Business

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Corporate America buckles down for culture war on Roe v Wade

      by

      Corporate America buckles down for culture war on Roe v WadeRepublicans are mulling retaliation against firms providing benefits such as travel assistance for employees seeking abortion After a supreme court decision that overturns Roe v Wade was leaked and signaled the impending end of federal constitutional protection for abortions, a trickle of companies have slowly started to announce policies that provide abortion access for their employees. But while the protections may keep employees and consumers happy, the threat of retaliation from conservative lawmakers looms.Abortion surveillance: in a post-Roe world, could an internet search lead to an arrest? Read moreCitigroup, one of the biggest banks in the US, quietly started covering the travel expenses of employees who want to get an abortion but are banned from getting one in their home state.The benefit was not announced publicly. Instead, the company mentioned the change in benefits in a March filing for shareholders. Once news outlets began to report on the new benefit, the Republican ire began.Conservatives in Congress asked House and Senate administrators to cancel its contract with the company, which issues credit cards to lawmakers to use for work-related flights, office supplies and other goods. A state lawmaker in Texas, infuriated by Citigroup, introduced a bill that would prevent companies from doing business with local governments in Texas if they provide abortion-related benefits to their employees.“Citigroup decided to pander to the woke ideologues in its C-suite instead of obeying the laws of Texas,” said Briscoe Cain, the Texas state representative who introduced the bill, in a statement. “We will enact laws necessary to prevent this misuse of shareholder money and hold Citigroup accountable for its violation of our state’s abortion laws”.Citigroup has now been joined by Amazon, Apple, Yelp, Match Group, Tesla and Levi Strauss & Company, all which have said they will offer travel assistance to employees who are in states that restrict abortions. Insiders at JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs have told news outlets they too are considering similar policies.“I expect there will be a significant shift and the most leading companies are going to recognize that they need to protect the healthcare of their employees,” said Shelley Alpern, director of shareholder advocacy at Rhia Ventures. “Most companies would like to avoid taking a public stance on this issue because it’s so controversial, but there are higher risks for companies when they don’t protect their employees’ healthcare access.”In today’s heated political climate – and with midterm elections looming – corporate America can expect a fiery response to any stance it takes on Roe’s fall. But given the widespread impact the end of Roe v Wade will have on much of the country – 26 states will restrict abortion access if the decision is overturned – it is unlikely that companies can get away with not responding to the issue once the supreme court makes its final decision.Neeru Paharia, an associate professor at Georgetown University McDonough School of Business, said that people expect more out of companies as trust in government has fallen.“People are enacting their political will in the marketplace,” she said. For consumers, a purchase from a company can be a symbolic sign of support. For employees, their identities can be tied to the ethical positions of the company they work for.Over the last few years, corporate America has started to become more vocal on various issues that have gotten the attention of conservative lawmakers, including voting rights and LGBTQ+ issues. But conservative politicians have gotten bolder at fighting back against what they consider to be “woke capitalism”.While the GOP has historically positioned itself as the business-friendly, tax-cutting political party, conservative lawmakers have been emboldened to threaten and punish companies who speak out on controversial issues.Last month, Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, revoked special land use privileges the state gave to Disney for its Disney World theme park in Orlando after the company – responding to backlash from employees and consumers – spoke out against the state’s “don’t say gay” law. The move appeared to catch people by surprise. Lloyd Blankfein, former Goldman Sachs CEO, tweeted that the move “smacks of government retaliation for exercising free speech. Bad look for a conservative.”“That was really shocking,” Paharia said. “Now you have a situation where consumers and employees want companies to take a political stance, but then you have governments that are possibly retaliating against them.”When it comes to abortion, “even though it might not be [explicitly] taking a side … [companies] are taking a position based on the kind of benefits they are going to offer their employees”.The threats lawmakers have made have so far not come to fruition, but the party seems serious on trying to penalize companies in some way. The Republican senator Marco Rubio introduced a bill this week that would not allow companies to deduct abortion-related travel benefits as regular employee benefits when a company files its taxes.“Our tax code should be pro-family and promote a culture of life,” he said in a statement.With these warnings, companies may try to keep the introduction of abortion-related quiet or downplay their significance. When Citigroup’s CEO, Jane Fraser – the first woman to lead a major American bank – was asked in a shareholders meeting about the company’s new abortion travel benefit, she said the benefit “isn’t intended to be a statement about a very sensitive issue”.“What we did here was follow our past practices,” she said, adding that the company had “covered reproductive healthcare benefits for over 20 years. And our practice has also been to make sure our employees have the same health coverage, no matter where in the US they live.”Jen Stark, senior director of corporate strategy at Tara Health Foundation, who helped coordinate the signatures of over 180 executives in a statement against abortion bans in 2019, said the potential backlash from conservative lawmakers proves that companies need to act on abortion restrictions beyond mitigating effects for their employees.“They can buy all the plane tickets their workers need, and that addresses the immediate harm, but the structural deficiency is the collateral damage,” she said. “The supreme court case didn’t happen in a bubble … you’re kind of walking over the rubble.”Beyond benefits for employees, Stark has been advocating for companies to use their lobbying powers and scrutinize political donations as state lawmakers prepare to restrict abortions.“We are at the moment everyone’s cried wolf about. It’s here, but there was also a lot of headwind,” she said. “What companies can do with a stroke of a pen to mitigate some of the harm is important, but the larger issue is getting out of this structural whirlpool that we’re in.”TopicsRoe v WadeCitigroupBankingGoldman SachsAppleUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘What am I going to do?’: soaring prices fuel calls for US government to step in

