachers who engage in sexual misconduct.”

But there is much more about PTP that is less than transparent, including its sources of funding and its overall agenda. As a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, PTP may keep its donors’ identities secret and spend money in electoral campaigns, so long as political activity doesn’t consume the majority of its time and money.

Despite its nonpartisan billing, Brown’s nonprofit used Revolution Agency, a Republican consulting firm, to produce the mayoral attack ad. Its partners include Mike Murphy, a well-known pundit and former Romney strategist; Mark Dion, former chief of staff to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.); and Evan Kozlow, former deputy director of the National Republican Congressional Committee. The domain name for PTP’s website was registered by two Revolution employees: Jeff Bechdel, Mitt Romney’s former Florida spokesman, and Matt Leonardo, who describes himself as “happily in self-imposed exile from advising Republican candidates.”

Another consulting firm working with Brown’s group is Tusk Strategies, which helped launch Rhee’s StudentsFirst. Advertising disclosure forms filed by PTP list Tusk’s phone number, and a copy of PTP’s sexual-misconduct pledge—since scrubbed from its website—identified its author as a Tusk employee. (Tusk and Revolution declined to comment. Brown referred all questions to her PR firm—the same one used by StudentsFirst.)

What about Brown’s allegation that the New York schools did nothing about 128 cases of sexual misconduct? It turns out that in 33 of those cases, the employee in question had been fired, the New York Times reported. Many of the others were disciplined.

Brown’s group paints the unions as the main obstacles to a crackdown on predators. Yet Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, says that the union’s New York City chapter already has a zero-tolerance policy in its contract, and that AFT only protects its members against “false allegations.” New York state law also mandates that any teacher convicted of a sex crime be automatically fired. It is the law, not union contracts, that requires that an independent arbitrator hear and mete out punishment in cases of sexual misconduct that fall outside criminal law. The quickest route to changing that policy may be lobbying lawmakers in Albany, not hammering teachers and their unions.

Before Brown left CNN three years ago, her evening news show carried a memorable tagline: “No bias. No bull.” She can’t say the same for her foray into the education wars.

See the article here:  

Who’s Really Behind Campbell Brown’s Sneaky Education Outfit?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who’s Really Behind Campbell Brown’s Sneaky Education Outfit?

Yes, the Luddites Were Wrong. But So Was Thomas Malthus.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I had a pretty caustic reaction yesterday to James Bessen’s column arguing that improvements in technology won’t have a big effect on middle-class workers. Tim Lee responded by calling it “uncharacteristically thoughtless and sneering.”

Thoughtless? Sorry, I plead not guilty to that. But sneering? Yeah, maybe a bit. Here’s the problem: Bessen happened to hit on one of my pet peeves: people who argue that workers ended up doing fine during the Industrial Revolution, so they’ll end up doing fine in the upcoming Digital Revolution too. People who think otherwise are just modern-day Luddites who never learn.

Now, there’s no question that workers in the 19th century feared that their livelihoods would be eliminated by machines. And although many of them were right in the short term, they were wrong in the long term: Machines ended up amplifying human labor, raising productivity so much that there were still jobs for everyone. So if the steam-powered Luddites were wrong then, why should we listen to the shiny new digital Luddites today?

This is obviously an appealing argument, but I happen to think it shows a serious lack of imagination. Smart machines won’t simply replace some parts of work, they’ll eventually replace all parts of work. As they get smarter, fewer and fewer people will be needed to maintain and program machines, and eventually no one at all will be needed. If machines ever achieve human-level intelligence, then by definition human labor will no longer be necessary.

But why should we believe this? It’s possible that I’m missing something. After all, as Bessen says, the Luddites were wrong. Karl Marx was wrong. A lot of smart people were wrong about the Industrial Revolution. I’m arguing that this time it’s different, but usually that isn’t the case.

True enough. But let me offer another story along these lines. It’s the story of Thomas Malthus.

You remember Malthus? In 1798 he predicted doom and gloom for the human race. Population grows geometrically, which means that any gains in productivity are soon swamped. If we produce more food, this simply encourages us to have more children, and more of those children survive to adulthood. This drives down wages and living standards to their old level, world without end. Permanent progress is impossible.

