US unions

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Shut your mouth’: Republican senator and Teamsters leader in fiery clash

      by

      01:22‘Shut your mouth’: Republican senator and Teamsters leader in fiery clashMarkwayne Mullin, a former MMA fighter, argues with union’s Sean O’Brien as Bernie Sanders seeks order in Senate hearingA Republican senator who once had to reassure voters he didn’t think he was “Rambo” and was a mixed martial arts fighter before entering politics got into a vocal brawl with a union boss during a public congressional hearing, saying: “You need to shut your mouth.”Mitch McConnell in hospital after fall in Washington DCRead moreMarkwayne Mullin of Oklahoma exchanged verbal fire with Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters, during a hearing staged on Wednesday by the Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee.The chair, the Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, was seeking support for his Protecting the Right to Organise Act. But Mullin made headlines of his own.The 45-year-old, who owns a plumbing business, said he was “not against unions …some of my very good friends work for unions. They work hard, and they do a good job.”But he said he did not like “intimidation” by union leaders trying to unionise businesses including his own.“I’m not afraid of a physical confrontation,” Mullin continued. “In fact, sometimes I look forward to it. That’s not my problem.”In late 2021, Mullin memorably said “I’m not Rambo”, in reference to a character played by Sylvester Stallone in a violent film series, amid controversy over an attempt to enter Afghanistan with a private security team. He also said he had not tried to be “a cowboy or anything like that”.Mullin is a state wrestling hall of fame member whose website says he is “a former Mixed Martial Arts fighter with a professional record of 5-0”.Addressing O’Brien, he said: “But when you’re [confronting] my employees? For what? Because we were paying higher wages? Because we had better benefits and we wasn’t requiring them to pay your guys’ exorbitant salaries?”The website of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters describes O’Brien, 51, as a fourth-generation teamster who started out in “the rigging industry as a heavy-equipment driver in the Greater Boston area”.Mullin asked O’Brien about his salary and accused him of forcing members to pay union dues.“You’re out of line,” O’Brien said.“Don’t tell me I’m out of line,” Mullin said. “You need to shut your mouth.”O’Brien mocked Mullin’s “tough guy” act.Sanders tried to gavel the two men to order, saying: “Senator, hold it, hold it.”O’Brien told Mullin: “I bet you I work more hours than you do. Twice as many hours.”Mullin said: “Sir, you don’t know what hard work is.”O’Brien said unions “create opportunity because we hold … greedy CEOs like yourself accountable”.Mullin said: “You calling me a greedy CEO?”O’Brien said: “Oh yeah, you are. You want to attack my salary, I’ll attack yours … What did you make when you owned your company?”Mullin said he made “about $50,000 a year because I invested every penny”.“OK, all right,” O’Brien said. “You mean you hid money?”Pointing at O’Brien, Mullin said: “Hold on a second.”“All right, we’re even,” said O’Brien, smiling. “We’re even.”Mullin said: “We’re not even. We’re not even close to being even. You think you’re smart? You think you’re funny?”“You think you’re funny,” O’Brien said. “You framed your opening statement saying you’re a tough guy.”Sanders said: “Senator, please continue your statement.”Mullin said: “I think it’s great you’re doing this because this shows their behavior and how they try to come in and organise a shop.”Sanders said: “They see your behavior here. Stay on the issue.”After the hearing, the spat continued on social media.TopicsUS unionsUS politicsUS SenateUS CongressBernie SandersRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Starbucks CEO to testify before Senate over opposition to stores unionizing

      by

      Starbucks CEO to testify before Senate over opposition to stores unionizingBernie Sanders had threatened to subpoena Howard Schultz if he refused to appear while workers file unfair labor practice chargesThe Starbucks CEO, Howard Schultz, has agreed to testify before a Senate committee investigating the company’s intense opposition to national efforts to unionize its stores.Senator Bernie Sanders had threatened to subpoena Schultz if he refused to appear before the US Senate health, education, labor and pensions (Help) committee. Sanders said Schultz had “refused to answer any of the serious questions we have asked” for over a year.Since late 2021, 290 Starbucks stores around the US have won union elections, but dozens of workers and the Starbucks Workers United union have filed unfair labor practice charges with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) over alleged retaliatory firings, discipline, unilateral changes, store closures, refusing to bargain with the union and intimidation against workers’ efforts to form unions.‘Old-school union busting’: how US corporations are quashing the new wave of organizingRead moreNine decisions by NLRB administrative law judges so far have found Starbucks violated the National Labor Relations Act, and 22 Starbucks workers have received judgments ordering their reinstatement. No Starbucks appeals have yet overturned any rulings.“I’m happy to announce that Howard Schultz, the CEO and founder of Starbucks, has finally agreed to testify before the Senate Help committee. The Help committee was scheduled to vote tomorrow to subpoena him and I want to thank the members of the committee who, in a bipartisan way, were prepared to do just that,” Sanders said in a statement. “In America, workers have the constitutional right to organize unions and engage in collective bargaining to improve their wages and working conditions. Unfortunately Starbucks, under Mr Schultz’s leadership, has done everything possible to prevent that from happening.”Starbucks initially pushed back on efforts to compel Schultz to testify before the US Senate Help committee, offering other Starbucks executives in lieu of Schultz. Sanders criticized Starbucks’ response.Starbucks Workers United has called out Schultz on social media, using a #DearHoward hashtag to criticize how Starbucks has responded to unionization efforts and its impact on workers in anticipation of the Senate testimony.TopicsStarbucksUS unionsBernie SandersUS politicsUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Starbucks condemned for ‘intimidation’ of US union organizers