      by

      ‘What am I going to do?’: soaring prices fuel calls for US government to step inLarge corporations are passing on higher-than-needed price increases to customers under the cover of inflation, war and supply chain squeezes, experts say Outside a Dollar Tree in Detroit, Latasha Holmes lamented the rising cost of toilet paper, beverages, food and other items she had just purchased. The price increases, she said, were forcing her to choose among necessities for her and four kids.“What am I going to do? Prices are up everywhere, all over town,” she said. “I can’t afford everything.”But while Holmes struggles, Dollar Tree thrives. The retailer increased its prices by 25% as profits jumped 269% between 2019 and 2021, and its profit margins widened. Shareholders won too. The company also announced a stock buyback program worth $1bn that will deliver cash from those price increases to its investors.Dollar Tree and other large corporations are juicing profits by passing on higher-than-needed price increases to customers like Holmes under the cover of inflation, war and supply chain squeezes, consumer advocates and economists say. They are calling for the federal government to take bold steps to rein in the companies.Revealed: top US corporations raising prices on Americans even as profits surgeRead moreAmong proposed prescriptions are price controls, improved price fixing rules, commodity market intervention, stock buyback regulation and antitrust enforcement. Ranged against those proposals are a powerful business lobby and a divided Congress that seems unable to pass major legislation.“There are reasons to have a profit incentive, but there are also reasons to have an overall regulatory body that can say, ‘This is actually profiteering … while everyone is hurting,’” said Krista Brown, a policy analyst with the American Economic Liberties Project.A Guardian analysis of 100 top corporations’ Securities Exchange Commission filings found a median increase of 49% in profits between the most recent quarter and the same quarter two years ago, pre-pandemic. It shows companies have largely shielded themselves from inflationary pain by passing most or all of their increased costs on to customers via price hikes.So far, the federal government’s most visible attempt to address inflation has been to increase interest rates, rates look set to rise again this week. But the Guardian’s data suggests such a measure may miss an important mark. Raising rates effectively takes money out of consumers’ pockets to cool the economy.If corporate profits are contributing in a meaningful way, then raising rates would only reduce the amount of money people have to spend on products and services for which prices are still going up.“That would mean you’re exacerbating this dynamic instead of doing anything to help it,” said Isabella Weber, University of Massachusetts Amherst economist.Instead, limited and targeted price controls could work for essentials like bread, she said, but stressed those would have to be coupled with a bailout plan for negatively affected companies.“Increased prices for basic items like bread can exert enormous pressure on wages” and send inflationary ripples throughout the economy, Weber added. Though price controls are controversial and generally regarded as a leftist idea, the last president to enact them was Richard Nixon, who imposed a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to address inflation in 1970. Price controls were also enacted during and following the second world war, when, again, supply chain issues and pent up demand led to soaring prices.Table of 100 US companies’ profit growthBut price rises are not the only issue critics would like to see the Biden administration address. Others, like Groundwork Collective’s executive director, Lindsay Owens, have called for a ban or new restrictions on stock buyback programs. Joe Biden’s 2023 budget proposes prohibiting executives from selling their stock three to five years after enacting a buyback program.“The other big winner besides the shareholders in excess cash that’s going to buybacks are the executives,” Owens said. “They announce the buybacks, their stock prices soar, then they sell their shares and there are a number of ways to make this work better.”The Guardian’s analysis found companies’ buyback programs over the last 15 months totaled $544bn. That cash could have been reinvested to keep prices down, or increase workers’ wages, consumer advocates say.Others levelled accusations of price fixing and gouging. The American Economic Liberties Project is helping draft legislation that would make it easier for businesses to sue companies for price fixing by making private corporate communications more accessible. As of now, only 3% of price fixing cases make it to trial, Brown said.“Reinvigorating price fixing laws and going after price gouging in moments like this, where a war or Covid are used as excuses for companies to raise rates just because they can, could help a lot,” she added.Fixing is especially a problem in highly consolidated industries, consumer advocates say. Companies have benefited from “decades long under-enforcement of consolidation laws”, added Martin Schmalz, an Oxford University economist.Just four companies control most of the US beef industry, four airlines control about 80% of domestic passenger traffic, Walmart accounts for the majority of grocery sales in the majority of US states, the list goes on and on.And it’s not just the companies that have outsized control. Large investors also a role to play.Schmalz pointed to the Investment Company Act, which limits investment funds to holding no more than 10% of a corporation’s securities. Vanguard on average holds 10% of all S&P 500 companies, Schmalz research has found, but it is not violating the law because companies within its fund family own the shares, not Vanguard itself. But Vanguard still executes the voting rights of more than 10% of shareholders.