Walmart on Strike

Josh Eidelson wrote an article on the Walmart strikes which was on Salon today. For the first time in their 50 year history Walmart’s workers at multiple stories have gone out on strike. Dozens of worker in Southern California launched a one-day work stoppage in protest of attempts to prevent them from organizing. Walmart has worked very hard to be union-free, and they have been aggressive in remaining that way.

This strike has come out of the group, OUR Walmart, which is backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers union. OUR Walmart has claimed modest work improvements, but they came at the cost of Walmart’s union busting. OUR Walmart has filed several Unfair Labor Practices (ULP) charges with the National Labor Relations Board alleging punishment of activists by the company.

Walmart spokesperson, Dan Fogleman, said OUR Walmart’s funding is from unions, he claims the unions “are focused on their own agenda…getting more members to join their unions. That gives them more revenue to help fund the political agendas that they have.” Fogleman made some allegations of his own surrounding the union organizing the demonstration to gain the attention of the UNI global union federation who are visiting LA to launch a global Walmart labor alliance. As far as the allegations of retaliation, Fogleman had this to say, “Unfair Labor Practice charges are similar to lawsuits. Anyone can file them, regardless of whether it’s a valid claim or not. We disagree with those assertions.”

Naturally, the workers are taking a risk because the US doesn’t protect workers who go on strike (well they are supposed to protect union workers, but come on). Former NLRB Chair Wilma Liebman said, “The bottom line is non-union people, as well as unionized people, have a right to concertedly walk off the job in protest.”

However, the employer can legally and permanently replace striking workers if the strike is deemed to have been in protest of Unfair Labor Practices and whether the workers had offered to come back before the company hired replacements. The workers expect Walmart will punish them anyway.

This is the latest in a series of strikes in the Walmart supply chain, all by non-union workers. C.J.’s seafood in Louisiana walked off the job in June, warehouse workers in Mira Loma, California went on strike in September, and more warehouse workers in Elwood, Illinois a few days later. On paper the warehouse workers do not work for Walmart, but for their contractors instead. Walmart claims to be monitoring the situation, but not directly responsible. The National Employment Law Project disagrees, “Walmart controls its supplychain, but it has no legal responsibility. That’s what’s brilliant about it.”

On paper, the warehouse workers work for Walmart’s contractors, not for Walmart. Company spokesperson Fogleman said that the striking warehouse workers are raising “issues directly with their employers, and not with Walmart.” He said that Walmart is implementing new procedures for monitoring compliance by its suppliers, and added that in inspections, “the observations that have been made at facilities in California and Illinois are that the working conditions are more than satisfactory.”

The striking workers make up a small percent of Walmart employees, but indicates a new stage in the fight for labor rights within Walmart. Striking workers are hopeful that the strike will spread.

Unashamed Liberal Continues Bid for His Own Senate Seat: Republicans in Awe

Sherrod Brown rocks my socks. According to Politico, “But Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown has tossed the conventional rulebook in the trash. He’s running as a consistent, unapologetic liberal who promotes “Obamacare and is as pro-union as they come.” Fuck Yeah.

Add in Josh Mandel, stir, and Brown looks like he is going to win this thing. Being from Ohio, I’m not really surprised. Sen. Brown is a good representative, a good leader, and a good man. He is one of the rare politicians I genuinely trust.

So what is going on in Ohio? Sen. Brown is the only Democratic statewide elected official in Ohio. Wrap your mind around that. After 2010, when the state went red, the Republicans took aim at Brown. The race has become ridiculously expensive, and I’m guessing had Brown been anyone else the money alone would have buried him. As mentioned before in this blog, outside money flooded in for Brown’s opponent, Ohio state Treasurer, Josh Mandel. They are outspending Brown 5 to 1.

Well, as Brown comes under fire for his lefty politics, he hasn’t wavered. And now, the polls are starting to show him taking the lead by anyway between 7 to 9 percentage points.

Sen. Brown had this to say:

“Voters look for authenticity. I think they look askance at someone who changes their opinions and position at election time. You stand for something, and you stay with it. I think voters will reward that. I don’t think of this as a strategy; I think this is who I am, and this is why I run for office.” Le Sigh.

