US Politics

Capitol Hill finds rare bipartisan cause in China – but it could pose problemsExperts fear this moment of agreement in Washington could escalate tensions with Beijing and increase the risk of conflictIn the weeks since the US military shot down a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill have spoken passionately about the need to more effectively compete with Beijing. A resolution condemning China for the balloon incident passed the House in an unanimous vote of 419 to 0.Joe Biden has similarly expressed hope that efforts to strengthen America’s global competitiveness in response to a rising China can unite Democrats and Republicans in an era defined by bitter partisanship.“Today, we’re in the strongest position in decades to compete with China or anyone else in the world,” Biden said in his State of the Union address earlier this month. “Let’s be clear: winning the competition with China should unite all of us.”The new House select committee on China will hold its first primetime public hearing on Tuesday, and the panel’s supporters are optimistic its work will provide a rare opportunity for bipartisan cooperation in the divided Congress.But while there’s widespread agreement among policymakers and lawmakers in Washington over the need to better compete with China, there is no prevailing consensus on how to do so. Some experts also fear this kumbaya moment in Washington could escalate tensions with Beijing and increase the risk of conflict.“There is a bipartisan consensus on the fact that China poses a broad challenge to the United States across multiple domains,” said Patricia Kim, an expert on US-China relations at the Washington-based Brookings Institution. “I don’t believe we have a clear consensus on the precise mix of policies that are necessary to address this challenge.”A committee walks the ‘fine line’Competitor or adversary? West struggles to define relationship with BeijingRead moreOne of Republican Kevin McCarthy’s first major victories after securing the House speakership (on the 15th ballot) was to create a new select committee examining competition between the US and China. The motion to form the committee was overwhelmingly approved in a 365 to 65 vote, with 146 Democrats joining all Republicans.“I’ve heard my colleagues on both sides say that the threat posed by Communist China is serious. I fully agree. This is an issue that transcends our political parties,” McCarthy said.The panel, officially named the House select committee on strategic competition between the United States and the Chinese Communist party, is broadly charged with examining a host of economic, security and human rights issues involving China.The panel will be led by congressman Mike Gallagher, a Republican of Wisconsin and prominent “China hawk”, who emphasized that it would work in a bipartisan fashion to expose the threats the CCP poses to US national security and economic interests. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat of Illinois, will serve as the committee’s ranking member. The leaders have stressed that the target of their scrutiny is China’s ruling party, not its people, and hope their work yields policy and legislative recommendations that win support from lawmakers of both parties.Of course, partisan divisions will arise. Republicans increasingly depict China as an outright “adversary” intent on reshaping the international order while the the Biden administration and many Democrats ​have treaded more delicately, describing it as “our most consequential strategic competitor”.Republicans have repeatedly attacked Biden over his approach to Beijing, though members of both parties criticized the president’s handling of the balloon incident with some lawmakers accusing the White House of concealing information. And there have also been partisan disagreements about how the US should engage China over shared challenges such as the climate crisis.At the same time, some of the rhetoric from Gallagher and his Republican colleagues has alarmed Democratic members of the committee. Congressman Andy Kim, a Democrat of New Jersey, voiced concern after McCarthy and Gallagher co-signed a Fox News op-ed outlining a strategy to “win the new cold war” against China.“If Chair Gallagher keeps talking about this as a ‘new cold war’, that is not helpful,” Kim told NBC News. “There’s a fine line between deterrence and provocation, and you are crossing over that in a way that is only going to inflame and create greater escalatory challenges.”And there is fear that language casting China as America’s enemy will encourage anti-Asian sentiment amid a surge in hate incidents.“I have a lot of respect for Mike Gallagher in terms of how he’ll conduct the committee in a serious way, but it’s important to see how the conversations unfold,” committee member Ro Khanna, a Democrat of California, told the Guardian.“For those of us who are concerned about not devolving into a cold war or anti-Asian American sentiment, we have to be particularly vocal.”A transition is under wayOver the last decade, as the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, consolidated power at home, hope in Washington of improving US-China relations dimmed. Under Xi’s rule, the US has accused China of committing genocide against the Uyghurs and other Turkic and Islamic minority people in the country’s Xinjiang province.Xi has meanwhile overseen an expansive military buildup. This month, the Pentagon informed Congress that China now had more missile silos than the US, though the US has a much larger nuclear force than China.Amid rising fears of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, a self-governed island that Beijing claims as its own, the US military has expanded its presence in Asia. Just this month, the US gained expanded access to four military bases in the Philippines.Meanwhile, US lawmakers, including former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, have enraged Beijing with visits to Taiwan in a show of support for the island’s democracy. Gallagher and Khanna made official trips to the capital city of Taipei this month for meetings with top political, national security and business leaders.The discovery of the suspected Chinese spy balloon sparked a diplomatic crisis that resulted in the cancellation of a long-planned trip to Beijing by the US secretary of state, Antony Blinken. Just weeks prior, a top US military commander warned officers in a memo that his “gut” told him the US and China would be at war by 2025.Now US officials say China is considering supplying lethal weapons to Russia for its war in Ukraine. China denies the claim, though that didn’t stop US national security adviser Jake Sullivan from telling CNN on Sunday that it would be “a bad mistake” for Chinese officials to do that. “China should want no part of it,” Sullivan said.In a sign of lawmakers’ hardening views on China, measures to confront Beijing on multiple fronts now routinely attract bipartisan support.Last year, Congress overwhelmingly approved sweeping legislation aimed at growing the nation’s domestic manufacturing and technology sectors to try to boost US competitiveness with China. Shortly thereafter, Biden introduced export restrictions on semiconductors in an effort to strangle China’s microchip sector.Congress also gave the Biden administration new authority to send Taiwan weapons​, though lawmakers say a spending dispute is slowing efforts to help the self-governing island fortify its defenses against China.Meanwhile, there is growing support for legislation that would ban the Chinese-owned video sharing platform TikTok that lawmakers say poses a security risk, as well as for efforts to hold China accountable over the country’s alleged abuses of Muslim minorities in its Xinjiang province.The US is turning from a strategy of integration with China to one of confrontation and competition, said Scott Kennedy, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. ​The sharp erosion in relations between the world’s largest economies​​, underscored by calls for an economic “decoupling”, has left multinational ​companies ​scrambling to adapt to the new geopolitical reality.