“The law is written at the fund level so technically speaking they don’t violate the law, but they are violating the spirit of the law,” Schmalz said.Economists and attorneys working on US antitrust law have proposed prosecuting mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard that own large stakes in multiple companies in the same sector. Such shareholders can exert an outsize influence on companies’ pricing decisions, Schmalz said, and he noted Investment Company Act language that specifically targets this scenario: “The national public interest … is adversely affected … when investment companies [have] great size [and] excessive influence on the national economy.”Schmalz said there’s little discussion among policymakers to address that specific issue.Biden’s budget includes over $220m for antitrust enforcement, and bills that would break up large tech companies have bipartisan Senate and House support.The Guardian’s analysis highlighted the commodity market boom as companies trading in grain, steel, mining, wood, rubber, meat, oil, homes and other materials generally recorded higher profit increases than companies across the rest of the economy.However, many commodity companies operate in what analysts characterize as “feast and famine” cycles in which they’re unprofitable for years before cashing in. The pendulum has swung for many commodity companies in the day’s economic climate.“When there’s a chance to raise prices when markets are tight, companies are going to do so,” said Skanda Amarnath, executive director of the Employ America thinktank. “It’s some part opportunistic, some part greed, some part rationality, some part a response to uncertainty.”The oil industry highlights the dynamic. After seven years of low returns, it’s restricting supply to boost profits regardless of how that hits Americans at the pump. Earnings calls transcripts reveal executives eagerly “putting shareholders first” and an investor who described industry-wide supply suppression “one of the delights of this earnings season”.Bar chart of the monthly change in US wages since January 2019Bringing volatile commodity prices under control would require curtailing uncertainty and building supply chain resiliency, analysts who spoke with the Guardian say. That could involve some degree of government intervention to cut down on risk by establishing a floor on commodity prices. The government could do that by effectively becoming the “buyer of last resort” when material prices dip below a certain level.But the government should also set a ceiling above which it collects profits, said commodities analyst Alex Turnbull. He suggested the federal government set up what’s effectively a state reserve board.Turnbull pointed to lithium, which, amid increased demand for EV batteries and supply chain squeezes, jumped from $5,000 a ton to $45,000 a ton last year. Higher prices impact the pace of the clean energy transition, and the government could hypothetically set a $10,000 a ton floor price and $25,000 a ton ceiling that would limit the volatility, Turnbull said.The federal government could also increase stockpile reserves of products like grain or oil that are released when prices spike.“That sends the message ‘You should plant more wheat because if it goes really bad, you might have a lean year or two, but we will buy your wheat. But on the other hand don’t expect to buy a Lamborghini if you’re a farmer in Iowa because when prices get too high we’ll be out there selling the shit out of our stockpiles,’” Turnbull said.Stabilization may also spur investment in raw material production that’s risky, which would further bolster markets against future supply shortages. Few companies have built steel plants in recent years because the prices have been so low, Turnbull noted, and now the world is short on steel.Though price caps are “not politically palatable” Bespoke Investment analyst George Pearkes said, the government could take a number of measures to steer futures curves and markets for raw commodities like oil and wheat.“Something in between where there are strategic efforts to smooth volatility, and provide the private sector with enough certainty that they can make decisions is a lot more compelling,” he said.Spikes in investment for some commodities, like nickel, that are essential to the clean energy transition, can be a positive development, Turnbull said. Mining companies limped through the several years leading up to the pandemic, but reaped windfalls over the last year.“People say ‘Nickel producers are making too much money’, well, they didn’t make money for a decade,” Turnbull said. “At some point, somebody has to put money down to dig holes because people aren’t going to drive to the middle of fucking nowhere with a truck and work for free.”Another force in some commodity price spikes: Wall Street speculation. Commodity markets were once heavily regulated because they deal in raw materials that underpin the economy. An influx of investment capital followed the commodity markets’ deregulation about 20 years ago, and some are now treated like speculative assets similar to bitcoin, said Rupert Russell, who authored a book on the topic.The consequences of economy-addling commodity price spikes are real, he adds, pointing to the 2010 grain prices that helped trigger the Arab spring uprising in Tunisia.Supply chain back ups, inflation and war have generated “radical uncertainty” in which no one knows how much commodities are worth, because the prices are no longer anchored, Russell told the Guardian. He echoed others’ calls for stronger government intervention to tamp down the casino-like mentality.“Once there’s not just radical uncertainty but markets dominated by speculators, algorithmically driven speculation that is just kind of responding to headlines, then you’re going to get that kind of Bitcoin-esque volatility,” he said.But experts say there are few viable short-term solutions, and long-term measures don’t help Holmes. That’s forcing her to think about getting another job to survive as she feels the pressure of an economic system stacked against her.“I don’t want to. I’ve got four kids to take care of, but what am I supposed to do?” she asked.TopicsUS economyInflationEconomicsUS politicsUS income inequalityInequalityfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats announce plans to ‘go after’ big oil in effort to bring down prices