      by

      Starbucks condemned for ‘intimidation’ of US union organizersBernie Sanders moves to summon chief executive Howard Schultz to Senate committee to explain repeated anti-union violationsStarbucks is under fire over the company’s response to unionization efforts as senator Bernie Sanders threatens to call its chief executive before his committee on alleged labor violations and staff petition for it to end “intimidation” of organizers.Sanders, chairman of the Senate health, education, labor and pensions (Help) committee, announced on Wednesday that the committee will be voting on whether to issue a subpoena to compel the Starbucks chief, Howard Schultz, to testify about Starbuck’s federal labor law violations, and to authorize a committee investigation into labor-law violations committed by major corporations.‘Old-school union busting’: how US corporations are quashing the new wave of organizingRead more“For nearly a year, I and many of my colleagues in the Senate have repeatedly asked Mr Schultz to respect the constitutional right of workers at Starbucks to form a union and to stop violating federal labor laws,” Sanders said in a press release confirming the 8 March vote.“Mr Schultz has failed to respond to those requests. He has denied meeting and document requests, skirted congressional oversight attempts, and refused to answer any of the serious questions we have asked. Unfortunately, Mr Schultz has given us no choice but to subpoena him.”The move came after 44 employees at Starbucks headquarters in Seattle and 22 additional anonymous employees signed on to a petition calling on the company to reverse a return-to-office mandate and “to commit to a policy of neutrality and respect federal labor laws by agreeing to follow fair election principles, and allow store partners, whether pro- or anti-union, to decide for themselves, free from fear, coercion, and intimidation”.According to Starbucks Workers United, more than 200 Starbucks workers have been fired in retaliation for organizing. The National Labor Relations Board has alleged that Starbucks has fired over 60 union leaders across the country. Starbucks has aggressively opposed unionization efforts from the first stores to unionize in late 2021 in Buffalo, New York, to over 350 stores around the US that have held union elections. More than 280 stores have won union elections, though a first union contract has not been reached at any store so far.On Tuesday, administrative law judge Michael A Rosas issued a sweeping decision in Buffalo, ordering the reinstatement of seven fired Starbucks workers with back pay, and issuing a bargaining order for three Starbucks stores. The order requires 27 workers to be reimbursed for lost wages, for Schultz and the senior vice-president of operations, Denise Nelson, to read a notice or make a video for employees in Buffalo informing them of their rights, and for the company to post a national physical and electronic notice.“It’s what we, the workers, have been saying for more than a year now: that Starbucks, at every chance they get, bust the union and get us to be intimidated by it,” said Austin Locke, an employee for nearly six years in New York who was fired and recently won reinstatement after the city sued Starbucks under “just-cause” protections. “They’ve just been stonewalling us the whole time.”“The news of this win is single-handedly the most exciting thing that’s happened in this campaign thus far,” said Michael Sanabria, a barista from the Transit Commons location in Buffalo, New York, in a press release on the decision.“Having to reinstate all of these workers, reopen the first Starbucks location closed in the name of union-busting, and most importantly, post notices in every single store across the country for the duration of the Starbucks organizing campaign is such a massive win for us, and for the labor movement as a whole.“After waiting through months of Starbucks’ stalling tactics, this will reinvigorate and re-energize the momentum of this movement.”The Guardian has contacted Starbucks for comment.TopicsStarbucksBernie SandersUS politicsUS unionsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Old-school union busting’: how US corporations are quashing the new wave of organizing

      by

      ‘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

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden just knifed labor unions in the back. They shouldn’t forget it | Hamilton Nolan