“It’s a very fraught environment for companies to operate in,” Kennedy said. “They’ve become careful to a fault.”Spy balloon, UFO or Dragon Ball? Japan baffled by iron ball washed up on beachRead moreYet despite the rising tensions, he noted that the countries’ economies remain highly interdependent. Last year, trade between the US and China reached a record high of nearly $700bn.Bipartisanship without consensusAs US policymakers intensify their efforts to reorient the relationship between China and the US, critical questions remain about what that strategy will look like in practice.There is broad agreement that the US must decrease its reliance on Chinese-made goods and technologies, said Kim, the Brookings expert, but “there certainly isn’t a consensus on how much de-risking and decoupling is necessary to strike the right balance between national security concerns and upholding American values and principles that have long held dear the free flow of information, people, trade and open markets”.The House panel begins its work at a time of rising ​public ​hostility toward China. ​According to a survey by the Pew Research Center​, ​82% of Americans ​hold an unfavorable view of the country, ​more than twice the figure in 2012, when Xi came to power. In general, Republicans, more so than Democrats, tend to harbor more negative views of China and are more likely to support the US taking a more hardline approach to the country, it found.The committee’s hearings, meanwhile, will play out against the backdrop of a presidential campaign cycle, ​with Republicans already aiming to cast Biden as “weak” on China.Amid this heated political environment, some experts have emphasized the importance of avoiding a drumbeat to war with China. Matt Duss, a former foreign policy adviser to progressive Senator Bernie Sanders, complimented Biden’s overall handling of the balloon incident, but he admonished the administration’s “overreaction” in canceling Blinken’s trip.“The American people are going to take cues from their leaders on these issues,” said Duss, who is now a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “That makes it even more important for the administration and for others not to signal hysteria.”The US will soon mark 20 years since the invasion of Iraq, Duss noted; that vastly consequential and widely criticised decision was supported by members of both parties at the time.“Bipartisanship is good,” Duss said. “But bipartisanship behind bad policy is very bad.”TopicsUS CongressUS politicsEspionageChinaJoe BidenUS foreign policyfeaturesReuse this content More

What to expect from this year’s CPAC: Biden bashing, 2024 Republican primary chatter and lawsuit gossipThe gathering of conservatives returns to Washington and could prove to be a crystal ball into the GOP’s 2024 outlookIts impresario is facing allegations of sexual assault. Its headline act is a twice impeached former US president under criminal investigation. And its after-dinner speaker is a local news anchor turned far-right election denier.Classified Trump schedules were moved to Mar-a-Lago after FBI search – sourcesRead moreWelcome to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), which claims to be the biggest and most influential gathering of conservatives in the world. It is also a perennial window to the soul of the Republican party.After going on the road to Florida and Texas because of their more relaxed coronavirus pandemic restrictions, CPAC returns to the Washington area on Wednesday for the first time since 2020, offering a four-day festival of political incorrectness, Maga merchandise and Joe Biden-slamming bombast.But this time the cavernous corridors of the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, will fill with chatter about the Republican presidential primary in 2024 – and gossip about CPAC’s own organiser and public face, Matt Schlapp.An unnamed Republican staffer has filed a lawsuit accusing Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union, of groping his genitals as he drove Schlapp to a hotel in Atlanta, Georgia, last October. The man, who is in his late 30s, is seeking nearly $9.4m in damages in a complaint that included screenshots of purported text messages.Schlapp strenuously denies the allegation. Last month he tweeted a statement from lawyer Charlie Spies that said: “The complaint is false, and the Schlapp family is suffering unbearable pain and stress due to the false allegation from an anonymous individual.”Schlapp, who was director of political affairs in the George W Bush White House, is an influential supporter of former president Donald Trump. His wife, Mercedes Schlapp, served as Trump’s communications director between 2017 and 2019. The lineup of CPAC speakers announced so far suggests that the Schlapps remain firmly in Trump’s camp as he campaigns to win back the presidency in 2024.That lineup also includes Trump allies such as former housing secretary Ben Carson, senators Marsha Blackburn and Ted Cruz, representatives Lauren Boebert, Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ronny Jackson, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry and Elise Stefanik, former White House senior adviser Stephen Miller, ex-White House press secretary Sean Spicer and Truth Social chief executive Devin Nunes.Then there is Trump’s son, Don Jr, his fiancée Kimberly Guilfoyle – infamous for hollering “The best is yet to come!” at the 2020 Republican national convention – and the main event: a speech by Trump himself that will be akin to an indoor campaign rally.It is a chorus that will try to make the case that reports of Trump losing his grip on the Republican base after seven years have been greatly exaggerated. But the 76-year-old celebrity businessman, whose electability has been questioned after last year’s midterms, will not have it all his own way.CPAC will also hear from both of his officially declared Republican primary rivals in next year’s presidential race so far: Nikki Haley, the former South Carolina governor, and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. Mike Pompeo, a former secretary of state and potential candidate, will also speak. Each address will be closely analysed for veiled critiques of Trump – and for applause and cheers, boos and heckles, or polite indifference from the crowd.Kurt Bardella, a Democratic strategist, believes that it would be a “massive mistake strategically” for hopefuls to tiptoe around Trump. “How do you expect to beat a guy if you’re not willing to talk about him directly and contrast yourself with him?” he said. “You’re not giving the voters a reason to change the channel.”CPAC’s tweets mockingly point out that Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of the House of Representatives, and Joy Behar, a comedian and co-host of television’s The View, have not been invited to the conference. But a more striking absence, at least according to what has been announced so far, is Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, widely seen as the most credible threat to Trump.Rick Wilson, who attended many CPACs before cofounding the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said: “DeSantis is not going: I think that’s because Schlapp, like many other Republicans, has made the probably correct calculus that Ron DeSantis is an overpriced stock and Donald Trump is still the best known quantity in the Republican party.”Florida-based Wilson, who has met DeSantis in person and found him to have to the “charisma of a toaster oven”, argues that the current audience for the governor falls into three groups. “Culture war weirdos who believe this whole ‘woke’ thing, which is a meaningful but not enormous part of the party. National Review writers who are desperate, desperate, desperate, desperate, desperate for anything other than Trump so they can say, ‘See, we’re past that. We can go back to normal.’