Other Dems have moved to the center during their tough races including Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) and Job Tester (D-Mont.). But Ohio is a swing state so Sen. Brown has more leeway to run as a lefty. Support for labor and the auto bailout gives Brown an edge his opponent lacks. The biggest split from his constituents comes from “Obamacare.” Ohio voters rejected it when they passed the Health Care Freedom amendment last November, much to my shame.

Brown believes in the voters:

“Fundamentally, the voters don’t see left to right, liberal or conservative, but they want to know if you are on their side. When it comes to the auto rescue, when it comes to China currency manipulation, when it comes to a health care plan, people understand that I am on their side.”

Mandel’s campaign is trying to convince Ohio voters that Sen. Brown is not on their side, but many Brown supports believe Sen. Brown is like Sen. Howard Metzenbaum, who is arguably the most liberal member of Congress and able to transcend populism.

As President Obama is up in the most recent polls in Ohio, Josh Mandel has been making missteps including refusing to answer policy position questions. Like the Romney camp, Mandel’s people believe it is still anybody’s race…Maybe they thing Reagan will win because of a write in.

Shocking consumption can tell us as much about poverty as income

Ok, so what we already know: the poverty rate barely moved between 2010 and 2011 according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Simply, 46 million Americans (15%) of the population lives in poverty. The Deseret News from Salt Lake featured an article on the potential new way to figure poverty.

The U.S. measures poverty in terms of income. The poverty line is the threshold below which families or individuals are considered to be lacking the resources to meet the basic needs for healthy living: the income required to purchase basic needs. In 2012, the poverty line was $23,050 for a family of four.
According to Timothy Taylor, the editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, the “largest government programs to help the poor have zero impact on officially measured poverty rates.” For example, SNAP benefits (or food stamps) are not counted as part of income for calculating the poverty rate because there are a non-cash benefit. Other such examples include the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Care Credits.

The U.S. Census Report says:

“The poverty estimates in this report compare the official poverty thresholds to money income before taxes, not including the value of non-cash benefits. The money income measure does not completely capture the economic well-being of individuals and families, and there are many questions about the adequacy of the official poverty thresholds. Families and individuals also derive economic well-being from non-cash benefits, such as food and housing subsides, and their disposable income is determined by both taxes paid and tax credits received.”

Some economists think it is time to adopt a new measure for poverty…most people familiar with poverty. A rate rooted in consumption instead of income has been suggested by Bruce Meyer of the University of Chicago and James Sullivan of the University of Notre Dame in a research paper released this year. They compared those who qualify as “poor” bases on income and those who qualify based on consumption across 25 indicators. The indicators include assets, health insurance, number of bathrooms in the home, and ownership of a dishwasher and other appliances, computer access, and education level of head of household.

As you can imagine, this reduces the number of people in poverty. Taylor explains:

“Some of those who fall below the poverty line when these are not considered, in the official income-before-taxes poverty measure, rise above the poverty line when these are included. In addition, consumption poverty better captures those who don’t have other resources to fall back on, so those whose income is temporarily low enough to fall below the poverty line, but have other ways to keep their consumption from falling as much, don’t show up as falling below a consumption-based poverty line.”

Everyone understand? Fewer people are poor because we change the way we measure. We don’t address the poverty threshold as unlivable. We just want to say fewer people are living in poverty. Thanks gentlemen. This sounds like the compromise the DOL came up with during the 1996 Welfare Reform, “You don’t have to pay a living wage, just count section 8, food stamps, cash assistance, and anything else to can so that the “wage” comes to the minimum wage.”

Ohio registers low-income masses

Poor people in Ohio have registered to vote in mass numbers because of the enforcement of law. This makes me so happy. I can’t even put it into words. This news, the ruling in favor of early voting, and the masses organizing around preventing voter ID laws makes me almost giddy. The Toledo Blade published an article on the newly registered voters. I know people have mixed feelings on voting and specifically voting in national elections, which I've heard from a disturbingly large number of people this election cycle.