      by

      Biden just knifed labor unions in the back. They shouldn’t forget it Hamilton NolanUS railway workers threatened to strike until they got paid sick leave. The president’s administration chose political cowardice It’s sad, really. The beleaguered labor unions of America thought that they had finally found a true friend. In Joe Biden, they had a man who was the most pro-union president in my lifetime – a low bar to clear, but something. Yet this week we found out that when the fight got hard, Biden had the same thing to say to working people that his Democratic predecessors have for decades: “You’ll never get anything you want if I don’t win; but once I win, I can’t do the things you need, because then I wouldn’t be able to win again.”At the same time that thousands of union members are fanned out across the state of Georgia knocking on doors to get Raphael Warnock elected and solidify Democratic control of the Senate – to save the working class, of course! – Biden decided to sell out workers in the single biggest labor battle of his administration. Rather than allowing the nation’s railroad workers to exercise their right to strike, he used his power to intervene and force them to accept a deal that a majority of those workers found to be unacceptable.‘Joe Biden blew it’: rail unions decry plan to impose deal through CongressRead moreHis ability to do this rests on the vagaries of the Railway Labor Act, but all you really need to understand is this: nobody forced him to side with the railroad companies over the workers. That was a choice. The White House just weighed the political damage it anticipated from Republicans screaming about a Christmas-season rail strike against the fact that railroad workers have inhuman working conditions and would need to go on strike to change that, and chose the easier political route. This was a “Which side are you on?” moment, and Biden made his position clear.What were these railroad workers fighting for? Paid sick leave. The basic ability to call in sick or go see a doctor without being penalized, something that many of us – including members of Congress and railroad company executives – take for granted. It is also, by the way, a right that Joe Biden believes should be codified into federal law. But he must not believe in it all that much, since he just cut the legs out from under unions who were trying to secure it for their members.And why is it so difficult for railroad workers to win this basic right? Their industry, after all, is fantastically profitable. It has cut its workforce to the bone purely to enrich investors, and doesn’t want to spend the money it would take to staff properly so that its remaining workers could take sick days. Greed, and nothing more. The combined power of the railway unions could overcome this obstacle, but only if they have the ability to go on strike. Railroad companies are not stupid. They knew the White House would intervene to prevent a strike, so they felt no urgency to give in to their workers’ demands. Joe Biden, Mr I-Love-Unions, unilaterally disarmed the unions before their fight could begin. Without a credible strike threat, they never had a chance.People will point out that strikes are disruptive. Yes. That’s the point. A rail strike would be so disruptive that the rail companies probably would have given up the sick days to prevent it – and if they didn’t, the White House could have weighed in on the side of the workers to make them. Instead, it did the opposite, and rescuing hope for those workers fell to Bernie Sanders and to progressives in the House, who forced congressional leaders to move a separate bill to guarantee the sick leave they were asking for. As usual, it was the left that went to the trouble of fighting for labor after the party’s mainstream sold it out for the sake of convenience.Organized labor is in an abusive relationship with the Democratic party. For decades, Democratic administrations have failed to prioritize labor issues and stabbed unions in the back, and the union establishment has always showed up with a big check for them in the next election. I guarantee you that this will happen again after this betrayal by Joe Biden. (You may have already noticed that few union leaders have been brave enough to criticize the White House directly on this issue.)Breaking free from this dynamic does not mean getting friendly with the Republicans, who would happily bring back indentured servants and child labor if they could. It means going left, to the only part of the political spectrum that genuinely gives a damn about the interests of working people. Rather than pouring its considerable resources into the mainstream Democrats, the labor movement should be bankrolling the expansion of the progressive wing of the party, to permanently shift the internal balance of power. This is not some rarefied ideological prescription from a textbook; it is common sense. If you are a railroad worker – or anyone who understands the basic need for solidarity among all workers in the face of corporate power – where are your friends? They are all sitting on the left. If we keep running back to support those who just kicked sand in our faces, nothing will ever change.And instead of kissing and making up with Biden after this outrageous insult, labor should be putting the fear of God in him with the possibility that they will back a primary presidential challenge from the left in 2024. Biden is very old and not very popular. He has been a friend to unions, yes, but if he goes against them on the biggest fight of all, how much of a friend is he, really?Nothing has as much latent power as organized working people. We need to stop begging politicians for their support, and make them come beg for ours. Just because a strike is illegal, after all, doesn’t mean that it can’t happen.
      Hamilton Nolan is a writer at In These Times
      TopicsUS politicsOpinionUS unionsJoe BidenBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More