“I have some bad news for them. Nobody’s ever inviting them back in the room in the Republican party of tomorrow, just as nobody’s ever inviting guys like me back in the room. It’s over. The party’s run by the mob, not by the intellectuals, and it’s never going to go back. Once a movement becomes a populist movement dominated by the grassroots of the base, it never goes back to being a thoughtful, intellectually driven movement.”The third and final group, he added, “are liberal Republican hedge fund billionaires from New York. The open borders, globalist US Chamber of Commerce are going out of their way to help DeSantis! The irony is DeSantis thinks he can have the most elite support and then trick the Maga base into thinking he’s a rah-rah like Trump. It just defies imagination.”CPAC traditionally ends with a less than scientific “straw poll” of attendees’ preferences for the Republican presidential nomination. Trump has dominated it for years. Last summer in Dallas, Texas, he won with 69% of the vote, ahead of DeSantis on 24%. Anything other than a victory for Trump next week would cause political shockwaves.Joe Walsh, a former Republican congressman who estimates that he attended four of five CPACs, said: “Trump and DeSantis will be the number one and two in the poll. Haley and Pompeo and anybody else who might speak at CPAC right now has no shot, no chance, no nothing. It’s the party of Trumpism and Trumpism will be reflected in CPAC.”Border security, crime, culture wars and parents’ rights are likely to feature prominently at the conference. CPAC’s Twitter bio has the hashtags “#AwakeNotWoke” and “#FirePelosiSaveAmerica” – an outdated reference to the retired House speaker. CPAC’s website promotes a documentary entitled The Culture Killers with the warning: “The woke wars are coming to a neighborhood near you.”CPAC will also give the biggest platform yet to growing dissent in the nativist wing of the Republican party over US support for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, roughly $50bn and rising. Biden is likely to face criticism for having travelled to Kyiv in the same week that Trump headed to the scene of a toxic train disaster in East Palestine, Ohio.A group of Trump-aligned Republicans led by Gaetz recently introduced a “Ukraine fatigue” resolution calling for an end to military and financial aid to the embattled nation. Greene tweeted this week, “Ukraine is the new Iraq”, while DeSantis condemned the aid as an “open-ended blank cheque”, telling Fox News: “The fear of Russia going into Nato countries and all that, and steamrolling, that has not even come close to happening.”Walsh predicted: “You’ll hear anti-support for Ukraine, pro-Russia, pro-Putin, take care of our borders. You’ll hear that isolationist build-a-wall-around-America attitude at CPAC because that is an animating force now in the party. I doubt Nikki Haley, who is not an isolationist, will even talk about Ukraine, because that’s not what the people in that auditorium want to hear.”Ronald Reagan spoke at the first CPAC in 1974 and towered over it for years. A showpiece dinner is named in the 40th president’s honour, though it might be argued that CPAC has drifted far from his views on immigration, Russia and the definition of conservatism itself. This year Kari Lake, a former TV host who ran for governor of Arizona last year and still refuses to accept her defeat, is the featured speaker at the Reagan dinner.Bardella, who attended CPAC when he was previously a Republican congressional aide, said: “I remember a CPAC that had keynotes from figures like Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty and Paul Ryan. Now we’re seeing figures like Donald Trump and Sean Spicer and, in the past, Steve Bannon.“CPAC at one point in time thought of itself as the establishment conservative cattle call for presidential candidates and now it’s become completely overrun by the extremists and the fringe who are the new establishment of the Republican party. There was a time where someone with the last name Cheney would be welcomed as a hero at an event like CPAC. Now someone with the last name Cheney is considered an enemy of the Republican party.”Another familiar CPAC staple is an exhibitors’ hall where conservative groups promote their work, sell books and seek recruits. Ronald Solomon, president of the Maga Mall, a clothing and merchandising company, will be there as always. Speaking from his home near Palm Beach, Florida, he said his range contains about a hundred Trump or Trump-related hats, compared to around eight for DeSantis.“After that lacklustre midterm he waned a little bit but now the popularity is coming back,” he said. “I am convinced that Trump will be the nominee.”TopicsCPACDonald TrumpUS politicsRepublicansRon DeSantisWashington DCJoe BidenfeaturesReuse this content More

‘Old-school union busting’: how US corporations are quashing the new wave of organizingVictories at several companies energized organizers, but hostile corporations – and an impotent labor board – stymie negotiationsUS corporations have mounted a fierce counterattack against the union drives at Starbucks, Amazon and other companies, and in response, federal officials are working overtime to crack down on those corporations’ illegal anti-union tactics – maneuvers that labor leaders fear could significantly drain the momentum behind today’s surge of unionization.The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the federal agency that polices labor-management relations, has accused Starbucks and Amazon of a slew of illegal anti-union practices, among them firing many workers in retaliation for backing a union. Nonetheless, many workplace experts question whether the NLRB’s efforts, no matter how vigorous, can assure that workers have a fair shot at unionizing.Serving $66 entrees for $18 an hour: the union push at an upscale New York restaurantRead more“We’re seeing the same situation over and over – workers going up against billionaires and billion-dollar companies with an endless amount of resources while our labor laws are far too weak,” said Michelle Eisen, a barista in Buffalo who helped lead the early unionization efforts of Starbucks in that city. “We’re all fighting for the same thing against different companies. We’re all in the same boat. No one denies that there are a lot of obstacles to overcome.”“The labor board is doing its job with the limited resources it has,” she added. “But Starbucks continues to break the law flagrantly.” The union asserts that Starbucks has engaged in illegal retaliation by firing 150 pro-union baristas and closing a dozen recently unionized stores.Echoing many union leaders, Eisen says US labor laws are woefully inadequate because they don’t allow regulators to impose any fines on companies that break the law when fighting against unionization. Starbucks and Amazon deny firing anyone illegally or violating any laws in their fight against unionization.