I’m a big supporter of voting, and for me it comes down to a conversation I had with my mother as a child. I know it is cliché and sentimental, but she told me that it didn’t matter if she voted or not because it just didn’t matter. Not that voting didn’t matter because the two-party system is broken or the Electoral College, but that her vote specifically didn’t matter, and it wasn’t worth potentially missing an hour at work or rushing around between picking her kids. She essentially told me she didn’t matter; her life didn’t matter. Poor people who work in factories and live in low-income neighborhoods don’t matter. That we’re all supposed to be silent and happy with what those in power give us. I would be an adult before I witnessed her vote, and that was only because she really wanted to vote for a woman in a presidential race once in her lifetime, and being a lifelong Democrat she voted in the 2008 Democratic Primary for Hilary Clinton. To my knowledge this would be the second time ever she cast a ballot.

This conversation was echoed by the women I interviewed when conducting my thesis research, though I never asked specifically about politics there were many who wanted to talk about voting, advocacy, and the general sense of helplessness they feel when it comes to government, police, and “the system”. The overwhelming feeling was that President Obama failed them in a way, and they had their hopes up because they were finally being represented. Now, President Obama is not a single welfare mother. They are not the same, but the idea that someone in power might understand and empathize with them was inspiring for this population. This was reinforced in my years volunteering with the poor and homeless in Cleveland. We registered people to vote to give them some semblance of a voice, to make them feel as though they mattered, even in a broken system. There are more complexities here of course, but this is the simplistic summary.

Listening to adults, when you still feel so much like a kid,  tell you that they have no voice and nothing will ever change because they genuinely believe they do not matter and how there are treated is of no consequence is so sad, and they teach this to their children. Listening to a woman tell you that she tells her son not to advocate for himself because as a black man, he could be killed for standing up to the police makes you want to slam your head against a wall, but she is right. Voting can be the first step these populations can take to find their voices. They can matter even for just a second. Voting is the manifestation of citizenship, and the people I’m referring to here are rarely treated or perceived as citizens. I spent a lot of time in grad school discussing how to measure citizenship, and the general conclusion is that people in power decide who are and who are not citizens. and voting is one of the measures. When voting, even if it is just an act of theater, everyone (but the homeless and felons) are citizens for a moment. And that feeling in that moment can be so powerful.

So we can disagree about voting and the power of voting. For me, even if the system is broken empowering people to make themselves known matters. But the concept that 500,000 low-income individuals have registered to vote in Ohio is amazing.

Neither, Obama or Romney have spent too much time courting these potential voters, but looks like that may have been a mistake. Mostly both Obama and Romney have discussed the middle class, which I’m pretty sure is some phantom concept to either of them. So who registered these voters? Ohio’s county Job and Family Services offices (JFS) facilitate benefits such as welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid, and not where you can register to vote.

Of course we don’t know how many of these newly registered voters will actually vote, but it is incredible anyway. So how did this happen? The registrations came out of changes because of a federal lawsuit from 2009.

The lawsuit argues that there were widespread violations of the federal National Voter Registration Act, the part of the law that requires public assistance agencies to provide voter registration opportunities to clients. The 1993 law is also referred to as the “Motor Voter” act because it allows states to register people to vote when they renew their drivers’ licenses.

The lawsuit was filed in 2006, when random visits to JFS offices alleged that offices in several counties had no voter-registration forms on hand. Also, only 3 in 103 individuals were asked if they wanted to register to vote. From 2002-2004, 10 county JFS offices didn’t register anyone to vote. 17 other counties registered less than 10 voters. Other findings? Well, looks like offices dealing with rural small populations registered more voters than urban areas with larger populations with more people living in conjunction with the poverty line (the article says nothing about the potential racial implications here, but there is one). The JFS offices process about 4.7 million requests for assistance they only processed voter-applications for 1.5 percent of that number between 2003-2004.

The lawsuit was filed by ACORN, remember those bastards trying to help poor people? Naturally, it drew fire from Republicans, and then fell apart because of the video-sting scandal. Part of the lawsuit settlement in 2009 included an agreement that the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services would incorporate voter registration materials into the application for food, cash, and medical assistance. Of course voting is optional; Ohio isn’t making poor people register to vote. County agencies are required to send completed voter registrations to their county board of elections and report the total number to the Ohio Department monthly. This is a huge jump in the last few years:

“State data shows 191,237 registrations through county JFS offices in 2010; 195,560 registrations in 2011; and 125,597 this year through the end of August.”