    • 213 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Congress to take up bill to avert rail strike as Biden and unions clash – as it happened

      by

      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just emerged from the White House to talk about their meeting just now with Joe Biden to talk about legislation in the lame duck session and, most urgently, his request that Congress intervene to stop the looming rail strike.Schumer signaled the Senate would support the move.Pelosi said: “Tomorrow morning we will have a bill on the floor, it will come up as early as 9am.”Biden wants Congress to impose the agreement tentatively reached in September, but which four unions didn’t sign on to, forcing the president and the labor unions to be at loggerheads.Pelosi said the original elements of the agreement, on pay, etc, would be included in the bill and some “additional benefits” agreed to by Biden and labor secretary Marty Walsh.She said the agreement “is not everything I would like to see, I would like to see paid sick leave – every [leading democratic] country in the world has it. I don’t like going against the ability of a union to strike but, weighing the equities, we must avoid a strike.”Assuming the House votes for the bill, it will then move to the Senate for a vote there.Schumer said: “We will try to get it done … we are going to try to solve this ASAP.”Both leaders warned of job losses and further supply chain problems affecting ordinary goods and essential things such as chlorine for safe public water supplies.Schumer and Pelosi, speaking to reporters call it a “productive meeting,” Finding a solution to rail strike a top priority, they say. “We must avoid a strike,” Pelosi says. pic.twitter.com/cK0HwSCcXy— Myah Ward (@MyahWard) November 29, 2022
      House minority leader Kevin McCarthy emerged from the West Wing a few minutes after Schumer and Pelosi spoke to gathered reporters and indicated that he expected a resolution on the rail strike.Schumer had earlier noted that he had minority leader Mitch McConnell’s support in the Senate.All 100 senators must agree to hold a quick vote like this and it’s unclear yet if all are on board, especially Bernie Sanders.Asked if he will allow a vote on legislation to avert the rail strike to happen by the Dec. 9 deadline, Bernie Sanders just told me:  “We will have more to say about that later.” He criticized the deal for lack of paid sick leave. “That is outrageous.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 29, 2022
      As we wrap up this US politics blog for the day, the US Senate is debating proposed amendments to the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act that seeks to codify in legislation the right to same sex and interracial marriages. A final vote is expected soon and will be covered in a news story. The politics blog will be back tomorrow morning.Here’s where things stand:
      US Senate to vote on legislation codifying federal rights to same-sex and interracial marriage in the US. The upper chamber is debating a bill right now.
      A bill to avert the looming US passenger and freight rail strike will be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives early tomorrow, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after a meeting at the White House with Joe Biden and the other congressional leaders.
      Record early voting is happening in Georgia. The number of people casting their ballots during early voting in the run-off election for one of the state’s seats in the US Senate is already on its way to half a million since the process got under way at the weekend. Polls close 6 December.
      Nato foreign ministers pledged to step up support to Ukraine and help repair its energy infrastructure amid a wave of Russian attacks that have repeatedly knocked out power supplies and heating for millions of Ukrainians.
      Joe Biden has urged the US Congress to intervene to prevent the rail strike that is looming across America and could bring passenger and freight trains screeching to a halt as early as next week. This puts the pro-labor president at loggerheads with some of the key rail unions.
      The US Senate is currently debating proposed amendments to the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act that seeks to codify in legislation the right to same-sex and interracial marriages in the US.It’s expected to pass when it comes to a final vote a bit later this afternoon, from whence it will go back to the House, where it is also expected to pass, and speed its way to Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law in December.Earlier this month, 12 Republican senators voted with all Senate Democrats to advance the bill.The bill has Democratic and Republican sponsors and was spearheaded by Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, the first openly lesbian or gay senator in the US.The expected passage of the legislation with support from both parties is an extraordinary sign of the shifting politics on the issue and a measure of relief for the hundreds of thousands of same-sex couples who have married since the Supreme Court’s 2015 Obergefell v Hodges decision that legalized gay marriage nationwide, the Associated Press writes.The bill has gained steady momentum since the supreme court’s June decision that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and comments from Justice Clarence Thomas at the time that suggested same-sex marriage could also come under threat.Bipartisan Senate negotiations kick-started this summer after 47 Republicans unexpectedly voted for a House bill and gave supporters new optimism.The legislation would not codify the Obergefell decision or force any state to allow same-sex couples to marry. But it would require states to recognize all marriages that were legal where they were performed, and protect current same-sex unions, if Obergefell were to be overturned.It would also protect interracial marriages by requiring states to recognize legal marriages regardless of “sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin”.The US supreme court today wrestled with a partisan-tinged dispute over a Biden administration policy that would prioritize deportation of people in the country illegally who pose the greatest public safety risk, the Associated Press writes.It was not clear after arguments that stretched past two hours and turned highly contentious at times whether the justices would allow the policy to take effect, or side with Republican-led states that have so far succeeded in blocking it.At the center of the case is a September 2021 directive from the Department of Homeland Security that paused deportations unless individuals had committed acts of terrorism, espionage or “egregious threats to public safety”.The guidance, issued after Joe Biden became president, updated a Trump-era policy that removed people in the country illegally regardless of criminal history or community ties.Today, the administration’s top supreme court lawyer told the justices that federal law does “not create an unyielding mandate to apprehend and remove” every one of the more than 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally.Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said it would be “incredibly destabilizing on the ground” for the high court to require that.Congress has not given DHS enough money to vastly increase the number of people it holds and deports, the Biden administration has said.But Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone told the court that the administration violated federal law requiring the detention of people who are in the US illegally and who have been convicted of serious crimes.Chief Justice John Roberts was among the conservative justices who pushed back strongly on the Biden administration’s arguments..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}It’s our job to say what the law is, not whether or not it can be possibly implemented or whether there are difficulties there, and I don’t think we should change that responsibility just because Congress and the executive can’t agree on something … I don’t think we should let them off the hook,” he said.Yet Roberts, in questioning Stone, also called Prelogar’s argument compelling.Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, made clear they believed that Texas and Louisiana, which joined Texas in suing over the directive, weren’t even entitled to bring their case.As Joe Biden is dependent on Congress to avoid a government shutdown on December 16, the president wants a government funding bill passed to provide additional money for the Covid-19 response and to bolster US support for Ukraine’s economy and defense against Russia’s invasion, the Associated Press reports.Lawmakers are months behind on passing funding legislation for the current fiscal year, relying on stop-gap measures that largely maintain existing funding levels, that federal agencies have warned leaves them strapped for cash..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We’re going to work together, I hope, to fund the government,” Biden told lawmakers, emphasizing the importance of Ukraine and pandemic funding as well.Meeting in the Roosevelt Room at the White House earlier, Biden sat at the head of the conference table, flanked on either side by Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the two smiling brightly at the start of the meeting.Republican House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy sat next to Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was next to Pelosi and appeared more reserved.The 2022 election, summed. https://t.co/4ZyxVUcigO— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 29, 2022
      As the meeting began, Biden quipped, “I’m sure this is going to go very quickly” to reach agreement on everything.Lawmakers spent a bit more than an hour with the president, who was joined by Vice President Kamala Harris and senior aides.McCarthy is working to become speaker in January, though he must first overcome dissent within the GOP conference to win a floor vote on January 3.All the leaders said their preference was to pass a comprehensive spending bill for the fiscal year, rather than a continuing resolution (CR) that largely maintains existing funding levels.“If we don’t have an option we may have to have a yearlong” stop-gap bill, Pelosi added.McCarthy, who has promised to look more critically at the Biden administration’s requests for Ukraine aid, told reporters that, “I’m not for a blank check for anything.”He said he wasn’t necessarily opposed to more funding, but wanted to ensure “there’s accountability and audits.”Schumer and Pelosi popped out of the west wing after the meeting to take questions from reporters and were followed shortly afterwards by McCarthy who did the same.On a spending bill, Pelosi said: “We have to have a bipartisan agreement on what the top line is.”CNN reported that McConnell eschewed such an appearance and returned directly to Capitol Hill.SCHUMER calls the White House meeting among Hill leaders “a very productive discussion about funding the government — we all agreed that it should be done this year.”PELOSI says if they can’t reach a deal, “we may have to have a year-long CR.” She says they don’t want that. pic.twitter.com/fEFiBOiQgY— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 29, 2022
      It’s been a lively morning in US politics and there’s more to come. Joe Biden is en route to Michigan to tour a factory and talk about the economy and the US Senate is poised to vote on a bill codifying same-sex and interracial marriage.Here’s where things stand:
      A bill to avert the looming US passenger and freight rail strike will be brought to the floor of the House of Representatives early tomorrow, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after a meeting at the White House with Joe Biden and the other congressional leaders.
      Record early voting is happening in Georgia. The number of people casting their ballots during early voting in the run-off election for one of the state’s seats in the US Senate is already on its way to half a million since the process got under way at the weekend. Polls close 6 December.
      Nato foreign ministers pledged to step up support to Ukraine and help repair its energy infrastructure amid a wave of Russian attacks that have repeatedly knocked out power supplies and heating for millions of Ukrainians.
      Joe Biden has urged the US Congress to intervene to prevent the rail strike that is looming across America and could bring passenger and freight trains screeching to a halt as early as next week. This puts the pro-labor president at loggerheads with some of the key rail unions.
      Joe Biden is on his way to Michigan, aboard Air Force One right now, to tour the SK Siltron CSS semiconductor facility in Bay City, on the shore of Lake Huron.It’s part of his agenda to promote progress in rebuilding the US manufacturing sector.A local ABC channel described how SK Siltron recently completed a $300m expansion. The firm makes semiconductor wafers “used in power system components for electric vehicles and 5G cellular technology,” the outlet reported ahead of the president’s visit this afternoon.The ABC report noted that “local, state and federal leaders hailed the project as an example of the US bringing semiconductor manufacturing back home during a crippling supply shortage of the devices.”He’s due to speak about the US economy a bit later. He’s being accompanied on the factory tour by newly-reelected Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, congresswoman Elissa Slotkin and others.When Mitt Romney compared Donald Trump to a gargoyle …Hats off to Politico for gathering this reporting. The outlet reports that senior Republicans Mike Pence, Bill Cassidy, Marco Rubio, Susan Collins and John Thune all directly or obliquely criticized Trump’s meeting with the far right’s Nick Fuentes last week, as senators returned to Capitol Hill after the Thanksgiving break.But it noted this choice comment, that Utah Republican Senator and former presidential candidate Mitt Romney was “particularly sharp” on Trump, in general, and noted that he was not a fan of the former president running for office again, as he intends to in 2024 and said: “I certainly don’t want him hanging over our party like a gargoyle.”Here’s NBC:Romney on Trump: “I voted to remove him from office twice… I don’t think he should be president of the United states. I don’t think he should be the nominee of our party in 2024. And I certainly don’t want him hanging over our party like a gargoyle.”“It’s a character issue.”— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 28, 2022