“These workers were supposed to be able to get together without fear of retaliation,” said Lynne Fox, president of Workers United, the union that workers at more than 280 Starbucks have voted to join. “But companies, including Starbucks, have determined that the penalty for retaliation is minimal – and much more appealing than allowing workers to unionize. Violating workers’ rights has simply become part of the cost of doing business.” Labor leaders complain that the penalty imposed for illegal retaliation is often just an order to post a notice on a company’s bulletin boards saying that it broke the law.Newly unionized workers are also frustrated and angry that efforts to reach a first contract are taking so long, with some unions asserting that companies are deliberately and illegally dragging out negotiations – an assertion the companies deny. Workers won breakthrough union victories at Starbucks in December 2021, and the next year saw several other organizing victories. REI workers had a successful union vote in March 2022, Amazon in April, Apple in June, Trader Joe’s in July and Chipotle in August, but none of those companies have reached a first contract.The extraordinary recent wave of unionization that corporate America has faced over the past year has been met with what union supporters say is an equally extraordinary wave of union-busting that has slowed and even stopped some unionization efforts.Shortly after workers at a Chipotle restaurant in Augusta, Maine, petitioned for a unionization vote in the hope of becoming the first Chipotle in the US to unionize, the company shut down the store. The NLRB has accused Chipotle of illegal retaliation and sought to order the fast-food chain to reopen the store. Chipotle says the closing was for legitimate business reasons.Brandi McNease, a pro-union worker at the Chipotle in Augusta, said: “They closed it down because we were going to get our vote and they were going to lose. It’s much easier for a multibillion-dollar corporation to face whatever the consequences are of that then to allow a union into one of their stores.”The NLRB has accused Apple of illegally spying on and threatening workers. The company’s anti-union efforts helped pressure Apple store workers in Atlanta to withdraw their request to hold a unionization election, although workers at Apple stores in Towson, Maryland, and Oklahoma City have voted to unionize.Trader Joe’s closed its one wine shop in New York City days before that shop’s workers were to announce plans to seek a union election. The workers have accused the company of shutting the store to quash the union drive and retaliate against the workers. Trader Joe’s says it didn’t shut the store because of the employees’ organizing efforts.On 17 February, a day after employees at a Tesla plant in Buffalo announced plans to unionize, Tesla fired dozens of workers there. Union supporters complained to the NLRB that Tesla dismissed 37 workers “in retaliation for union activity and to discourage union activity”. Tesla said the terminations had nothing to do with the union drive and were part of its regular performance-evaluation process.The NLRB has brought 75 complaints against Starbucks that accuse it of more than 1,000 illegal actions. Federal judges have ordered Starbucks to reinstate numerous pro-union baristas who they say were fired illegally. The labor board has accused Starbucks of refusing to bargain with workers at 21 stores in Oregon and Washington state. The union asserts that Starbucks is deliberately dragging out negotiations to dishearten union supporters. Starbucks representatives have walked out of dozens of bargaining sessions, refusing to talk so long as union negotiators insist on letting other union members use Zoom to watch the sessions.The NLRB has accused Amazon’s CEO, Andy Jassy, of illegally coercing and intimidating workers by saying they would be “less empowered” if they unionized. NLRB judges have ruled that Amazon fired several pro-union workers illegally, and the board recently accused Amazon of unlawfully terminating one of the most effective organizers at its JFK8 warehouse on Staten Island, where the Amazon Labor Union won a landmark victory for the warehouse’s 8,300 employees last 1 April.Ohio train derailment reveals need for urgent reform, workers sayRead moreAmazon has filed a series of challenges to overturn the union’s Staten Island victory in the hope of not having to recognize or bargain with the union. In January, an NLRB judge upheld the union’s victory, but Amazon said it would appeal.“We know they plan to appeal and appeal and drag things out,” said Christian Smalls, president of the Amazon Labor Union. Smalls voiced frustration that nearly a year after the Staten Island workers voted to unionize, there have been no contract talks.Benjamin Sachs, a labor law professor at Harvard, admits to some surprise that several supposedly progressive companies are using hardball anti-union tactics. “What we have is new economy companies using the old, anti-union playbook on a national scale and in a way that people are paying attention to,” Sachs said.“It’s not new, but it’s more prominent: firing union organizers, threatening to close stores, closing stores, not bargaining, holding captive audience meetings, selective granting of benefits. To observers of labor, this has been going on for a long time. What’s different is these companies that hold themselves as different and progressive – they’re proving they’re not. There’s a dissonance between these brands’ progressive image and their old-school union-busting.”Amazon has repeatedly denied any illegal anti-union actions. It said: “We don’t think unions are the best answer for our employees” and “our focus remains on working directly” with our them “to continue making Amazon a great place to work”. Amazon argues that the union’s win on Staten Island “was not fair, legitimate or representative of the majority” and should therefore be overturned, maintaining that the union illegally intimidated and harassed anti-union workers and illegally distributed marijuana to win support.Tesla fires more than 30 workers after union drive announcementRead moreStarbucks denies that it fired any pro-union baristas unlawfully, saying that those workers were dismissed for misconduct or violating company rules. The company denies that it is deliberately dragging out negotiations, saying: “Counter to the union’s claims, Starbucks continues to engage honestly and in good faith while ensuring actions taken align with decades of case law and precedent.” It added: “We’ve come to the table in person and in good faith for 84 single-store contract bargaining sessions since October 2022.” Starbucks acknowledges that it has walked out of bargaining sessions because the workers “insist on broadcasting” the sessions “to unknown individuals not in the room and, in some instances, have posted excerpts of the sessions online”.Leaders of the Starbucks union say they have repeatedly pledged that the workers would not broadcast, record or post excerpts of the bargaining sessions. Furthermore, they ask why Starbucks refuses to let union members watch the negotiations by Zoom when it allowed that practice during the pandemic and so many other companies allow the use of Zoom during negotiating sessions. For its part, Starbucks has accused the union of failing to bargain in good faith, a claim the union says is ludicrous.One study found that after workers won union elections, 52% of the time they were without a first contract a year later and 37% of the time without one two years later. Many companies drag out contract talks as long as they can in order to dishearten workers and show that there’s little to gain by unionizing and because they know they save money on wages and benefits by delaying – or never reaching – a first union contract. Moreover, many companies prolong contract talks in the hope that union members will grow frustrated with their union and vote to decertify it.Sarah Beth Ryther, a leader of the successful effort to unionize a Trader Joe’s in Minneapolis, said the retailer is moving far slower than she hoped in negotiations. “I have said it was like writing a novel. We were on page one for a long time, and now we’re finally on page two,” Ryther said. “It’s just folks with very little experience who have organized an independent union, and to face these union-busting tactics, it’s hard. We’re not being paid a thousand dollars an