These are not all new registrations but updating their information. There is no way to know how many new voters there are. However, the estimates look like less than two-thousand voters were registered a month, and now it is closer to sixteen thousand according to Lisa Danetz, senior counsel with Demos, a liberal policy and advocacy organization.

We know low-income individuals vote at a lower rate than the general population.

“The further down [in income] you go the less likely you are to vote,” said Stephen Brookes, associate director of the Ray C Bliss institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron. “If you register because you are getting you [driver’s] license, there’s no guarantee that 10 months later when the election rolls around, you’ll care to vote.”

Voter registration in Ohio ends October 9^th. A mere eight days away. So get on this, Ohioans. Early voting begins on Tuesday.

So, in conclusion and amidst a personal rant, vote because most people reading this haven’t really been told that they are insignificant. And while, I envy the idea that you can choose not to vote because of a crisis of conscience (for example: you oppose voting for the lesser of two-evils), not everyone can be so idealistic. I wish there was a candidate that is so great, but I don’t believe anyone is without flaw, so I’ll always have to choose between evils or not participant at all. Which leaves me back in ’92, with my mom telling me about how she isn’t important for her vote to matter.

Why does everyone support Sen. Sherrod Brown? Because he is awesome.

Athens’ News is the latest to come out in support of Sen. Brown. I’ve decided to report portions of their editorial on the subject because a friend of mine who is really into Chicago politics said it was amazing how much the Athens’ News hates Mandel.

Excerpts:

“We strongly support Sherrod Brown’s re-election to represent the State of Ohio in the U.S. Senate. We agree with his moderate-liberal stance on most of the issues, but also feel he’s clearly the superior candidate when it comes to character and integrity.”

This is where they talk about Brown’s reputation for hard work and service to his constituents. Then they rip into this opponent, state Treasurer Josh Mandel, who they note should be respected for his military service, but should be held accountable for this “anything to get votes” strategy. They note that Mandel has been slammed by many a fact checker (sounds like the lying is spreading in the GOP). They claim Mandel has put his friends in position they have not business being in then they go into their main reason for opposing him:

“All of this is troubling—and in our minds disqualifies Mandel from serving in any public office. However, our main reason for urging reader to support Brown is that unlike Mandel, Sen. Brown advances a reasonable and serious approach to addressing America and Ohio’s desperately serious economic, health-care, energy and foreign policy issues.
“In the U.S. Senate, we don’t need any more inflexible obstructions and party-first ideologues. Yet, everything that Mandel has said and one as a candidate—as well as his strong support among the uncompromising Tea Parties—suggest that he would line up with the conservative radicals in Congress against any of the problem-solving compromises that will be absolutely necessary if this country is going to address its problems. If you’re a fan of gridlock in Washington, then Josh Mandel’s definitely your man.
“But don’t let Mandel’s Tea Party support convince you that he’s a man of the people. He’s also benefiting mightily from the blizzard of corporate, elite and special interest money that’s piling up on the Republican side of this key Senate race.”

Burn.

Ohio Public said that, “nearly $18 million in outside money has been spent so far against Brown and supporting Mandel, from nine groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, as well as the largely unknown Government Integrity Fund.” Brown only has a sixth of that from unions and special-interests groups.

The Athens’ News then goes on to discuss some issues specifically such as the Affordable Care Act and Climate-change. However, it is the portion on economic and tax issues that makes me almost feel for Mandel:

“On economic and tax issues, Mandel subscribes to the discredited theory (and as Bill Clinton pointed out in his glorious Democratic National Convention speech, really poor arithmetic) that reducing government revenues through tax cuts will actually generate more money for government. This has never worked as a serious long-term approach to budget balancing. It’s a particularly reckless strategy at a time when the national debt has reached a crisis stage.
“Brown supports letting the Bush tax cuts expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year [or as Mitten’s call them the middle class]. While this won’t put much of a dent in the budget deficit, it is a start toward fiscal solvency, and hopefully just the first step in a national realization that debt reduction will require a combination of tax increases, entitlement reform and spending cuts.”

