#Federation of Labor

[luulapants]

If anyone has taken their eyes off what's happening to federal workers in the US right now, here's some highlights that we're hearing from our comrades across the government who have not yet been fired:

In one building (hosting multiple agencies), the locks on the bathroom were changed so employees no longer have any access to a bathroom during the workday. People are peeing in trash cans.

Elsewhere, multiple agencies have reported that hand soap is no longer being supplied in the bathrooms.

Toilet paper supplies have not been adjusted to meet the needs of a vastly increased number of in-office employees.

Employee-owned coffee and coffee makers have been stolen or thrown away without notice (it was already illegal for taxpayer dollars to be spent on supplying federal employees with amenities like coffee, so many offices have coffee supplied by pooled employee funds).

Meanwhile, many offices don't even have potable drinking water (recurrent legionella outbreaks), so employees have to bring their own water from home.

Despite an explosion in the number of workers in offices, cleaning budgets have been slashed and many offices are not being cleaned regularly enough to remain sanitary. Pests like roaches and rats are a problem.

The firings continue, legal and illegal. Entire programs are being cut. Managers have no idea when they might lose staff. Employees are getting fired at 6pm on a weekend or finding out when they're unable to log into their computer or when they receive a shipping label in the mail to return their equipment.

Through all of this, the DOGE employees in federal workplaces are enjoying incredible and expensive luxury: AI-powered sleep pods, entire dormitories so they can live in federal buildings, nurseries for their children on site, free food and beverages, laundry services, and who knows what else. They have special security to restrict access to their areas of the buildings, including armed guards.

And I'm not just saying this to lament how bad it is for federal workers. I'm saying this because, as workers are reporting this to one another, the response is, inevitably: "This is illegal." "Yes, but who would I report it to? OPM? They're a DOGE puppet. OSHA? They've cut OSHA. The Inspectors General? Cut. The NLRB? Cut. My union? No longer recognized."

There is no one left to enforce these laws, so taking away access to basic sanitation is now effectively legal. They are doing this to federal workers, who historically have been some of the best-protected workers in the country. They are doing this specifically because it demonstrates to the public sector that it is now legal to do these things to their own workers.

[airchexx]

Ron Brittain - Assorted Bits, WCFL Chicago | 1968

Photo Courtesy Robert Feder / Daily Herald Here’s a bit of Chicago history that would otherwise probably be lost to time.   Many thanks to aircheck collector Matt at Big Apple Airchecks for this slice of radio gold. Hear more Ron Brittain on WCFL below Ron Brittain was in Chicago radio for several decades.  On this recording we hear Ron doing an assortment of bits for his morning show on…

[reasonsforhope]

Federal regulators on Tuesday [April 23, 2024] enacted a nationwide ban on new noncompete agreements, which keep millions of Americans — from minimum-wage earners to CEOs — from switching jobs within their industries.

The Federal Trade Commission on Tuesday afternoon voted 3-to-2 to approve the new rule, which will ban noncompetes for all workers when the regulations take effect in 120 days [So, the ban starts in early September, 2024!]. For senior executives, existing noncompetes can remain in force. For all other employees, existing noncompetes are not enforceable.

[That's right: if you're currently under a noncompete agreement, it's completely invalid as of September 2024! You're free!!]

The antitrust and consumer protection agency heard from thousands of people who said they had been harmed by noncompetes, illustrating how the agreements are "robbing people of their economic liberty," FTC Chair Lina Khan said. 

The FTC commissioners voted along party lines, with its two Republicans arguing the agency lacked the jurisdiction to enact the rule and that such moves should be made in Congress...

Why it matters

The new rule could impact tens of millions of workers, said Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist and president of the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank. 

"For nonunion workers, the only leverage they have is their ability to quit their job," Shierholz told CBS MoneyWatch. "Noncompetes don't just stop you from taking a job — they stop you from starting your own business."

Since proposing the new rule, the FTC has received more than 26,000 public comments on the regulations. The final rule adopted "would generally prevent most employers from using noncompete clauses," the FTC said in a statement.

The agency's action comes more than two years after President Biden directed the agency to "curtail the unfair use" of noncompetes, under which employees effectively sign away future work opportunities in their industry as a condition of keeping their current job. The president's executive order urged the FTC to target such labor restrictions and others that improperly constrain employees from seeking work.

"The freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy," Khan said in a statement making the case for axing noncompetes. "Noncompetes block workers from freely switching jobs, depriving them of higher wages and better working conditions, and depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand."

Real-life consequences

In laying out its rationale for banishing noncompetes from the labor landscape, the FTC offered real-life examples of how the agreements can hurt workers.

In one case, a single father earned about $11 an hour as a security guard for a Florida firm, but resigned a few weeks after taking the job when his child care fell through. Months later, he took a job as a security guard at a bank, making nearly $15 an hour. But the bank terminated his employment after receiving a letter from the man's prior employer stating he had signed a two-year noncompete.