Today, Malthus has about the same reputation as the Luddites. But don’t let that fool you: he was a brilliant economist, and he was right. That is, he was right about all of human history right up to about 1798. So when optimists argued that machines might make life better, Malthusians had every right to scoff. The moldboard plow didn’t make life better. Neither did the printing press, or the lateen sail, or the cotton gin. Why should we believe that this time things would be different?

But they were. The rise of mechanical power really was different. As brilliant as he was, Malthus didn’t see that.

Here’s the moral of the story: Occasionally, things really are different this time around. The Industrial Revolution didn’t put everyone out of work, but it did upend millennia of stagnation in living standards. This is why I reacted a little peevishly to Bessen. It’s true that we’ve heard before that machines would destroy people’s jobs, and this should certainly give us pause. But it’s the beginning of the argument, not a slam dunk riposte. Sometimes, new technology really does change the world. Our job is to think hard about this stuff and try to figure out which inventions are game changers and which ones are just handy gadgets. It’s inexcusably lazy to simply argue that previous rounds of technology didn’t make humans obsolete, so neither will this one. You might not want to be a modern-day Luddite, but you don’t want to be a modern-day Malthus either.

This time, things will be different.

POSTSCRIPT: Needless to say, this entire argument is predicated on the belief that machines will fairly rapidly become roughly as intelligent as humans. If you don’t believe this, that’s fine. Make your case. But it’s a whole different conversation than the one about what will happen if machines keep getting smarter and smarter.

View original article:  

Yes, the Luddites Were Wrong. But So Was Thomas Malthus.

Posted in alo, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, the Luddites Were Wrong. But So Was Thomas Malthus.

Yes, Technology Is Going to Destroy the Middle Class

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I haven’t read Tyler Cowen’s Average Is Over, but I’m familiar with its basic thesis: smart machines are going to put lots of people out of work over the next few decades, and this is going to substantially increase income inequality. A small number of very smart people will do really well, while the broad middle class will end up with bleak, low-paying jobs—assuming they’re lucky enough to have any jobs at all.

Obviously I agree, as readers of the May issue of Mother Jones know. And since I enjoy reading opposing arguments, I was curious to see what James Bessen had to say about this today over at The Switch. Unfortunately, the answer is: nothing much. “People have been predicting that technology will kill the middle class since Karl Marx,” he says. “They have generally been wrong.”

Well, yes, they have. Unfortunately, that’s his entire argument. The Industrial Revolution didn’t put everyone out of work, and neither did 80s-era technology like ATMs and accounting software. Therefore, 2030s-era technology won’t either.

This is, literally, the worst possible case you can make for the continued relevance of the middle class. To say that “intelligent machines per se are not new,” as Bessen does, wildly misrepresents both intelligence and machines. No machine built before about 2010 has had anything even remotely resembling true intelligence. Not spinning machines that stopped if a thread broke, and not ATMs or accounting programs. Even now, the smartest machines out there display only the barest glimmers of intelligence. We simply don’t have either the software or the hardware to do it. The machines that people like Cowen and I are predicting for the 2030s just flatly have no analog to previous machines.

Those machines won’t need help from ordinary humans. In fact, as they get smarter and smarter, they won’t need much help from really smart humans either. Eventually, they won’t need any help at all. Past machines always did, and that’s the decisive difference. If you wave this away, you’re missing the whole debate. You’re pretending to argue without actually addressing the main point of the techno-optimists: What happens to human labor when machines are smart enough that they need virtually no human guidance at all?

Bessen simply ignores this possibility. Apparently he thinks that future machines will get a little bit smarter, but will remain just dumb enough that they’ll continue to need constant attention from an army of folks who graduated from high school with a C+ average. But if that turns out to be the case, there’s really no interesting conversation to be had. The future will be pretty much like the present. Why even bother talking about it?

But the evidence suggests, rather, that we’re on the cusp of big changes. Machines in the future will be a lot smarter than current machines, and they won’t need constant attention from much of anyone. If you want to engage with this debate, you need to present a cogent argument that either (a) machines will never get all that smart, or (b) even if they do, there will still be a substantial role for average humans to play. Bessen does neither.