Here Athens’ News advocates Democrats compromising on spending and entitlements, which I’m not willing to concede. There is plenty to cut without sacrificing the poor. But hell, that felt good.

NFL Refs Lockout Ended on Wednesday night/Thursday morning.

I know everyone is a Cleveland sports fan so naturally we were all waiting up Wednesday night to see if the Browns and Ravens would have real refs last night.

According to the Associated Press, the news came after two days of negotiations and pressure from coaches, players, and fans. The announcement is a tentative agreement which ends the lockout which began in June.

Commissioner Roger Goodell announces the regular officials would be back for last night’s Browns and Raven’s game. Goodell participated in the negotiations on Tuesday and Wednesday. Players took to twitter to welcome the refs back, which is a sweet gesture.

The replacements worked for the first three games of the season. Culminating in robbing the Packers on Monday night, which as a fun fact is my post-season team because a. they are publicly owned, b. they came out in support of We are Wisconsin, and c. all Cleveland fans have post-season teams.

Scott Green, the referees’ union president said he was pleased they are going to be back on the field this week. So is everyone else. Only the NFL could bring Gov. Scott Walker over to the pro-union side, even if it is only temporarily.

The tentative eight-year deal is the longest the NFL has had for on-field officials, who are part-time employees of the league. The deal was reached with the aid of two federal mediators, but it still has to be ratified by 51 percent of the union’s 121 members, who will vote Friday and Saturday in Dallas. The deal depended on the negotiators ability to work out salary, pension, and retirement benefits. It calls for a salary increase from an average $149,000 a year in 2011 to $173,000 in 2013, and then rising to $205,000 by 2019. The proposal allows the current defined benefit pension plan to remain for current officials through 2016 season or until the official earns 20 years of service. Then the define benefits plan will be frozen. Retirement benefits will be provided for all new hires and for all officials beginning in 2017 through a defined contribution arrangement. The annual league contribution will be made on behalf of each official and will begin around $18,000 and increase to $23,000 in 2019.

Beginning in 2013, the NFL will be able to hire officials on a full-time basis to work year round including on the field. Also, the NFL will be able to retain officials for training and development, and can assign those officials to work games. 

Controversial Workplace Pregnancy Act continues to move

Some employers, I’m look at you Walmart, do not allow for concessions to be made for employees when pregnant even when the female employee provides a physican’s note or something to indicate that they must be allowed to visit the restroom or drink water during the job. This may sound weird to people who are not employed in physically demanding labor such as retail or factory work.

The Prengnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) was introduced last week by Sen. Jean Shaheen (D.-N.H) and Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa). This Act requires employers to make the same workplace accommodations for pregnant women that current law requires for people with disabilities.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires “reasonable accommodations” for people with disabilities so they can perform their job functions. Of course pregnancy isn’t actually a disability. Pregnant women have the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which states it is illegal to fire a woman for becoming pregnant. However, employers can still refuse to accommodate pregnant women’s basic temporary medical needs within the workplace.

Sen. Shaheen said:

“As more and more women are working longer into their pregnancies," they deserve reasonable accommodations to maintain their safety and health. Adding the bill allows women, “to work longer and more productively at their jobs while also providing for their families and helping strengthen our economy.”

Women make up about half the work force, and according to the NWLC that is about 77 million women. Naturally, in light of the recent changes to the economy and the rise of women as the family primary breadwinner, which was up to 41 percent in 2010, women need more protections in the workplace. Oh, and equal pay would be nice too. Then again, that would probably cease the rise in hiring women to preform jobs because you can pay them less.

There was a similar bill introduced in the House of Representatives, but we shouldn’t hold our breath. New York Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) introduced the bill and has 109 co-sponsors, all of whom are Democrats. Republicans control the House so it is unlikely that any bills that benefit women will ever see the light of day. Republicans will argue that this is unfair to business somehow.

I wish this were real

Huffington Post put together a Mitt Romney sex tape.

Mitt Romney believes poor people should just go to the ER when sick.