In another example, a factory manager at a textile company saw his paycheck dry up after the 2008 financial crisis. A rival textile company offered him a better job and a big raise, but his noncompete blocked him from taking it, according to the FTC. A subsequent legal battle took three years, wiping out his savings. 

-via CBS Moneywatch, April 24, 2024

--

Note:

A lot of people think that noncompete agreements are only a white-collar issue, but they absolutely affect blue-collar workers too, as you can see from the security guard anecdote.

In fact, one in six food and service workers are bound by noncompete agreements. That's right - one in six food workers can't leave Burger King to work for Wendy's [hypothetical example], in the name of "trade secrets." (x, x, x)

Noncompete agreements also restrict workers in industries from tech and video games to neighborhood yoga studios. "The White House estimates that tens of millions of workers are subject to noncompete agreements, even in states like California where they're banned." (x, x, x)

The FTC estimates that the ban will lead to "the creation of 8,500 new businesses annually, an average annual pay increase of $524 for workers, lower health care costs, and as many as 29,000 more patents each year for the next decade." (x)

Clearer explanation of noncompete agreements below the cut.

Noncompete agreements can restrict workers from leaving for a better job or starting their own business.

Noncompetes often effectively coerce workers into staying in jobs they want to leave, and even force them to leave a profession or relocate.

Noncompetes can prevent workers from accepting higher-paying jobs, and even curtail the pay of workers not subject to them directly.

Of the more than 26,000 comments received by the FTC, more than 25,000 supported banning noncompetes. 

[onlytiktoks]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-strikes-down-biden-overtime-pay-rule-2024-11-15/

[currentlyonstandbi]

mfw i go into the polling booth and look at the house of reps ballot to see that only 2-3 parties are any good and the rest are conservative garbage

[shinymeowstic]

you can't waste your vote in australia! and voting a minor party first gives them funding and helps our political environment by encouraging little guys with different views to shine! minor parties getting lots of votes makes the larger parties pay attention to what they are doing you can access my pdfs and jpegs here with a full 30+ page pdf with a summary of all the current federal parties, voting cheat sheets, voting resources & summaries for free!

[thoughtportal]

Fired Federal Workers in there own words

[saywhat-politics]

The administration is trying to use a national security exemption to eliminate union rights for hundreds of thousands of workers.

The White House ramped up its attacks on federal labor unions Thursday by trying to strip away collective bargaining rights from a large chunk of the government workforce.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring a slew of agencies ineligible for negotiating union contracts because they have intelligence or national security work as a “primary function.” 

[claraameliapond]

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Tanya Plibersek (@tanyaplibersek)

"I've approved more than 80 renewable energy projects, enough to power every single home in Australia.

We've added 15 gigawatts of renewable energy to the grid, that's 3 times more than Snowy hydro, it's more than the nuclear plants will ever deliver, if they are ever built, - we've done that already, in just 3 years.

We've already done that.

We're on track to get to 43% emissions reduction,

We're on track to get to 82% renewable energy .

We are engaged in the biggest transformation of the Australian Economy in anybody's living memory

And instead you get this negativity from the sidelines. "

- Tanya Plibersek, Minister for the Environment and Water, Australian Labor Government

VOTE LABOR FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, CLEAN ENERGY, PROTECTED LAND AND OCEANS, HEALTHCARE, STRENGHENED MEDICARE AND PHARMACEUTICAL BENEFITS SCHEME, LOWER COST OF LIVING, REGULATION OF PRICE GOUGING AND SUPERMARKETS , 100% FULLY FUNDED SCHOOLS, FREE TAFE, URGENT CARE CLINICS, EDUCATION, THE ECONOMY. - and , you know, everything else

[archivlibrarianist]

"Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a temporary restraining order to block the Trump Administration’s dismantling of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). The decision was issued in response to a lawsuit filed by the American Library Association (ALA) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), represented by Democracy Forward and Gair Gallo Eberhard LLP."

This is a victory, but it's not the endgame: tell Congress to fund library for the next fiscal year.

Do not comply in advance. Stand up.

Fight. Back.

[berniesrevolution]

DISSENT MAGAZINE

On March 27, President Donald Trump summarily overturned decades of federal labor relations policy and stripped more than 700,000 government workers of their union rights with a stroke of his sharpie. His executive order Exclusions from Federal Labor-Management Relations Programs, which effectively voided union contracts at dozens of departments and agencies, constitutes by far the largest and most aggressive single act of union-busting in U.S. history.

The stated rationale for Trump’s order—that the targeted workers are in agencies that affect national security and they therefore are ineligible for union representation—is flimsily transparent. Even the White House can’t sustain the lie. The administration’s own fact sheet points to the president’s real motivation. His order targets agencies whose unions “have declared war on President Trump’s agenda.” How have these unions “declared war”? Apparently, simply by attempting to enforce labor contracts and represent members in grievance proceedings. As the fact sheet notes, Veterans Affairs (VA) workers are losing their rights because their unions had the temerity to file “70 national and local grievances over President Trump’s policies since the inauguration.”