hour like some TJ’s lawyers. We do this because we want to help our fellow workers.”Even if the NLRB rules that a company broke the law by negotiating in bad faith to drag out negotiations, federal law doesn’t allow the labor board to order management to reach a contract. “Even if the NLRB issues a complaint about bad faith bargaining, it takes a long time to handle those cases. Any meaningful order is a year down the road,” said Wilma Liebman, who headed the NLRB under Barack Obama. “The remedies take too long and they’re too weak. The board can’t order parties to reach an agreement or make concessions.”Liebman pointed to the big issue that labor organizing faces right now. “Can the unionization surge be sustained by continued growth?” she asked. “Otherwise it’s going to fizzle. This is the year that’s kind of make or break.”Under federal law, employers can’t be fined for illegal delays or bargaining in bad faith. The proposed protecting the right to organize (Pro) act sought to overcome lengthy delays by providing that if the two sides failed to reach a contract within 120 days of a new union’s being certified, a panel of arbitrators should be appointed to decide on the terms of a first two-year contract. The Pro act would also allow for substantial fines against employers that violate the law when fighting unions. The House of Representatives approved the Pro act in March 2021, but, facing a filibuster and unanimous Republican opposition, the legislation went nowhere in the Senate.Sachs says corporations have sizable incentives to violate the law when battling against unions because the National Labor Relations Act doesn’t provide for any fines for illegal actions. “We need to fundamentally change the incentive structure facing employers during union drives,” he said. “You can change the incentive structure in different ways. Consumers can do it if there is a national boycott of Starbucks or Apple or Chipotle or REI. That would have a huge impact. The other way to change the incentive structure would be to have massive monetary damages for anti-union violations. That would require not only legislative change, but the courts to order damage awards – and that would be a slow process.”Eisen, the barista in Buffalo, voices keen dismay that Starbucks keeps ratcheting up the pressure against the union drive. Arguably its most effective strategy to discourage unionization was not the firings or store closings, but when its CEO, Howard Schultz, announced that the company would give certain raises and benefits to its nonunion workers while denying them to workers at its unionized stores. The NLRB has brought a complaint asserting that this Starbucks policy illegally discriminates against union members.‘The lavatory waste comes on us’: unsafe, unsanitary work conditions, airport workers claimRead more“One of the things we need to win is public pressure,” Eisen said. “Can we let billionaires and billionaire companies continue to bully their way out of union campaigns? That’s essentially what is happening. It’s not fair. We need as much help as we can get. We need the public to recognize that these companies are not as good as they say they are.”The anti-union tactics have taken their toll. Partly because Starbucks’ aggressive anti-union efforts have discouraged and frightened many workers, the number of petitions for union elections at Starbucks stores has dropped from 71 last March to about 10 per month recently. Trader Joe’s workers in Boulder, Colorado, withdrew their petition for a unionization vote a day after they filed charges accusing the retailer of illegal intimidation and coercion. With highly paid anti-union consultants on hand to press workers to vote no, the Amazon Labor Union lost a unionization vote at a warehouse outside Albany, New York, and following that loss and facing an anti-union campaign, workers at an Amazon warehouse in Moreno Valley, California, withdrew their petition for a union election.“That comes with the territory, but that’s what we signed up for as organizers,” said the Amazon Labor Union’s Smalls. “We know this is a marathon not a sprint. In the words of Mother Jones, you fight like hell. That’s what we’re doing right now, fighting like hell.”TopicsUS unionsAmazonStarbucksAppleUS politicsTeslaReuse this content More

Dining across the divide US special: ‘I got the impression he felt all Democrats were horrible. He made us sound like Bond villains’One votes Democrat and the other wants Donald Trump to win in 2024. Where does that leave them on immigration, abortion or Ukraine?Jason, 51, Crestview, FloridaOccupation Middle-school principalVoting record Normally votes Democrat and considers himself a centristAmuse bouche As a “military brat”, Jason lived in lots of exciting places around the world growing up, including Ipswich. He also lived in Idaho for a time, which was a culture shock after Europe. “You should absolutely never go there”Paul, 70, Destin, FloridaOccupation Pathologist, partially retiredVoting record Has always voted Republican. Wants Trump to win in 2024Amuse bouche Paul was drafted into the South African army in his early 20s. One of his hobbies is wineFor startersJason I had a tuna salad. Normally I’d have gone crazy with the food, but I had open-heart surgery in September and I’m trying not to die. I had a glass of wine, and he had a pinot. He was classy and knew exactly what wine he wanted. I said: “Gimme the house wine.”Paul I had a tuna salad as an appetizer. Then a “wine bar salad”, which was excellent. Jason was a lot more like me than I had expected. In his general outlook, there’s a lot of similarities.Jason Paul was really nice. Very educated. Very opinionated. He said that at Thanksgiving last year there were people who had different views from him and they got up from the table and left. He has very strong opinions, but that doesn’t mean his opinions don’t have value.The big beefJason I feel very strongly that we should be involved in Ukraine; he does not. I think America can’t be isolationist. We have to look after our allies because they look after us. He said the money being spent on Ukraine should be spent in America. I said that’s a different pot. Just because we’re spending money on Ukraine doesn’t mean we can’t spend on other things.Paul The only agreement we came to on Ukraine was that there’s currently no endgame. Without a solution, I believe we are drifting towards world war three.Jason We also disagreed on the southern border. I don’t have answers, but I don’t think walls and more security will fix it.Paul He said it is impossible to secure a border; I believe it’s totally possible. There should be a wall. Throughout history, going back to the Great Wall of China, walls have proved effective. We also talked about why immigrants don’t stay in their own country and fix it. We never got any agreement on that.Jason He said that illegal immigrants get better healthcare benefits than poor Americans. And I said: “I’m not sure that’s true.” That upset him. He said: “Well, you gotta trust that I know what I’m talking about.” That was when he said that Obama has a social security number from a state he never lived in. I said: “Is that true? I’ve never read that.” He said it’s public knowledge.