      House Republican leader and would-be next speaker Kevin McCarthy has spoken out for the first time to condemn the meeting between Donald Trump and blatant white supremacist and antisemite Nick Fuentes last week.McCarthy spoke about several topics as he emerged from the west wing of the White House a little earlier, following a meeting called there by Joe Biden with Democratic and Republican congressional leaders to talk about urgent legislative business before the year end.“I don’t think anybody should be spending any time with Nick Fuentes. He has no place in this Republican Party,” McCarthy told reporters at the White House.McCarthy is the latest GOP figure to speak out, following a series of senior Republicans and pressure group leaders condemning the fact that Trump had dinner last week with Ye, the rapper formerly known as Kanye West, who is in deep controversy for antisemitic remarks, and Fuentes, who accompanied Ye.As the Guardian’s Edwin Rios noted it was just the latest in a long line of incidents involving the former US president and the far right.McCarthy did stumble though. He said that Trump had four times condemned Fuentes and did not know who he was.Reporters on the scene immediately pounced to note, accurately, that Trump has not condemned Fuentes and his racist views.McCarthy responded: “Well, I condemn.”On Sunday, Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson said the meeting between Trump, Ye and Fuentes “was not accidental.”Moments earlier, when asked if it was appropriate for Trump to meet with Ye, McCarthy said Trump could have meetings “with who he wants.” Then went onto criticize Fuentes.WATCH: Kevin Mccarthy Denounces Trump Meeting With Kanye Literally Two Seconds After Saying Kanye Fine, Fuentes Bad https://t.co/hnT6lpKWc1— Mediaite (@Mediaite) November 29, 2022
      But also Ye, sort of?McCarthy: “The president can have meetings with who he wants. I don’t think anybody though should have meetings with Nick Fuentes. And his views are nowhere within the R Party or within this country itself.”And Kanye?”I don’t think he should have associated with him as well.”— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) November 29, 2022
      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just emerged from the White House to talk about their meeting just now with Joe Biden to talk about legislation in the lame duck session and, most urgently, his request that Congress intervene to stop the looming rail strike.Schumer signaled the Senate would support the move.Pelosi said: “Tomorrow morning we will have a bill on the floor, it will come up as early as 9am.”Biden wants Congress to impose the agreement tentatively reached in September, but which four unions didn’t sign on to, forcing the president and the labor unions to be at loggerheads.Pelosi said the original elements of the agreement, on pay, etc, would be included in the bill and some “additional benefits” agreed to by Biden and labor secretary Marty Walsh.She said the agreement “is not everything I would like to see, I would like to see paid sick leave – every [leading democratic] country in the world has it. I don’t like going against the ability of a union to strike but, weighing the equities, we must avoid a strike.”Assuming the House votes for the bill, it will then move to the Senate for a vote there.Schumer said: “We will try to get it done … we are going to try to solve this ASAP.”Both leaders warned of job losses and further supply chain problems affecting ordinary goods and essential things such as chlorine for safe public water supplies.Schumer and Pelosi, speaking to reporters call it a “productive meeting,” Finding a solution to rail strike a top priority, they say. “We must avoid a strike,” Pelosi says. pic.twitter.com/cK0HwSCcXy— Myah Ward (@MyahWard) November 29, 2022
      House minority leader Kevin McCarthy emerged from the West Wing a few minutes after Schumer and Pelosi spoke to gathered reporters and indicated that he expected a resolution on the rail strike.Schumer had earlier noted that he had minority leader Mitch McConnell’s support in the Senate.All 100 senators must agree to hold a quick vote like this and it’s unclear yet if all are on board, especially Bernie Sanders.Asked if he will allow a vote on legislation to avert the rail strike to happen by the Dec. 9 deadline, Bernie Sanders just told me:  “We will have more to say about that later.” He criticized the deal for lack of paid sick leave. “That is outrageous.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 29, 2022
      Despite the extensive efforts of progressive organizers in Georgia, the state’s early voting operation has run into some significant issues.Many voters reported long lines at polling places over the weekend, as they tried to cast ballots in Georgia’s Senate runoff election.One of the candidates in that race, Democrat Raphael Warnock, the incumbent, waited in line for about an hour on Sunday to cast his vote.A coalition of progressive groups has launched a massive canvassing operation to help ensure that voters know how and when they can cast their ballots.Hillary Holley, executive director of the progressive group Care in Action, said that canvassers have encountered a lot of misunderstanding among voters as they knock on doors.“Every time basically our canvassers reach a voter at their house, they’re saying, ‘Thank you so much because we are so confused about when we can go vote,’” Holley said on a Monday press call.Part of that confusion stems from a judge’s last-minute ruling that counties could allow early voting to occur on the Saturday after the Thanksgiving holiday.Georgia election officials had initially said that early voting could not take place on that day, but the Warnock campaign won a legal challenge to expand voting hours.Stephanie Jackson Ali, policy director of the progressive group New Georgia Project, said: “Our call is for counties to continue the fight to get more locations open, to continue the fight to keep your counties open late, and for our voters to stay in line.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Congress expected to impose contract on US railroad workers to avert strike