It is obvious that Trump is exacting revenge on unions that are challenging the draconian cuts and closures inflicted by Elon Musk’s renegade Department of Government Efficiency. Tellingly, unions believed to be sympathetic to the Trump agenda, such as those that represent federal law enforcement workers (whose work is more closely related to national security than that of, say, VA nurses or employees of the General Services Administration), have been exempted from his sweeping action.

The Radicalism of Trump’s Union-Busting

With his radical and blatantly political order, Trump, like a deranged Samson, is straining to pull down the solid pillars that have undergirded a remarkably stable system of federal labor relations for decades. If he succeeds, his action threatens many millions more than the federal employees directly affected by his executive order. As the nation’s largest employer, what the government does to labor inevitably ripples through the entire economy.

The only event in U.S. history comparable to Trump’s action is Ronald Reagan’s firing of some 11,500 striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Reagan’s crushing of the controllers’ union, PATCO, brought to a screeching halt the rapid expansion of public-sector unionization in the 1970s and catalyzed a wave of strikebreaking by private employers that set back the entire labor movement. In some ways, labor still struggles with the fallout of that fateful conflict. If Trump’s current action stands, its destructive force promises to be many orders of magnitude larger than the PATCO affair.

To grasp the enormous implications of Trump’s order, consider the elements of the time-tested structure that he is busy pulling down. The first pillar of the system was put in place in 1883 with the Pendleton Act, which created the federal civil service to professionalize those who worked in government and to end the spoils system that allowed the party in power to oust the personnel of federal agencies and install its supporters no matter their qualifications. Under the U.S. Civil Service Commission, federal workers freed themselves not only from fealty to corrupt political bosses but also from the status of at-will employees who can be fired for any lawful reason, or no reason—the condition under which most American workers, who lack union representation, operate to this day. As the civil service emerged, one of its central ideas was that its competent workers could not be fired without cause.

The second pillar of the system was put in place by the executive actions of a bipartisan line of presidents—Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Richard Nixon—each of whom played a role in expanding federal workers’ collective bargaining rights with the government. The first step was taken by Roosevelt. In addition to signing the Wagner Act, which finally guaranteed most private-sector workers the right to unionize in 1935, he allowed a few federal agencies such as the Tennessee Valley Authority to bargain collectively with unions representing their tradesmen. Roosevelt’s experiment was seized upon and expanded by Kennedy. As Cold War imperatives made it unseemly for a government that claimed to lead the free world to deny its own employees any voice over the terms and conditions of their labor, Kennedy institutionalized collective bargaining for most federal workers by executive order in 1962. Seven years later, Nixon signed an executive order that further strengthened federal union rights and simplified the process through which workers chose union representatives.

(Continue Reading)

[political-us]

The potential conflict of interest with Kash Patel owning shares in Shein while serving as FBI Director arises from the fact that Shein, a Chinese-founded fast fashion company, has faced U.S. government scrutiny over issues like forced labor, trade practices, and data security. Here’s why this could be problematic:

1. The FBI Investigates Foreign Influence & Economic Crimes: The FBI plays a key role in investigating foreign companies that pose national security risks, including companies linked to China. Shein has been accused of using forced labor in its supply chain and violating U.S. trade laws. If an investigation into Shein arose, Patel could interfere, delay, or deprioritize it to protect his financial interest.

2. Access to Sensitive Government Information: As FBI Director, Patel would have access to classified intelligence regarding Chinese businesses, cyber threats, and economic espionage. If Shein were under investigation, he could tip off the company or influence decision-making in a way that benefits his investment.

3. Government Policy & Business Regulation: The FBI collaborates with other agencies like the DOJ and FTC to enforce trade laws. Patel could use his position to influence policy decisions that affect Shein, such as lobbying against potential import bans or trade restrictions that could hurt the company’s business.

4. Public Trust & Ethics: High-ranking officials are expected to avoid conflicts that could compromise public trust in their decision-making. Even if Patel took no direct action, simply owning a stake in Shein while leading the FBI could create the appearance of bias, leading to concerns about fairness in law enforcement.

[onlytiktoks]

[faithliesinashes]

Hey Aussies!

Humanity Bites on tiktok created this handy dandy little spreadsheet that breaks down how the ALP, LNP, and Greens have voted on various policies

In case you needed a comparison on who to vote for this election.

[iww-gnv]

Microsoft reneged on promises it made in court during its Federal Trade Commission (FTC) antitrust trial in 2023 by laying off 1,900 employees in late January, according to the FTC. FTC lawyer Imad Abyad filed a letter with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday, effectively telling on Microsoft. “This newly-revealed information contradicts Microsoft’s representations in this proceeding,” the FTC lawyer wrote. Microsoft announced on Jan. 15 that it was laying off 1,900 workers from its gaming division — around 8% of that part of the company. A large portion of those layoffs were at the newly acquired Activision Blizzard. The percentage of Activision Blizzard layoffs has not been made public, but at least 899 of that 1,900 worked out of Activision Blizzard’s California offices, according to public records.