Visit source – 

Yes, Technology Is Going to Destroy the Middle Class

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, Technology Is Going to Destroy the Middle Class

The Conservative Fundraising Racket, Part 674

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This morning in my inbox I have a “personal appeal from Rand Paul.” Nothing unusual about that, but check out the subject:

Dear Concerned American:

“I owe these unions.”

President Barack Obama couldn’t have stated it any more clearly.

And after spending an estimated BILLION dollars to re-elect Barack Obama and maintain control of the U.S. Senate, the union bosses couldn’t agree more.

They’re wasting no time demanding PAYBACK.

Top AFL-CIO union boss Richard Trumka has already made clear that he expects Big Labor’s Card Check Forced Unionism Bill to be a top priority in Obama’s second term.

….Since Barack Obama doesn’t have to face the voters again for re-election, the union bosses understand this may be their last — and best — opportunity to make Card Check Forced Unionism the law of the land.

That’s why it’s vital you act today!

Vital indeed. And “VERY expensive,” of course. So please make a generous contribution to the National Right to Work Committee.

The fact that Rand Paul opposes unions—and supports the NRWC—is no surprise, but this pitch is a sign of just how much of a racket conservative fundraising has become. There’s no question that card check is something that both unions and Democrats support, but it couldn’t even pass in 2009, when Democrats controlled the House and had a supermajority in the Senate. It has zero chance of passing now, and everyone knows it. Rand Paul certainly knows it, and the National Right to Work Committee knows it.

But there are frightened legions of Fox News viewers out there who don’t know it, and Rand Paul wants a chunk of their Social Security checks. Right now. For a campaign against a nonexistent bill that he knows perfectly well isn’t going to take place. Nice work.

Read this article:

The Conservative Fundraising Racket, Part 674

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on The Conservative Fundraising Racket, Part 674

At the University of Chicago, Elevators Are Finally for Everyone

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

After five months of agitation, the leaders of the University of Chicago have finally agreed that their sensibilities will not be too badly offended if they occasionally end up sharing an elevator car with a blue-collar maintenance worker. Corey Robin has the story here.

Remind me again which century we live in?

View original: 

At the University of Chicago, Elevators Are Finally for Everyone

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on At the University of Chicago, Elevators Are Finally for Everyone

The Shutdown Will Slowly Reduce Our Weather Preparedness

“I can’t imagine a major potato chip maker saying that it could survive without potato farms.” jpstanley/Flickr On Monday afternoon, a line of storms hundreds of miles long crossed the Appalachians and struck cities on the Eastern seaboard. Earlier that day, tornado watch was issued, stretching from New York City to Washington, DC, that lasted until 5 p.m.; broadcasts and web journalists picked up the news and transmitted it to millions in the affected region. Most people who heard about that tornado watch learned about it from journalists and journalist-meteorologists who work at private media companies. But, perhaps without realizing it, everyone who heard about it depended upon the meteorologists, one level down and less visible, who work for the National Weather Service, a program of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. To keep reading, click here. Credit:  The Shutdown Will Slowly Reduce Our Weather Preparedness ; ;Related ArticlesCampaign Against Fossil Fuels Growing, Says StudyWhy Big Coal’s Export Terminals Could be Even Worse Than the Keystone XL PipelineSplitsville for Obama and His Chief Climate Adviser ;

Original link – 

The Shutdown Will Slowly Reduce Our Weather Preparedness

Posted in alo, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, For Dummies, G & F, GE, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Shutdown Will Slowly Reduce Our Weather Preparedness