      by

      Congress expected to impose contract on US railroad workers to avert strikeCiting ‘catastrophic’ risk to US economy, Nancy Pelosi announces impending vote to bind unions to September negotiations The US House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has announced that her fellow members of Congress plan to vote this week on imposing a new contract for railroad workers to avert a looming labor strike.Pelosi made the announcement late on Monday afternoon just after Joe Biden called on Congress to intervene to prevent a strike, a possibility if an agreement between the freight rail industry and unions is not made by 9 December.How a potential US rail strike could affect the economyRead moreIn a statement referring to the president’s request, Pelosi said that Democrats were “reluctant to bypass” negotiations but “we must act to prevent a catastrophic nationwide rail strike, which would grind our economy to a halt”.The agreement that would be imposed if passed by both congressional chambers comes from negotiations that were made in September between the rail companies, several unions and the Biden administration. It would entail a 24% raise by 2024, $1,000 in annual bonuses and a cap on healthcare premiums.Four unions – including the largest rail union, the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (Smart), which represents more than 28,000 rail workers – rejected the agreement and had been negotiating with rail companies over the last several weeks. Smart turned down the tentative deal with rail management on 21 November, inching closer to a potential strike in December.The dozen rail unions, including those who voted in favor of the September deal, agreed to strike if just one union rejects any agreement and takes the dispute to the picket line. The rail industry has estimated a strike would cost the economy $2bn a day as key ground transportation for goods and passengers would be halted.Congress has the ability to impose an agreement on to the rail workers to avert a strike, something Democrats have been holding off on doing to give more room for unions to negotiate with management.The deadlock between management and the unions is mostly over paid sick leave. The union argues that workers should get at least six days of paid sick leave. They are currently expected to use vacation time if they call out sick and are penalized if they take time off without using vacation days. The agreement Congress is considering does not include a sick leave provision.On Monday, Biden said that he was “a proud pro-labor president” but that the effects of a strike would be too severe on the US economy.“Where the economic impact of a shutdown would hurt millions of other working people and families – I believe Congress must use its powers to adopt this deal,” the president said in his statement. “Some in Congress want to modify the deal to either improve it for labor or for management. However well-intentioned, any changes would risk delay and a debilitating shutdown.”The Railroad Workers Union on Tuesday issued a statement responding to Biden, saying that the president “blew it”.“He had the opportunity to prove his labor-friendly pedigree to millions of workers by simply asking Congress for legislation to end the threat of a national strike on terms more favorable to workers,” the statement said.In her statement, Pelosi said that the House will take up the agreement “with no poison pills or changes to the negotiated terms” and will soon send it to the Senate if passed.TopicsUS unionsUS CongressRail industryNancy PelosiJoe BidenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Teachers’ union head accuses Pompeo of stoking hate with ‘filth’ comments