Mitt Romney is arguing that the poor should just go to the ER when ill because that's a good idea. Also, the actual quote is more along the lines of, "At least we didn't let them die." Romney pretty much calls the ER a substitute for insurance. This was on Huffington Post this morning with video, and I couldn't resist.

So anecdotal, I worked in an ER processing intake while in undergrad during the graveyard shift. I can tell you, ER doctors, nurses, and staff do not believe the ER should substitute for insurance, and often the uninsured or those on Medicaid were treated poorly. I could tell you about how staff would make the uninsured and underinsured wait for hours before taking them. Not everyone mind you, but a lot of the people on staff were resentful of those who weren't insured.

Romney's quote:

"Well, we do provide for people who don't have insurance. If someone has a heart attack, they don't sit in their apartment and die. We pick them up in an ambulance, and take them to the hospital, and give them care. And different states have different ways of providing for that care."

First, Romney's selective amnesia strikes again; he has no memory of his universal health care law in Massachusetts.

When asked whether he believed in universal health care, Romney responded, "Oh, sure." I think the question was poorly phrased. Universal health care isn't like believing in God. Universal health care exists. He continued to say:

"Look, it doesn't make a lot of sense for us to have millions and millions of people who have no health insurance and yet who can go to the emergency room and get entirely free care for which they have no responsibility, particularly if they are people who have sufficient means to pay their own way."

Actually, Mittens, going to the emergency room isn't completely free. It contributes to the system that increases insurance premiums for all of us.

Romney also asserts that states have their own way of doing things:

"Again, different states have different ways of doing that. Some provide that care through clinics. Some provide the care through emergency rooms. In my state, we found a solution that worked for my state. But I wouldn't take what we did in Massachusetts and say to Texas, 'You've got to take the Massachusetts model.'"

Just to be clear, Romney's home state, which is the example he uses, has universal health care, but the rest of us shouldn't have that. We should use the more costly ER method.

I'm not always a fan of Krugman, but...actually there is no way to end this

I’m not a fan of Paul Krugman, but his op-ed on Mitt Romney and the Republicans’ views on the middle class are spot on.

Krugman begins by discussing the “shocking videos” of Romney with his wealthy donors. He provides context for the statement made on the 47% of lazy Americans.

Then Krugman poses the real question: 

“Should we imagine that Mr. Romney and his party would think better of the 47 percent on learning that the great majority of then actually are or were hard workers, who very much have taken personal responsibility for their lives? And the answer is no.”

Krugman goes on to cite pretty excellent example of Republican contempt for laborers, really all workers who aren’t self-employed, the non-job creators.

Examples:

“Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day—a holiday that specifically celebrates America’s workers. Here’s what is said, in its entirety: ‘Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success.’ Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.” 

Romney’s RNC acceptance speech, he never mentioned workers. 

Romney’s view on opportunities America offers to immigrants? “Freedom to build a business.”

Krugman then asserts that the GOP’s disdain for workers isn’t just rhetorical, but also in policy. They believe working Americans are under taxed while corporations and the wealthiest deserve tax breaks.

He concludes by asking:

“Where does this disdain for workers come from? Some of it, obviously, reflects the influence of money in politics: big-money donors, like the ones Mr. Romney was speaking to when he went off on half the nation, don’t live paycheck to paycheck. But it also reflects the extent to which the GOP has been taken over by an Ayn Rand-type of vision of society, in which a handful of heroic businessmen are responsible for all economic good, while the rest of us are just along for the ride."

Krugman points out that when this vision is challenged those challenging it are perceived as socialists. Additionally, this isn’t a new world view. Rand was writing since the 1950s. All of this culminates not in Romney’s statements as an incident, but rather that this incident was when we were able to hear how the GOP really feel about the rest of the county. 

I'm not particularly shocked that the GOP has nothing but disgust for working people, but I am a little surprised to see them saying it out loud and it going unchecked for so long. Honestly, I'd be impressed if any of them could ride this into an election victory. Krugman makes some valid points about the GOP focusing on "job creators" over laborers. While it isn't anything knew, we seen this dance danced before, but for them to be so open about it while courting the voters. Damn, son. 