This Woman Has Spent Almost a Year of Her Life Under Water

Scientist and explorer Sylvia Earle warns that the oceans are “not too big to fail.” But she also says that just maybe, we’re growing wise enough to save them. Dr. Sylvia Earle prepares for a dive in the DeepSee submersible – Coiba, Panama. ©Kip Evans – Mission Blue. Climate Desk has launched a new science podcast, Inquiring Minds, cohosted by contributing writer Chris Mooney and neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas. To subscribe via iTunes, click here. You can also follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, and like us on Facebook. Sylvia Earle hasn’t quite spent a year under water—yet. At age 78, she’s at over 7,000 hours, which translates into about 292 days. But she’s going strong. “I just added a few more hours to time under water,” Earle says, “because I’ve just returned from the Gulf of Mexico, 100 miles offshore to a place called the Flower Garden Banks, where at this time of the year, several key species of corals whoop it up and do what it takes to make more corals.” Earle is referring to the phenomenon of mass coral spawning, in which huge numbers of corals all release gametes into the water at once, which in turn float to the surface where fertilization occurs. To hear divers tell it, these events of mass reproduction are one of the great wonders of the undersea world—one that all too few of us ever get to see. “We were diving three times a day, and then another dive at night,” Earle continues, “to observe the action on these reefs.” If you’re inspired by Earle’s ability to pull this off at age 78, just wait: The real inspiration lies in her stunning plea for ocean conservation. In this episode of Inquiring Minds (click above to stream audio), Earle doesn’t shy away from giving us the really, really big picture. She explains that we’re the first generation of humans to even know what we’re doing to 96 percent of the Earth’s water—through assaults ranging from over-fishing to noise pollution to global warming’s evil twin, ocean acidification. Older generations just didn’t get it; they simply had no idea they could have this effect. “We have been under the illusion for most of our history, thinking that the ocean is too big to fail,” Earle says. Now, thanks in large part to the work of ocean adventurer-scientists like Earle, we know better. And we’re right at that crucial moment where knowing something might actually help us make a difference. Dr. Sylvia Earle diving along a deep ledge off the coast of Honduras. ©Kip Evans/Mission Blue Earle ought to know: She hasn’t just studied the oceans, she’s lived them. Her titles include National Geographic Society Explorer in Residence, and former chief scientist at NOAA—plus she’s a TED Prize winner who used that award to form Mission Blue, an ocean conservation initiative. Her unofficial titles go further: Time called her “Hero of the Planet,” and many other call her “Her Deepness.” Earle has set several underwater depth records, including diving to 1,250 feet without a tether (in other words, without a safety line connecting her to another human at the surface) in 1979. Oh, and then there’s her scientific research: Over 100 publications on topics including marine flora and fauna (Earle has discovered several new species), the effects of oil spills, undersea exploration technologies, and much else. Back in 1970, when some institutions of higher education were still refusing to admit women, Earle was leading female aquanauts on expeditions to the sea floor. The Tektite Program included a team of women who lived in an undersea laboratory off the Virgin Islands for two weeks, conducting research. Asked on Inquiring Minds how she was so ahead of the curve, Earle responded: “I think all of us are a little behind the curve for taking advantage of a half of the world’s population.” In pushing us to care about the oceans, Earle’s plea is as simple as it is moving. First of all: We now understand the massive effect we can have. Now we see our impact and we see tipping points already before us. Ocean acidification is one of them: As ocean waters become more acidic due to increasing concentrations of dissolved carbon dioxide, the entire chemistry of the ocean changes, creating a new environment that ocean organisms aren’t necessarily evolved to cope with. Bleaching corals go first, but corals are fundamental to entire undersea ecosystems. Many shelled organisms also fare badly under acidification—clams, oysters—and thus, by definition, so do ecosystems (or, the humans) that rely on them. Here are some other stunning facts about just how much humans have devastated the oceans: * According to the UN Environment Programme, “every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic.” * A 2008 study found 400 ocean dead zones—regions without enough oxygen for ocean life—amounting to a total area of 245,000 square kilometers. That’s as large as the United Kingdom. * According to one prediction, unless something changes, all global stocks of fish that are harvested for human consumption will collapse by 2048. * Ocean acidification is proceeding at an insane clip: Recent research suggests the rate is faster than at any time in the last 300 million years. Dr. Sylvia Earle walks beneath the Aquarius habitat off Key Largo, Florida. ©Kip Evans/Mission Blue We can see all of this now. And we see one other big thing, too: The oceans are, in Earle’s metaphor that quickly becomes literal, a life support system. If they go, we go. “The ocean dominates the way the world works, makes our lives possible,” says Earle. “Take away the ocean, you’ve got a planet a lot like Mars.” All of this knowledge then puts us in a pretty unique place: We’re the first generation that can see what we’re doing, and just maybe take a different path. In the Inquiring Minds interview, Earle invokes a recent book by the famed Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of the Earth, to argue perhaps the most important thing about humans is that they not only learn, they pass on knowledge they’ve gained. What this means, says Earle, is that we alone could prove to be the “visionary generation,” the “heroic generation,” the one that “for the first time could see back into the past, evaluate the present, and anticipate what needs to be done.” For as Earle puts it, “This is the sweet spot in time. Because never before could we know what we know, and never again will we have a chance, as good as we have now, to really make a difference.” You can listen to the full show with Sylvia Earle here (warning: it will make you want to do something to save the oceans): This episode of Inquiring Minds also features a discussion of the latest research on how conspiracy theories fuel the denial of science on issues ranging from climate change to vaccinations, and on how scientists are reconsidering the origins of life and…yes, bringing Mars into the picture. To catch future shows right when they release, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes. You can also follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook. Link: This Woman Has Spent Almost a Year of Her Life Under Water Related Articles What the Scopes Trial Teaches Us About Climate-Change Denial If You Distrust Vaccines, You’re More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings What Happens When The Government Shuts Down 94 Percent of the EPA

