Updating the story from last week on bumblebees dying by the thousands from insecticide exposure in Oregon, the state has issued a 6 month moratorium on using neonicotinoid-based insecticides. The maker of the insectcide the killed the bees is angry. And while I suppose that’s a good sign, the fact that it is now illegal to use the chemical but not illegal to buy and sell the chemical makes me think this is not all that helpful. Maybe it’s a good first step for a more comprehensive review and ban.
Author Page for Erik Loomis
I have a rather strong objection to the term “pay it forward” that is based entirely upon Kevin Spacey sabotaging his own career by starring in New Agey vehicle after New Agey vehicle in the early to mid 2000s, including one by the name above. However, I have to use the term because of this Oregon bill offering an alternative way of funding higher education:
The Pay It Forward solution offers students access to higher education without debt. Students at public universities and community colleges would pay no tuition up-front. In exchange, they would agree to pay a small percentage of their income (1.5% for community college, or 3% for a 4 year school) for 20 years to “pay forward” the cost of instruction for the next generation of students.
Pay It Forward is a social insurance program, not a loan. Students would have no debt, no interest, and their percentage would never change. Instead, graduates would pay their contribution as a payroll deduction, similarly to how we pay Social Security taxes. This means that their contribution would be a dependable, affordable expense. For example, a recent grad making $30,000 a year would pay $900 a year. Later on, when they make $60,000 a year, they would pay $1,800 per year.
Over time, the Pay It Forward plan will create a stable funding stream for Oregon public higher education. As more students graduate and pay in, the fund will grow, allowing more students to participate. Start-up funding will be needed until the first few generations of students graduate and get into jobs where they can pay it forward. This could come from private grants, or public money. One option would be to start with a pilot program at a specific institution, and expand to others as the program grows.
So I’m more than a little skeptical of bills that don’t actually have funding. But given the collapse of the 20th century structures created to ensure a chance at social mobility, it’s good that people are being creative. I’m really not sure what to think about this and I’m curious about the mechanisms for people to buy in. I’m also curious to see if top earnings don’t get capped so that those who become rich will not have to pay 3% for 20 years. In any case, this is at least worth a discussion here.
The labor historian Dana Frank has a wonderful if disturbing essay on learning Spanish through experiencing and then fighting against the Honduran coup that took place in 2009. Frank is not one to mince words and she puts plenty of blame on the Obama Administration for doing nothing against the coup and recognizing the bogus elections that followed. I think more accurately the Obama Administration doesn’t care much about Honduras either way but the Cuban exile community in Florida and their friends among the Latin American elite very much did. In any case, this is an excellent essay about being a committed outsider in a country struggling with political violence, massive corruption, and a horrible wave of murder in a place where justice basically does not exist.
I was interviewed for this Jake Blumgart article at Alternet on attempts by United Students Against Sweatshops and others in the U.S. to hold apparel corporations accountable for the terrible conditions in Bangladesh. I think groups like USAS can play a really big role. USAS had its heyday in the late 90s anti-sweatshop campaigns and then faded a bit as young activists became more motivated by the Iraq War. It’s made a nice comeback however and its ability to inform everyday consumers of the social costs of the clothing they purchase is an important action since most people have no clue about these matters.
Also of note in the piece is that the Obama Administration might have suspended trade privileges with Bangladesh last week but the AFL-CIO is disappointed it did not also provide a roadmap and timeline of reforms, including asserting the right to collective bargaining is respected. These specifics are necessary to make any of it meaningful.
On July 2, 1822, Denmark Vesey, a free African-American living in Charleston, South Carolina, was executed for his role in leading a purported slave rebellion. This event marked a significant increase in southern surveillance and oppression of free blacks and demonstrates the very real fear the South had of its slave labor force rising en masse and murdering whites.
Vesey was born around 1767, though no one is sure whether in Africa or St. Thomas. As a youth, he was shipped to Haiti briefly and then came to South Carolina, where he worked as a domestic slave for a man named Joseph Vesey. He won a lottery in 1799, using the money to pay for his own freedom. However, he could not buy his wife or children, forcing him to stay in Charleston. He then worked as a carpenter and became a minister, cofounding a branch of the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston in 1817.
The early 19th century was a nervous time for the Southern planter elite. In the aftermath of the successful Haitian rebellion of the 1790s and 1800s, the American slave power was constantly vigilant about their own slaves rising up and killing them all. A successful slave rebellion would have been nearly impossible for slaves in the United States because there weren’t enough of them and they didn’t have the ecological advantages of the Haitians (the Haitian Rebellion primarily succeeded in the end because the French troops kept dying of malaria and other tropical diseases). That certainly didn’t stop southerners from worrying about it though.