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateJason We found some common ground on abortion. My argument was that it shouldn’t be legislated; it’s a woman’s right, and I can’t tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her body. His response was that it’s not just her body; there’s another being in there. But he did believe in early term abortion.Paul We agreed there has to be a cut-off time. You can’t kill the baby at birth. The question that wasn’t resolved was what that cut-off should be. I’d draw a very firm line in the sand at 12 weeks. Jason wasn’t sure where he’d draw that line.For aftersPaul We talked about Trump. I went to the same church as him before he was president. Some people implied he only went to church after he was running for president, which was not true. I think Trump created a world of stability. I don’t think we got an agreement there.Jason His view was that Trump kept us safer and that foreign powers didn’t act out when Trump was president because of his effectiveness. I don’t think we were better off with Trump.TakeawaysJason We talked about critical race theory, and he thinks children are being taught to be ashamed about being American. That’s not the case. We have flags in every classroom. We start each day with the pledge of allegiance.Paul We realised we had a lot more in common when we really talked than we first thought. The only thing he changed my mind about was that some people on his side of the fence are probably open to discussion. The country is so polarised that I’m pessimistic about the ability of the union to stay together. But if more people talk to each other as human beings there may be more common ground.Jason I don’t think either of us changed the other person’s opinion. Except maybe when it comes to the fact that not all Democrats and Republicans are horrible. I don’t think all Republicans are horrible, but I got the impression he felt that all Democrats were. He made us sound like Bond villains. Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Jason and Paul ate at The Wine Bar in Destin, Florida.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialUS politicsSocial trendsUS immigrationDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More

ReviewThe Courage to be Free review: Ron DeSantis bows and scrapes to TrumpOn the page, the Florida governor doesn’t show much courage about the man he must beat to be the Republican nomineeThe latest polls place Ron DeSantis and Joe Biden in a footrace for 2024. Florida’s 44-year-old Republican governor leads the octogenarian president by a whisker. More Americans like DeSantis than otherwise. Whether he can capture the Republican nomination, however, remains an open question. He has not yet declared his candidacy and trails Donald Trump in hypothetical matchups. Then again, no one else comes close.DeSantis praises Trump for ‘enhancing my name recognition’ in new bookRead moreSaid differently, Trump and his legacy remain forces for any Republican to reckon with. Nikki Haley, an announced candidate for the GOP nomination, can barely mention his name. She wants to supplant her ex-boss by eliding him. A bold strategy.DeSantis is patient. He will probably wait to announce until late spring, when the Florida legislature adjourns. For the moment, he expects us to be content with The Courage to Be Free, a memoir-cum-288-page-exercise in sycophancy and ambition tethered to a whole lot of owning the libs.It is a mirthless read, lacking even the gleeful invective of Never Give an Inch, the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo’s own opening shot on the road to 2024. Predictably, DeSantis berates the left as unpatriotic and ruinous, all while prostrating himself before his former patron.“I knew that a Trump endorsement would provide me with the exposure to GOP primary voters across the state of Florida,” he admits, discussing his campaign for governor in 2018. “I was confident that many would see me as a good candidate once they learned about my record.”It’s all about bowing and scraping.“Trump also brought a unique star power to the race. If someone had asked me, as a kid growing up in the 80s and 90s, to name someone who was rich, I – and probably nearly all my friends – would have responded by naming Donald Trump.”DeSantis was born in 1978. Growing up, he would have seen Trump’s fortunes plummet and his first marriage hit the skids.Apparently, 80s and 90s success stories – Steve Jobs of Apple, say, or Bill Gates of Microsoft – failed to cross DeSantis’s radar. These days, by contrast, the governor has a heap of scorn for the giants of tech. He depicts big tech as censorious, concentrated and “woke”. He reiterates his disdain for Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook and George Soros, financier and liberal patron.DeSantis criticizes Zuckerberg’s Center for Technology and Civic Life for funding election operations. He contends that such private-public partnerships undermine public faith in electoral integrity and give Democrats a boost. He says nothing about Citizens United, the 2010 supreme court decision that set corporate money loose on US elections, other than to distinguish campaign donations from ballot mechanics. This weekend, at the Four Seasons hotel in Palm Beach, DeSantis will host a getaway for the deep-pocketed set.DeSantis also fails to examine the ties that bound the Mercer family – DeSantis donors and Trump stalwarts – with Facebook and Zuckerberg. In 2014, Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct company then partly owned by the Mercer family, used Facebook to illegally harvest personal data. Steve Bannon, who would become Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, was a board member and officer. He denies personal culpability.The Mercers own Breitbart News, which Bannon once led. Parler, owned by Rebekah Mercer, allegedly provided connective tissue for the January 6 insurrection. In the run-up to the riot, the network emerged as a forum for violent threats, so much so that it warned the FBI of “specific threats of violence being planned at the Capitol”.On the page, not surprisingly, DeSantis does not examine the January 6 attack. He does loudly take credit for a Florida law that would have regulated platforms like Facebook and Twitter. Here, again, he omits crucial details. Namely, federal courts found the law unconstitutional: it violated first-amendment free-speech protections.“Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can’t tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it,” wrote Kevin Newsom, a Trump-appointed judge on the 11th circuit. “We hold that it is substantially likely that social media companies – even the biggest ones – are private actors whose rights the first amendment protects.”Florida is urging the supreme court to review the case. Adding to the drama, Trump filed an amicus brief. The high court awaits a submission from the justice department.True to form, DeSantis brands the “national legacy press” as the “pretorian guard of the nation’s failed ruling class” and seconds Trump’s claim that the “fake news media” is the “enemy of the American People”. Yet for all of this media-bashing in the name of supposed truth, the governor omits the role of Fox News in propagating fake news about the presidential election and defamation cases brought against the news channel.How Dominion Voting Systems filing proves Fox News was ‘deliberately lying’Read moreOff the page, on that issue, DeSantis is at least mildly subversive. Recently, he featured the attorney Elizabeth “Libby” Locke at a confab dedicated to attacking the press and gutting US libel law. Significantly, Locke is representing Dominion Voting Systems in its $1.6bn defamation suit against Fox News arising from allegedly false reporting on the 2020 election. The case is set for an April trial in Delaware.“DeSantis hosting Dominion lawyer Libby Locke! He is showing his true colors!” So shrieked Mike Lindell, AKA the MyPillow guy and Trump adviser, on Twitter.DeSantis thinks he can have it both ways. Democrats would do well to take him literally and seriously. Last fall, he won re-election by a jaw-dropping 19 points, attracting more than two in five working-class minority voters and making serious inroads among African Americans.His book recounts all this. So far, the Democrats have offered little by way of response. At the polls, low taxes, plenty of sunshine and Jimmy Buffet’s greatest hits are a tough combination to beat.