View original: 

This Woman Has Spent Almost a Year of Her Life Under Water

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Citadel, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Woman Has Spent Almost a Year of Her Life Under Water

California Passes Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, Sort Of

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law the California Domestic Worker Bill of Rights yesterday, making California only the third state in the country to adopt such legislation. But despite its celebration as a policy victory by advocates, the law might more aptly be called the California Domestic Worker Bill of Right, after it was watered down to only include overtime protections.

Also see: “Charts: 4 Reasons Why the White House’s Domestic-Worker Protections Matter”

The law now reads that a domestic work employee “shall not be employed more than nine hours in any workday or more than 45 hours in any workweek unless the employee receives one and one-half times the employee’s regular rate of pay” for all overtime hours worked. Hour protections are, without a doubt, an important gain for domestic workers, who “are prone to be overworked on a weekly and daily basis,” according to Sarah Leberstein, an attorney at the National Employment Law Project.

Continue Reading »

See original: 

California Passes Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, Sort Of

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on California Passes Domestic Worker Bill of Rights, Sort Of

"Inequality for All": A Must-See Movie For the 99 Percent

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jacob Kornbluth’s new documentary Inequality for All, which stars economist and former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich, is being hyped as a “game changer in our national discussion of income inequality.” It probably won’t be that, since it’s preaching to the choir, but the film is a welcome addition to that discussion.

Inequality for All, which opens Friday, weaves between scenes of Reich lecturing clear-eyed Cal coeds in his Wealth and Inequality class, 1950s-style graphs and charts illustrating growing income disparity, and archival clips of happy white people in the post-World War II age of prosperity. There are also interviews with working-class people left behind by the American Dream, such as a worker at a California power plant that has hired anti-union consultants, and a mom who works at Costco and has $25 in her bank account.

Kornbluth also chats with the odd member of the 1 percent. “The pillow business is quite tough because fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the products that we make,” pillow-making millionaire Nick Hanauer explains. “The problem with rising inequality is that a person like me who earns a thousand times as much as the typical worker doesn’t buy a thousand times as many pillows every year. Even the richest people only sleep on one or two pillows.”

In a comprehensive and digestible way, Reich lays out the stark facts of income inequality (for example, the 400 Americans richest currently earn more than half the country’s population combined) and how we got here. He blames the decline of unionization, globalization, and technology for suppressing pay, and enriching the few, who then use their increasing political clout to protect their status. “When the middle class doesn’t share the gains, you get into a downward vicious cycle,” Reich explains as the film cuts to an Wheel of Fortune-type animation illustrating that cycle: Wages stagnate, consumption drops, companies downsize, tax revenues decrease, government cuts programs, workers become less educated, unemployment rises—and so on.

As Reich notes, he’s been “saying the same thing for 30 years” about growing income inequality. He worked to combat it during his stints in the administrations of Presidents Ford, Carter and Clinton, and now he’s fighting it from the outside, writing books, recording commentaries, and trying to instill his righteous fire in others. On the last day of class, he gives an inspirational sendoff, telling his students to go out and “change the world.”

The ending of Inequality for All is predictable, but that’s okay, because Reich is so likable—and he’s right.

Read this article – 

"Inequality for All": A Must-See Movie For the 99 Percent

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Inequality for All": A Must-See Movie For the 99 Percent