      by

      Teachers’ union head accuses Pompeo of stoking hate with ‘filth’ commentsRepublican ex-secretary of state called Randi Weingarten ‘most dangerous person in the world’ and said teachers taught ‘filth’ Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), has denounced the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo for calling her “the most dangerous person in the world” and asserting that the nation’s schoolteachers teach “filth”.Who’s next? Republicans who might go up against Trump in 2024Read moreSpeaking to the Guardian Weingarten said Pompeo’s remarks were not just demagogic, but also dangerous, warning that they could incite violence. She said Pompeo, who also served as Donald Trump’s CIA director, attacked her because she is “Jewish, gay, teacher and union” and was clearly stoking rightwing hate as he considers a presidential run.“This is initially directed to the Republican donor class so he can tap into the boatloads of money that billionaires have given to wage this culture war,” Weingarten said, adding that Pompeo – widely expected to run for president in 2024 – was “trying to garner money from that donor base that gave $50m for anti-trans ads, during the recent election”.“Separate and apart from that,” she continued, “it’s also an attempt to pull away the Maga Republican base from Trump and [the Florida governor, Ron] DeSantis, to show he’s an even more extremist Maga than they are.”In an interview with Semafor this week, Pompeo said: “I get asked, ‘Who’s the most dangerous person in the world? Is it Chairman Kim, is it Xi Jinping?’ The most dangerous person in the world is Randi Weingarten. It’s not a close call. If you ask, ‘Who’s the most likely to take this republic down?’ It would be the teachers’ unions, and the filth that they’re teaching our kids, and the fact that they don’t know math and reading or writing.”Weingarten, who has been president of the AFT since 2008, told the Guardian she thought Pompeo was attacking her because she is “Jewish, gay, teacher and union”.“It’s all of the above,” Weingarten said. “It’s an anti-public school strategy. The antisemitic tropes are there. The anti-gay tropes are there. It’s anti-union. It’s anti-teacher. It’s all of the above. But the effect is it really hurts what teachers are trying to do to help kids every single day.”Weingarten was especially upset about Pompeo’s assertion that the nation’s educators were teaching “filth” to children. She saw that as a dangerous smear that built on QAnon conspiracy assertions that teachers were grooming children. Her union, the AFT, has more than 1.5 million members and is the second largest teachers’ union, behind the National Education Association.“I’m really concerned about his use of the word ‘filth’ to talk about what teachers do,” Weingarten said. “It’s not just the new code for groomers and all the other lies they tell about what teachers are doing at school. But it is intended to worry and divide parents. It is intended to create danger and chaos. How do you call teaching The Diary of Anne Frank or teaching about Ruby Bridges or helping kids be who they are or helping ease their anxieties or teaching math, or science or social studies or English, how dare he call that filth?“For him to call what teaches do filth is pathetic,” Weingarten continued. “It’s politically expedient for him, but it’s dangerous to teachers across the country. He’s a guy who clearly knows better.“Words really matter. There’s a lot of people who are starting to talk about stochastic terrorism and what the effect of that is,” she said. (Stochastic terrorism is the public demonization of a person or group that incites an individual’s violent act against the demonized group.) “I am really worried with every passing day about this extremist rhetoric. It has a real chance of turning into violence. Look at what just happened in Colorado Springs. Look at what happened in the Buffalo grocery store in a primarily black neighborhood.”After Pompeo’s attack, Weingarten has received plenty of public support.The MSNBC anchor Chris Hayes said Pompeo’s comments were “truly deranged”. Congressman Jamaal Bowman, a New York Democrat, said Pompeo’s remarks were “outrageous, dangerous and asinine”. He added, “Radical Republicans hate education, because it cripples their lies and fearmongering.” Representative Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat, said, “@rweingarten is a national treasure, representing the voices of millions of educators who are essential for the wellbeing of our families.”Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said Pompeo’s statement that Weingarten is the most dangerous person in the world shows that Pompeo “is the most clueless person in the world”. “This is just a stunt by a politician desperate to get attention for a long-shot presidential run,” Saunders said. “While Pompeo continues to bluster, Randi will keep working for safe, vibrant schools that enrich our children and strengthen our communities.”Weingarten said that Pompeo resorted to such extreme rhetoric because he realizes that his potential candidacy can only work if he attracts some billionaire donors who will give to him rather than Trump or DeSantis. “The donor class that he’s looking for are the ones that are anti-public schools, anti-teachers, anti-teachers’ union,” Weingarten said. “They’re using fear and divisiveness in the culture wars to drive a wedge, a wedge between teachers and parents. The fact that he [Pompeo] would do this shows just how demagogic people like him are in their pursuit of power.”TopicsMike PompeoUS unionsUS politicsnewsReuse this content More