Walmart in DC hold secret meetings with labor activists

Mike Elk wrote about this for In These Times: Walmart, Manpower (a temp work agency), Katie Ford Foundation (an anti-traffcking nonprofit), and labor friendly groups (including Farmworker Justice, the United Farm Workers and the Coalition of Immokalee Workers) meet behind closed doors. The meeting was about "ethical sources." Apparently, representatives from the DOL, DOS (the human trafficking division) and Congressional staffers were there as well.

"Reporters were banned and the attendees were sent a set of 'Chatham House Rules' barring them from discussing what was talked about in the meeting. 'Participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), not that of any other participant, may be revealed,' read the invitation. 'Press will not be present in the room and we do appreciate all participants respecting the above if asked about the meeting by media before or after the event."

This meeting comes after the PR nightmare where Walmart workers at its supplier, CJ's Seafood, went out on strike in June to protest 24 hour work days. So naturally now, Walmart is trying to kind an illusion of being concerned with ethical sourcing. I'm thinking no one is going to believe them, but hey, why not.

According to Elk,

"Labor advocates say that the Walmart event was designed to create the appearance of being pro-worker when the reality is anything but. This practice is known as 'worker washing,' a play on 'greenwashing.'"

There were two workers at the event, a warehouse worker who is currently on strike and one who was involved in the CJ strike. The workers claim Walmart VP for Ethical Sourcing, Rajan Kamalanathan, was concerned about their working conditions. I'm actually surprised this is a title at Walmart.

Walmart didn't respond to In These Times request for a comment on the press blackout, but a Walmart spokesperson, Lorenzo Lopez wrote:

"Walmart is committed to strong ethical sourcing standards for suppliers and we have worked diligently to help ensure the products we sell are produced in a way that provides dignity and respect for workers in our supply chain. As part of this commitment, we are looking to develop a program for suppliers that will include education, training and resources to help ensure compliance with our standards."

A representative of the National Guestworker Alliance places blame squarely with Walmart, safe bet:

"'We don't think CJs Seafood happened because of a racist seafood farmer in Louisiana,' says Soni. 'Mike Leblanc, who these workers came to work for, did mistreat these workers, but he is not the 1%. He is trapped in a set of supply chain incentives in a cage that he cannot get out of. The guy who owns the warehouse that Javier works at is not the 1%."

"These people are exploiting the subcontracted and supply chain workers," Soni continued, pointing to the room where the Walmart-sponsored conference was held. "What we have in that room, in the vice president of Walmart, is an extremely well-heeled, well-educated, well-read and well-staffed gentleman who is up to the task of fixing the problems of the supply chain."

Worker have long said Walmart doesn't listen to their complaints and that they need to take more actions like strikes.

Republicans, Officially Legislating Things that Haven’t Happened

Republicans are moving to prevent President Obama from making changes to welfare, which is just a way to provide Romney with a little ground after Obama received a bounce from the DNC and bully the President into following the rules.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, revealed resolutions on Monday that show disapproval with the DHHS recommendation that states should be able to obtain waivers to make changes to the welfare to work requirements. If it passed the Obama administration would be unable to grant these waivers.

The welfare work waivers have been an issue since July, when DHHS made its announcement via memo and the Romney camp jumped on it. There is a pretty awful ad featuring President Obama destroying welfare work requirements while propagating the myth that welfare recipients are lazy and unwilling to work. Of course these waivers are actually an attempt by the Obama administration to appease governors who have requested such waivers including at least two Republicans from Utah and Nevada.

Former president Clinton has come to Obama’s defense stating the Romney ad was wrong. Additionally, The Washington Post Fact Checker, Glenn Kessler, pointed out the ad is wrong because it asserts President Obama has already moved to “drop work requirements” which isn’t true because no waivers have been granted.

Naturally, GOP lawmakers are also upset that DHHS had the audacity to make a rule change without consulting Congress. The Government Accountability Office said that administration needed to seek congressional approval before making policy changes, which makes sense.