Denmark Vesey had of course heard about the slave rebellion in Haiti. There’s no doubt he would have liked to see a similar action in the United States, but then that’s hardly remarkable. We do know that Vesey was furious at South Carolina closing the AME church, which the state had done repeatedly over the past five years, fearing the proceedings going on inside. In 1818, Charleston police arrested 140 people worshipping inside the church. Vesey’s preaching seems to have grown more strident, with a great deal of emphasis on Exodus and the Egyptian enslavement of the Israelites (always a small problem for oh so good Christian slaveowners justifying their slave labor system through the Bible). Vesey’s religious message was one of violent redemption. He rejected the idea of the flight to the desert to freedom. Rather, he thought the slaveowners should pay with their lives.
This was a quite syncretic religion. With the legal importation of Africans only ended fourteen years earlier, and with a small amount of illegal importation bringing additional Africans to the U.S., there was a lot of African-born people involved in Vesey’s group. One was a priest named Gullah Jack. Born in modern-day Angola, after the 1818 church closing he brought a mystic side to Vesey’s freedom movement and did most of the recruiting for the church and planned rebellion.
There has been some debate over whether this plot was real. It probably was a plan at least. The story goes that Vesey planned a widespread revolt to begin on Bastille Day, July 14, 1822. They would rise up, execute the slave owners, seize the city arsenal, briefly take the city of Charleston, then all get on boats and flee to Haiti to escape punishment. Not surprisingly, two slaves leaked the plans to their owners. On June 22, Vesey was arrested. A total of 130 additional African-Americans were arrested. 67 were convicted and 35 hanged, including Vesey on July 2, 1822. Vesey and his followers were tortured to get all the names of everyone involved, but supposedly they never gave them up. Most of the rest, including Vesey’s son, were sold to the death trap plantations of the Caribbean.
In the aftermath of the executions, South Carolina became even more harsh in dealing with its slave labor force. The first thing the city of Charleston did was burn the AME church. The Vesey plot tapped into a long-running fear of freed slaves and led to new laws against owners freeing their slaves. Free people of color faced new restrictions from traveling unless a white person would vouch for their character. Another law mandated the imprisonment of black sailors on ships docked in Charleston. Given the high number of black sailors in northern ports this was a real issue and in fact the Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, a point used by the growing Southern nationalism of the South Carolina fireeaters. The state destroyed the AME church building. South Carolina also built what became The Citadel in order to prepare for future slave rebellions.
Vesey became a hero for the free black population of the North on how to stand up and fight against oppression. Among the people who saw Vesey as a model or inspiration were Frederick Douglass, David Walker, and John Brown, who would indeed make slaveowners pay for their sins with blood.
If you are interested in primary sources around this issue, Lois Walker and Susan Silverman put together a primary source reader entitled A Documentary History of Gullah Jack Pritchard and the Denmark Vesey Slave Insurrection of 1822, published in 2000. The book attempts to center the revolt more around Gullah Jack and less around Vesey, which may well be accurate but the existing documentation is so sparse that, once again, it’s really hard to know.
This is the 67th post in this series. Previous posts are archived here.
A real victory for UNITE-HERE today, as their long and contentious campaign against Hyatt has resulted in a nearly total victory, with the hotel chain agreeing to recognize the union in its organized hotels and sign union contracts while accepting neutrality agreements in its nonunion hotels if they want to join the union.
We labor people don’t get to celebrate victories too often these days. So this is a reason to be very happy. And if you have been following the union boycott of Hyatt hotels, you can now return to using that chain.
Financially, they suffer the consequences. In 2011, 62 percent of women in the United States covered by private plans that were not obtained through an employer lacked maternity coverage, like Ms. Martin. But even many women with coverage are feeling the pinch as insurers demand higher co-payments and deductibles and exclude many pregnancy-related services.
From 2004 to 2010, the prices that insurers paid for childbirth — one of the most universal medical encounters — rose 49 percent for vaginal births and 41 percent for Caesarean sections in the United States, with average out-of-pocket costs rising fourfold, according to a recent report by Truven that was commissioned by three health care groups. The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the report found.
Women with insurance pay out of pocket an average of $3,400, according to a survey by Childbirth Connection, one of the groups behind the maternity costs report. Two decades ago, women typically paid nothing other than a small fee if they opted for a private hospital room or television.
How long until American families start going to Canada to give birth? For all that conservatives complain of so-called “anchor babies,” by foreigners supposedly coming to the U.S. to give birth, doesn’t it make sense for everyone who can to flee to a country where you can give birth for free? Does it cost more to give birth in Canada or pay for things that should be but aren’t provided by the government in the United States?