      by

      Democrats announce plans to ‘go after’ big oil in effort to bring down pricesNancy Pelosi says oil companies ‘hoarding the windfall while keeping prices high at the pump’ amid concerns over US inflation The Biden administration is to propose legislation that would allow US federal and state agencies to “go after” oil companies on wholesale and retail sales practices, lambasting the industry over price gouging and profiteering.As American voters express increasing concerns about the high prices of a wide range of consumer goods, including energy and food, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said passing legislation to bring down retail gasoline prices “is at the very top of our list”.‘We’re not attacking Russia,’ Biden says as he asks for $33bn in Ukraine aid – liveRead moreNeither Schumer nor House speaker Nancy Pelosi would say when such legislation will be voted upon, or how much money it could end up saving consumers if enacted into law.“Big oil has profiteered and exploited the marketplace,” Pelosi told reporters, noting companies’ strong corporate profits over the past year. “They are hoarding the windfall while keeping prices high at the pump,” she added.The move comes as gas prices have surged in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Despite recent falls, the average price of a gallon of gas is now over $4 in the US, up from $2.88 a year ago, according to the American Automobile Association.Oil companies have enjoyed record profits as prices have soared. Exxon, the largest US oil company, is expected to report record earnings on Friday and rival Chevron recently reported “the best two quarters the company has ever seen”.Pelosi said the White House had discussed a “holiday” for Federal gas taxes but said that there was no evidence that oil companies would pass those savings on to consumers.Oil companies are not alone in reporting huge surges in profits even as consumers face higher bills thanks to soaring inflation. An analysis of 100 leading US companies found their net profits had risen by a median of 49%, and in one case by as much as 111,000%. The increases came even as prices rose and average wage increases were eroded by rising inflation.Reuters contributed to this storyTopicsOil and gas companiesUS politicsBiden administrationInflationEconomicsEnergy industrynewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      Convergent Conversation – In fact VR is Possible, Bill!