Of course instead of framing the argument as the Obama administration should consult Congress before making policy change, the GOP lawmakers are jumping on Obama is gutting welfare:

“With the stroke of a pen, the Obama Administration single-handedly undermined one of the central tents of bipartisan welfare reform, that work is the best path to self-sufficiency. Given GAO’s findings, it’s an indisputable fact that this administration should have submitted its unilateral changes to Congress. The way forward is to put a stop to this unprecedented power play, as this resolution does, and start over on a robust reform and reexamination of this program,” said Hatch.

Camp added to this by calling it “unfortunate, but not surprising” that the Obama administration would overreach and not withdraw the change. Camp then continues to talk up welfare reform and the work requirements as the save all for poor people.

The House and Senate have restrictive timetables for voting so it is unclear whether they will vote on this before the election. Democrats are calling foul on all of this because it is based in lies. Also, Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich), ranking member on the House Ways and Means Committee, pointed out that the root of these claims are pretty racist. Republicans are grasping at stereotypes that welfare recipients are lazy and if not required to work will not work, which isn’t what the evidence supports. But they’re not really the party of facts right now. 

DOL prepares for the end of Social Security and Medicare

The DOL announced nearly $260 million in grants to provide job training and related services to unemployed and low-income seniors. The dollar dollar bills are awarded to 15 non-profit organizations across the country for Senior Community Service Employment Programs.

Secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis said the following about the grants:

“The federal grants announced today will provide job training to enhance low-income seniors’ employment opportunities and contribute millions of community service hours to nonprofit and civic organizations throughout the county. These organizations are crucial partners in serving seniors who face challenges in re-entering the workforce and attaining economic stability.”

We’ll have to wait and see what the work requirements for the seniors are. Also, who doesn't like the idea that the elderly who are poor have to work long wage dead end jobs, what do they have to live for anyway? And they're probably used to it. 

Grants will be disbursed as sixteen one year grants to fifteen non-profit organizations through the program’s general funds or funds set aside by statute to serve Native Americans or Asian-American and Pacific Islanders. The grant should support more than 35,000 positions. State and territorial grantees which had previously received funding through this program will continue to support 10,000 jobs.

The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) is the only federally sponsored employment and training program for unemployed, low-income individuals 55+ years old. The grants serve individuals by providing training through part-time, service-oriented positions in their communities while earning the highest federal, state, or local minimum wage. The program’s goals are to promote community service and help participants achieve economic self-sufficiency. The Program’s participants supply more than 48 million hours of community service to public agencies and non-profits.

The Government Accountability Office reports older workers who become unemployed tend to stay unemployed longer, and those who regain employment suffer greater wage loss than younger workers. This information was released in their paper “Unemployed Older Workers: Many Experience Challenges Regaining Employment and Face Reduced Retirement Security.”

The 2011 SCSEP Satisfaction Survey said than program participants who find unsubsidized employment indicated that SCSEP was helpful. Shocking, they’d release controversial information like that. This information came out in a COL ETA News Release, Release Number: 12-1525-NAT.

Below is a breakdown of grantees, locations, etc.

Senior Community Service Employment Program Grantees

Grantee	City	State	Amount
AARP Foundation Inc.	Washington	D.C.	$51,997,773
Asociación Nacional Pro Personas Mayores	Pasadena	Calif.	$6,436,990
Easter Seals Inc.	Chicago	Ill.	$13,114,000
Experience Works Inc.	Arlington	Va.	$64,900,844
Goodwill Industries Inc.	Rockville	Md.	$8,466,277
Mature Services Inc.	Akron	Ohio	$3,804,007
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging*	Seattle	Wash.	$6,639,267.50
National Able Network Inc.	Chicago	Ill.	$4,371,334
National Caucus and Center on Black Aged Inc.	Washington	D.C.	$10,379,190
National Council on Aging	Washington	D.C.	$19,121,856
National Indian Council on Aging	Albuquerque	N.M.	$4,580,886.50
National Urban League Inc.	New York City	N.Y.	$6,560,636
SER – Jobs for Progress Inc.	Irving	Texas	$18,889,106
Senior Service America Inc.	Silver Spring	Md.	$37,690,930
Vermont Associates for Training and Development Inc.	St. Albans	Vt.	$2,865,734
Total			$259,818,830

Romney teaches you how not to win an election

Unbelievable. David Corn at Mother Jones released these gems today. I'm baffled.