We think of the company store as a relic of the Gilded Age, of one-company towns dominating the lives of their workers. We left this behind with the New Deal, right? Well, we did leave it behind but like the rest of the Gilded Age, a new form of the company store is coming back with a vengeance, with debit cards that force workers to pay high fees to use their hard-earned wages.
This population — people who tend to use few, if any, bank services — is swelling. About 10 million households in the United States do not use a bank at all, up from nine million four years ago, according to estimates from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. And 24 million households that do have a bank account still use expensive financial services like prepaid cards, the agency said.
For banks that are looking to recoup billions of dollars in lost income from a spate of recent limits on debit and credit card fees, issuing payroll cards can be lucrative — the products were largely untouched by recent financial regulations. As a result, some of the nation’s largest banks are expanding into the business, banking analysts say.
The lack of regulation in the payroll card market, while alluring for some of the issuers, can potentially leave cardholders swimming in fees. Take the example of inactivity fees that penalize customers for infrequently using their cards. The Federal Reserve has banned such fees for credit and debit cards, but no protections exist on prepaid cards. Cards used by more than two dozen major retailers have inactivity fees of $7 or more, according to a review of agreements.
Some employees can also be hit with $25 overdraft fees, called “balance protection,” on some of the prepaid cards. Under the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul law, banks with more than $10 billion in assets are barred from levying overdraft fees on customers’ checking accounts.
Many fees are virtually impossible to dodge, some employees say. A Victoria’s Secret employee, Bintou Kamara, for example, said it cost her $1.50 just to transfer money from her Citi payroll card to her checking account.
Let’s be clear–debit cards replacing paychecks should be an illegal practice and it is an outrage that it is not illegal. Wages should be paid in one way–with a check for the full amount.
And since no one can trust banks anymore and there’s no way for many workers to use their money, we might as well go back to another old staple of the Gilded Age economy:
But she grew tired of being charged $1.75, in addition to the A.T.M.’s fees, to withdraw cash. After a tip from a co-worker, Ms. McLemore realized she could reduce her charges if she took out all her wages once a month. Now, supplied with one of the most modern banking products, Ms. McLemore has a decidedly old-fashioned way of handling her pay: it is stacked in a shoe box in her closet in $10s and $20s.
Can a political slogan built around not being crucified upon a cross of debit card fees be far behind?
The circuit court panel remanded back to the district court so that it “can consider the § 302 claim and determine the reason why UNITE and Mardi Gras agreed to cooperate with one another.” This outcome and the ambiguity of the 11th Circuit decision prompted both sides of the litigation to seek a hearing before the Supreme Court (although, interestingly, the solicitor general, on behalf of the Obama Administration, urged the Court to let the 11th Circuit’s decision stand). The consequences could be highly significant. The Roberts Court could decide to go beyond the 11th Circuit’s decision and reaffirm the legality of card-check agreements, a pervasive feature of labor-management relations today. Or it could hold that section 302 of Taft-Hartley makes all such agreements illegal, and thus remove one of the only remaining effective organizing strategies for use by private-sector unions.
But taking a hard line against the conditions that undergird card-check agreements would also put the Court in the anomalous position of limiting the rights of companies to reach organizing agreements with unions on their own terms—in a sense, a broad reading of section 302 could be construed as impinging upon the rights of businesses, not just unions. Still, in this as in all of its litigation, the NRWLDF understands what it is up to, and it is not to enable union organizing. Given that the Roberts Court has been widely acknowledged to be perhaps the most pro-business Supreme Court in the past 70 years, the labor movement might be faced with a court decision based upon a highly creative reading of a section of the Taft-Hartley Act that might have shocked even Sen. Taft and Rep. Hartley themselves.
Every Roberts Court decision moves us closer to the Gilded Age.
Really fascinating analysis of the decline of car culture. I tend to believe it to be true, particularly among young people. And I don’t think it’s an ideological rejection of cars per se nor is it a response to climate change I don’t think. Rather, it’s just changing values, different kinds of consumer goods providing status, different ideas about what makes up the good life. All of which is probably worse for the car companies than an ideological shift since that seems easier for them to combat through advertising or another change in fashion.
If you haven’t read E.J. Graff’s personal history of moving from a radical queer activist to “mainstream and married,” you owe it to yourself to do so.
The problem with this article on the power that garment factory owners wield in Bangladeshi politics, making the prosecution of owners of factories where workers die almost impossible, is that it completely ignores the relationship between those factory owners and the multinational apparel companies that make this all possible. Focusing the blame strictly on Bangladeshi problems lets Walmart, Gap, and other companies off the hook for a system where they hold a huge amount of responsibility.