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      DC Deconstructed: The View from the Carriage House

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      The Unholy Alliance Between the US Security Apparatus and Big Tech

      by

      The Fair Observer website uses digital cookies so it can collect statistics on how many visitors come to the site, what content is viewed and for how long, and the general location of the computer network of the visitor. These statistics are collected and processed using the Google Analytics service. Fair Observer uses these aggregate statistics from website visits to help improve the content of the website and to provide regular reports to our current and future donors and funding organizations. The type of digital cookie information collected during your visit and any derived data cannot be used or combined with other information to personally identify you. Fair Observer does not use personal data collected from its website for advertising purposes or to market to you.As a convenience to you, Fair Observer provides buttons that link to popular social media sites, called social sharing buttons, to help you share Fair Observer content and your comments and opinions about it on these social media sites. These social sharing buttons are provided by and are part of these social media sites. They may collect and use personal data as described in their respective policies. Fair Observer does not receive personal data from your use of these social sharing buttons. It is not necessary that you use these buttons to read Fair Observer content or to share on social media. More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden: Republicans’ Disney law shows ‘far right has taken over party’

      by

      Biden: Republicans’ Disney law shows ‘far right has taken over party’Florida strips company of self-governing power for opposing Governor Ron DeSantis’s ‘don’t say gay’ law For Joe Biden, the vote by Florida Republicans on Thursday to strip Disney of its self-governing powers was a step too far.“Christ, they’re going after Mickey Mouse,” the president exclaimed at a fundraiser in Oregon, in apparent disbelief that state governor Ron DeSantis’s culture wars had reached the gates of the Magic Kingdom.The move, Biden asserted, reflected his belief that the “far right has taken over the party”.By voting to penalize Florida’s largest private employer, lawmakers followed DeSantis’s wishes in securing revenge on a company he brands as “woke” for its opposition to his “don’t say gay” law.DeSantis is a likely candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. He has pushed his legislature on several rightwing laws in recent weeks, including a 15-week abortion ban, stripping Black voters of congressional representation and preventing discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity issues in schools.On Friday, the governor signed the anti-Disney law as well as a measure banning critical race theory in schools and the controversial new electoral map. Voting rights groups including the League of Women Voters of Florida, the Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute and the Equal Ground Education Fund filed suit against the new electoral map, in state court in Tallahassee.“This is not your father’s Republican party,” Biden said at the fundraiser in Oregon.“It’s not even conservative in a traditional sense of conservatism. It’s mean, it’s ugly. Look at what’s happening in Florida: Christ, they’re going after Mickey Mouse.”Analysts are still grappling with the likely effects of the Disney law, which will disband an entity officially known as the Reedy Creek improvement district.The body, which was approved by Florida legislators in 1967, gives Disney autonomous powers, including generating its own tax revenue and self-governance as it built its hugely popular theme parks.Ending the 55-year agreement, Democrats says, will leave local residents on the hook for the functions Reedy Creek was responsible for paying for, including police and fire services, and road construction and maintenance.The state senator Gary Farmer, a vocal opponent of DeSantis, said families in Orange and Osceola counties that straddle the 25,000-acre Disney World resort could each face property tax raises of $2,200 annually to cover the shortfall. His claim is so far unsubstantiated.Republicans have been unable to point to any financial advantage to the state, and appear to be relying instead on the political argument that the concept of the “special taxing district” was outdated and in need of reform.“Aside from maybe taking away the company’s ability to build a nuclear plant, we have yet to hear how this benefits Florida, and especially the local residents in any way,” Nick Papantonis, a reporter who covers Disney for Orlando’s WFTV, said in a Twitter analysis.“The residents, by the way, had no say in this vote, no say in their property taxes going through the roof, and no desire to have their communities staring at financial ruin.”If in practice DeSantis’s goal is to punish Disney, some say the move could backfire, at least financially. Reedy Creek’s abolition on 1 June next year would give it an immediate tax break. The $163m it taxes itself annually to pay for service and pay off debt becomes the responsibility of the county taxpayers.“The moment that Reedy Creek doesn’t exist is the moment that those taxes don’t exist,” the Orange county tax collector Scott Randolph, a Democrat, told WFTV. “[And] Orange county can’t just slap a new taxing district on to that area and recoup the money that was lost.”Most of Disney’s estimated 77,000 cast members, as its workers are known, live in those two counties, so would effectively end up paying their employer’s taxes as well as their own, critics say.Disney has remained silent, its most recent comment on the entire affair being the hard-hitting statement that upset DeSantis in the first place. The company, which has a notably diverse cast, promised to work to overturn the “don’t say gay” law, and added it was halting all political donations.Disney contributed almost $1m to the Republican party of Florida in 2020, and $50,000 directly to DeSantis, records show.Whatever it decides to do, Disney has options. In a probably tongue-in-cheek offer, the Colorado governor, Jared Polis, is offering “asylum” to Mickey Mouse in his state. But he was critical of DeSantis’s stance.“Florida’s authoritarian socialist attacks on the private sector are driving businesses away. In CO, we don’t meddle in affairs of companies like Disney or Twitter. Hey @Disney we’re ready for Mountain Disneyland,” he said in a tweet.Legal challenges are expected once DeSantis signs the Reedy Creek abolition into law, and Republicans point out they could revisit the issue next year before it takes effect.Democrats are dismissive: “Let’s call this what it is, it’s the punitive, petulant political payback to a corporation who dared to say the emperor has no clothes, but if they behave this way next election cycle, maybe we’ll put it back together,” Farmer, the state senator, said.Some political analysts, meanwhile, believe DeSantis is walking a tightrope.“The base is demanding of the Republican party these culture war elements, at least that’s what these politicians are thinking, so they’re using these attacks on ‘woke’ corporations as a way of energizing their base so they can win in 2022 and 2024,” Charles Zelden, professor of humanities and politics at Nova Southeastern University and a longtime Florida Disney watcher, told the Guardian.“The downside is it’s bringing them into conflict with corporations they had a very comfortable relationship with for a lot of years, who have donated a lot of money to their campaigns.”TopicsFloridaRon DeSantisRepublicansJoe BidenLGBT rightsUS politicsThe far rightnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Wave of union victories suggests union-busting consultants may have lost their sway