The Courage to Be Free: Florida’s Blueprint for America’s Revival is published in the US by HarperCollins
TopicsBooksRon DeSantisDonald TrumpUS elections 2024RepublicansFloridaUS politicsreviewsReuse this content More

US agency to reverse Covid-19 policy for frequently abused prescription drugsPatients using Adderall, OxyContin and other medicines with ‘high potential for abuse’ will be required to physically visit a doctorThe US Drug Enforcement Administration has proposed rules that would again require patients to visit doctors in-person to obtain prescriptions for certain medications that are frequently abused.What does the Adderall shortage in the US mean for ADHD patients?Read moreThe announcement seeks to reverse policy changes made during the Covid-19 pandemic which allowed doctors to prescribe controlled drugs such as Adderall and OxyContin through virtual tele-health appointments.On Friday, the DEA said that patients would be required to physically visit a doctor at least once in order to get a prescription on drugs that have been categorized as schedule II substances by the government. Those substances, which the government says have a “high potential for abuse”, include Adderall, OxyContin, Vicodin and Ritalin.The proposed rules are on track to affect thousands of Americans who have relied on tele-health services throughout the pandemic in order to more easily access their medications. But they do not affect tele-health appointments which do not require doctors to prescribe controlled medications.They also do not affect consultations by doctors who have previously conducted an in-person medical examination of a patient.“The DEA is committed to ensuring that all Americans can access needed medications,” agency administrator Anne Milgram said in a statement.She added: “The permanent expansion of telemedicine flexibilities would continue greater access to care for patients across the country, while ensuring the safety of patients. The DEA is committed to the expansion of telemedicine with guardrails that prevent the online overprescribing of controlled medications that can cause harm.”The proposed rules would also allow doctors to prescribe a 30-day supply of buprenorphine through tele-health appointments to treat opioid use disorder.“Medication for opioid use disorder helps those who are fighting to overcome substance use disorder by helping people achieve and sustain recovery, and also prevent drug poisonings,” Milgram said. She added: “The telemedicine regulations would continue to expand access to buprenorphine for patients with opioid use disorder.”The DEA plans to implement the proposed rules prior to the expiration of the federal Covid-19 public health emergency declaration on 11 May.Despite the convenience of tele-health services, some critics argue that their expansion has allowed for certain companies to take advantage of the flexibility and in turn prescribe unnecessary medications.“Both sides of this tension have really good points,” a drug historian at the University of Buffalo, David Herzberg, told the Associated Press.“You don’t want barriers in the way of getting people prescriptions they need. But anytime you remove those barriers it’s also an opportunity for profit seekers to exploit the lax rules and sell the medicines to people who may not need them.”Additionally, the DEA’s announcement comes amid a still raging opioid overdose crisis across the country which has in recent years been fueled by illicitly manufactured fentanyl, a synthetic opioid. And it arrives as patients have reported problems filling nearly every type of ADHD medication prescription for reasons that haven’t been clear.TopicsUS newsUS politicsDrugsnewsReuse this content More

Dining across the divide US special: ‘I read an article he wrote about being attacked at a Black Lives Matter protest’One is centre-right, the other 100% Democrat. Where do they stand on immigration, defunding the police, and closing Guantánamo?Atam, 74, San Francisco, CaliforniaOccupation Retired nuclear engineerVoting record 100% Democrat for the past 40 yearsAmuse bouche Atam is a lifetime member of both the Sierra Club (a conservation organization) and the American Nuclear SocietyDon, 38, the Bay Area, California, and Reno, NevadaOccupation Freelance journalist and urban studies studentVoting record Mostly centre-right. Was Republican, but now identifies as independentAmuse bouche Voted for Trump in 2020 because he didn’t want him to win – “I have a tendency to vote for the loser, so I hoped that would help”For startersAtam My first impression was that he was 30 minutes late and didn’t say sorry. But I was happy waiting at the restaurant; my daughter-in-law had been the pastry chef there.Don By default, I like to listen to what people have to say. He talked about his family and how he liked to travel. We talked about Reno, where I’m from, and how he used to go there to ski.Atam I had two starters: a crab salad and some trout. Most of the food on the menu I try to avoid for health reasons.Don I had crab salad and fried chicken.The big beefAtam We talked about Guantánamo Bay. He thinks it should remain open and that the detainees shouldn’t be put on trial. He believes that if one of them gets released, they’ll go back and start another war against us.Don These people are enemy combatants. I don’t believe they are due a trial because of their special criminal status. Atam said everyone should be allowed a trial regardless of status.Atam Don’t we have a system where we presume innocence until proven guilty? I said we’re causing more harm in the world than good by holding people without trial. There were 750 detainees and there are 30 or 40 left and we’re spending half a billion a year to hold them.Don He was very knowledgable on the numbers, but I stuck to my position. These are wartime combatants and it’s not a normal situation.Atam There didn’t appear to be any facts behind his position; it seemed to be all based on feeling.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateAtam A country needs immigrants from all different backgrounds – that’s what’s given the US its strength.Don Immigration is a good thing when it’s done correctly. But our southern border is porous and broken; we need to stop the influx of people from South and Central America. We need more immigration judges and personnel to track those who come across. People from other countries must wait in line.Atam It’s partly our policies in Central America that have given us the drug lords and dictatorships that people are fleeing from. We should be more open to those leaving. There’s also a huge shortage of workers in our country.For aftersAtam I looked Don up before we met, and read an article he wrote about being attacked at a Black Lives Matter protest. I wanted to know more about it and understand how it had affected him. I went to three protests myself. One was in my neighbourhood, which I will say is the whitest neighbourhood in San Francisco, and there was not a single Black person in the protest. The message from that was that all of society had woken up and realised something was wrong.Don I was covering a BLM protest for a local news outlet and it turned violent. A pair of hooligans who were ransacking Reno city hall beat me up for filming them. I understood why they were protesting, but I didn’t think it was necessary for them to turn to violence. The incident softened me to both the protesters and the police. It also made me aware of the fact that I’m Black in America. Atam understood why I didn’t support the Defund the Police movement.Atam To me, Defund the Police means we need to spend more money on the root causes of crime rather than putting more people with guns on the street. San Francisco has more than 20 police for every 10,000 people and crime is still high.Don The intentions behind Defund the Police are good, but the follow-through is not. I get what they are trying to do – fund services that help minority communities – but I’m not in favour. It won’t work, it’s too extreme.TakeawaysAtam It was a very civil conversation, but I don’t think we clicked. He suggested we share contact details, but I don’t think we’ll be meeting up.Don We got on very well. We didn’t find common ground, but I got an understanding of where he was coming from on a few issues.Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Atam and Don ate at Nopa in San Francisco.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsUS policingBlack Lives Matter movementUS immigrationfeaturesReuse this content More

Dining across the divide US special: ‘He said it was my opinion that humans caused climate change. No, it’s science’He’s a Republican, she is a Democrat – can they find any common ground on the climate crisis, taxes or the truth about the Capitol attack?April, 48, Boulder, ColoradoOccupation Massage therapistVoting record Democrat. April says: “I have always had liberal views”Amuse bouche April has a dog “the size of a squirrel”. She’s an artist and does graphite illustrationsTed, 59, Boulder, ColoradoOccupation Sales managerVoting record Republican. Voted for Trump twice, but doesn’t defend him – “I think he was kind of a jackass, the way he carried himself in public”Amuse bouche Ted, who is one of April’s clients, almost died after jumping into a supposedly dry stream to retrieve a golf ball. He got stuck waist-deep in mud and his friends had to fish him out with a poleFor startersApril I don’t usually hang out with my clients, but it wasn’t awkward. I’ve known Ted for a few years and we’ve developed a comfortable relationship. Still, there’s a different power differential when the person’s naked on the bed and you’re not.Ted At the beginning, we were joking about whether this was going to be a cat fight. But it didn’t turn out to be; it was a lively debate. Before I left for the dinner, my wife told me: “Remember, it’s OK to have different opinions!” I went there with an open mind.April I had oysters on the half shell, half a steamed lobster, a cup of gumbo, key lime pie and a pinot grigio. I didn’t know you could get such good oysters in the middle of the country.Ted I had mussels and a bowl of gumbo.The big beefApril We got swept up in talking about the climate. He believes climate change is real but doesn’t believe humans are responsible.Ted She kept using the word “exponentially”. And I just don’t know for sure if humans are powerful enough to change the course of events on Earth to the extent she thinks we can.April I was emphasizing that if you look at history, the speed of climate change is unprecedented. It took thousands of years for the magnitude of change we’ve caused in one century. And he didn’t agree. He kept saying it was my opinion. I’m like, no, it’s science. There’s research.Ted Another point of contention was transitioning to green energy. I think we should continue to use fossil fuels until we get the clean energy ready to go and then transition, like the market would have you do. She’s ready to make the change now. She thinks the oil companies are profiteers. I think we’re in a capitalist society and they’re just making money. It’s very expensive to go out and find oil and gas. I don’t think they’re taking advantage of us.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSharing plateApril We agreed that politicians on both sides are insanely greedy. They all seem to think they should be allowed to invest in stocks while in office. We both think Washington is a swamp.Ted Neither of us have trust in politicians. They’re going to pander to whomever they’re trying to talk to, but it’s like professional wrestling: you’re arch enemies on TV, and then you go out and share drinks.For aftersApril We had a hard time understanding each other’s perspectives around inequality and taxation. He has more experience in economics, but I have more experience living at the lower end of those economics. I think corporations and top executives need to be taxed more and have their bonuses revamped.Ted There’s plenty of money to go around. Instead of just throwing money at an issue, we need to manage it better. Take education: I think there’s local corruption. The teachers’ unions are a problem. We should get the local people out of there and have it run by outsiders.April January 6 came up. We had very different views of what happened. We ended up steering away from the subject because we knew nothing productive was going to happen there. We would end up in a situation where he wouldn’t be coming back to see me ever again as a client if we continued on that subject.Ted Supposedly there’s a video they’re going to release that shows the FBI had a number of agents dressed as Trump supporters at the rally. I don’t think the whole thing was a setup, but my opinion is they’re trying to do anything they can to keep Donald Trump from being in office or running again.TakeawaysTed We had some common ground, but she was pretty adamant on her views and I wasn’t going to back down on mine. I think people pull themselves up, they work hard, and get successful. She has more of a victim mentality. That shapes how she sees things.April Ted’s a great guy and he’d give you the shirt off his back. But nothing will change his mind on the climate. There’s a lack of trust in anything that comes out of our side. That’s what he was calling it. He was like: “Your side, my side.” It became an argument rather than a debate at that point.Additional reporting: Kitty Drake April and Ted ate at Jax Fish House & Oyster Bar in Boulder, Colorado.Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take partTopicsLife and styleDining across the divide US specialSocial trendsUS politicsClimate crisisDonald TrumpfeaturesReuse this content More