      by

      Wave of union victories suggests union-busting consultants may have lost their swayChallenging anti-union rhetoric and pro-union attitudes of younger workers are undermining highly paid consultants The nation’s anti-union consultants and lawyers – who have made millions of dollars fighting against union drives – have just been through some of their worst weeks ever as unions racked up wins at Amazon, Starbucks, REI, the New York Times, MIT and other places.These consultants and lawyers – often called “union busters” – have done so poorly that John Logan, a professor who has studied “union avoidance” efforts for two decades, says their anti-union kryptonite seems to have suddenly lost much of its power. “For decades, the consultants have seemed almost invincible. Many firms have boasted victory rates of over 95%,” said Logan, a professor at San Francisco State. But in Staten Island, “the Amazon Labor Union turned the tables on the company’s anti-union consultants” and showed they may have been “more of a liability than an asset”.Logan said anti-union consultants are often no longer as effective because workers and their attitudes have changed: workers, especially younger workers, are braver about speaking out, they’re using social media to outmaneuver the consultants, and they’re embracing highly effective strategies, like worker-to-worker organizing and interrupting so-called captive audience meetings, where consultants discuss the supposed evils of unions. Logan said workers often used to be far more scared to stand up to anti-union consultants, and one reason workers are less frightened is that the low jobless rate makes it easier for workers to find another job if they get fired for supporting a union.“They survived the pandemic, and they’re no longer so fearful,” Logan said. “The pandemic was such a frightening experience that workers have recalibrated their sense of risk about what they’re prepared to do in their lives. They’re more prepared to join a union campaign. They feel they’ve repeatedly been disrespected while their employers were making billions of dollars.”Logan was impressed that workers interrupted several of Amazon’s captive audience meetings. “The fact that they had the courage to do that helps show that something has fundamentally changed,” he said. “The mechanism of the captive audience meeting is much less successful if someone gets up and challenges what they’re saying. It all crumbles away.”Angelika Maldonado, a 27-year-old packer at Amazon’s Staten Island warehouse, was one of the workers who interrupted a captive audience meeting. She and other workers challenged Amazon’s assertion that workers might see their wages cut if they unionize. She also sought to rebut one of Amazon’s main arguments. “They put out all this propaganda that we were a third party,” Maldonado said. “Once we gained the trust of workers, they would see we are not a third-party union.” Rather, she explained, we are Amazon workers like them who created a union.Some Staten Island worker-organizers outed the anti-union consultants who walked the warehouse floor, urging workers to vote against unionizing. Workers sought to learn their names, and once they did, they tweeted out the consultant’s name and photo and urged workers not to talk to them. They further undermined the consultants’ effectiveness by highlighting that some of them earned $3,200 a day.Maldonado said: “We did some calculations and showed that instead of paying these union busters all this money, Amazon could have given everyone in the building a raise.”Wilma Liebman, chair of the National Labor Relations Board during president Obama’s first term, said anti-union consultants have grown less effective because they haven’t kept up with the changing workforce. “It’s hard to imagine how any of these union busters succeed. Almost all are old white guys,” she said. “They seek to demonstrate control with some intimidation factor. Whether these workers are white, African American or something else, it’s still a culture clash. It’s hard to imagine that the message of these consultants has much resonance.”Liebman added: “One way the consultants seem to be as effective as ever is in convincing employers to buy their services.” Some anti-union lawyers charge more than $1,200 an hour.A longtime management-side labor lawyer in Washington, who insisted on anonymity, said the recent string of union victories doesn’t mean that anti-union lawyers and consultants have become less effective. “More has been made of this than it should be,” he said. “I think it’s very situational.” He noted that unionization drives lost recently at a Hershey’s factory in Virginia and at HelloFresh food-packing facilities. (At those places, the workers didn’t challenge the anti-union consultants nearly as much as they did at Amazon or Starbucks.)The lawyer acknowledged that young workers are “challenging authority” more than their parents’ generation. “I think workers are more skeptical of what people say. They’re more willing to challenge, perhaps, than they were in the past.”A second lawyer, a partner at one of the nation’s leading anti-union law firms, also insisting on anonymity, said that workers’ smart use of social media has undercut union avoidance efforts. “The internet and social media have made employees much more savvy,” he said. “They’ve able to communicate better with each other and see different sources of information. I think social media has changed – and maybe leveled – the playing field.”Rebecca Givan, a professor of labor studies at Rutgers, said: “Young workers are more excited to speak up and counteract them, by, for instance, talking up in a captive audience meeting, challenging the supposed facts in a presentation. These are really new things.”Young workers are too young to remember Ronald Reagan’s busting the air-traffic controllers union. Many have been emboldened by Bernie Sanders and by the Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements. Many young workers feel angry and squeezed by large student debt loads and soaring rents.Givan said social media has helped inoculate workers against anti-union consultants: “When workers are rapidly able to share anti-union talking points and see that they use the same arguments at different companies and workplaces, that it’s all cookie cutter, all from the same playbook, it shows how tired their tactics and rhetoric are.”Richard Bensinger, an organizer with Workers United who helped lead the Starbucks’ unionization campaign, said new technologies have helped overcome the union-avoidance consultants. “I don’t think we could have done this without Zoom and virtual meetings and partners talking to partners,” he said. (Partners is the term Starbucks uses to describe its workers.) Thus far, workers have voted in favor of unionizing at 18 of the 19 Starbucks where votes have been counted, and workers at more than 200 Starbucks have petitioned for unionization elections.“As far as inoculation, we get Samantha from the New York Roastery, which just voted to unionize, to speak to people at the Starbucks in Austin, Texas, telling them what to expect from the anti-union folks,” Bensinger said.Some Amazon and Starbucks workers have used TikTok to get out their pro-union message and WhatsApp and Telegram to spread the word and answer workers’ questions.Bensinger said the anti-union consultants and lawyers are still plenty effective, but often fall short. He noted that at one Buffalo Starbucks, 100% of the workers signed pro-union cards, but the union won there just 15 to 9. He said the solidarity and activism of the young workers was key to defeating the anti-union lawyers and consultants.“Young workers will only take so much,” he said. “A worker in Montana told me, ‘I’m making just $11 an hour and making Howard Schultz rich.’ Unions today are their big hope.”TopicsUS unionsAmazonStarbucksUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More