Friday 04 September 2009
by: Juan Gonzalez Visit article original @ Democracy Now!
At Corcoran High School in Syracuse, New York, Army recruiter Sgt. Dwayne DeVane talks to a group of 10th-graders. (Photo: Dick Blume / The Post-Standard)
As millions of students prepare for the start of another school year, we focus on an issue that concerns many parents: the increasing presence of military recruiters in the nation's high schools and the military's ability to gather information about students. We speak with journalist David Goodman about his Mother Jones article "A Few Good Kids?" and with the New York Civil Liberties Union's Ari Rosmarin, who works on the organization's Project on Military Recruitment and Students' Rights.
JUAN GONZALEZ: As millions of students prepare for the start of another school year, we turn to an issue that concerns many parents: the increasing presence of military recruiters in the nation's high schools and the military's ability to gather information about students.
Journalist David Goodman writes in the new issue of Mother Jones, quote, "Using data mining, stealth websites, career tests, and sophisticated marketing software, the Pentagon is harvesting and analyzing information on everything from high school students' GPAs and SAT scores to which video games they play. Before an Army recruiter even picks up the phone to call a prospect, the soldier may know more about the kid's habits than do his own parents."
To talk more about this, David Goodman joins us on the phone. He's a contributing writer at Mother Jones magazine. His latest article is titled "A Few Good Kids." He's also the co-author, with his sister Amy, of three books. We're also joined by Ari Rosmarin, senior advocacy coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union. He works on the organization's Project on Military Recruitment and Students' Rights.
Welcome to the both of you. I want to start with David. It's not just No Child Left Behind. You talk in your article about all kinds of other ways that the government has been and the military has been getting information on America's youth.
DAVID GOODMAN: That's right, Juan. You know, as families and students around the country are about to return to school this week, and New York starts next week, what they may be unaware of is that in the pack-you know, my daughter, who's in high school, along with every high school student-comes this sheaf of papers that you get in a week or two before. Buried in that sheaf is a letter informing them that all information about every high school junior and senior in the country is being sent to military recruiters by default, unless you happen to notice this letter and choose to opt out.
Oddly enough, this letter comes as a result of President George Bush's signature education law, the No Child Left Behind Act, which in 2002 included a provision, slipped in by then-Representative, now-Senator David Vitter from Louisiana, requiring all high schools to provide directory and contact information to recruiters. It effectively transformed this supposed education law into the most aggressive military recruitment tool that the armed services have had to date.
But that, as you point out, is not the only way that information is being gathered. At the same time as the No Child Left Behind law began harvesting this kind of directory information, which the military has not had before-you know, the sight of recruiters at malls and hanging around at high school football games and such has been the more typical scene that we are accustomed to with the all-volunteer Army. They go out, and they try and meet young people wherever they think they'll hang out. Having emails, cell phone numbers and home phone numbers is a whole new level for, you know, what-how recruiters can access young people. But there's more.
We found out, in 2005 privacy advocates were amazed to discover that the Pentagon had been amassing an extraordinary number of names, at this point 34 million names of young people, which is said to be "the largest repository of 16-25-year-old youth data in the country"-those are the military's own words-in something called the JAMRS database. That's the Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies program of the Defense Department. This is where all information has now been centralized, from Selective Service to the No Child Left Behind directory info.
But also it's from commercial data brokers. These are-include groups such as the Student Marketing Group and American Student List. The Pentagon is currently spending about $600,000 a year on these data brokers. Now, what's of concern here, these data brokers are getting information from when you buy a yearbook, when you buy a student ring, when you take any number of, you know, just commercial purchases. However, both of these large commercial data brokers have been accused of using deceptive practices to gather the information. So the New York Attorney General-
JUAN GONZALEZ: David, you actually mention one website, marchtosuccess.com, which you say the Army spent $1.2 million backing this, and it supposedly helps to-provides tips to young people on standardized test taking, and only at the very bottom is it mentioned that it's sponsored by the US military?
DAVID GOODMAN: That's right, marchtosuccess.com is being used by teachers all around the country. They send students to this website, ostensibly to provide them with free standardized test taking tips. And this is designed by the top test prep firms-Kaplan, Princeton Review. Peterson's is the current contractor providing the information. And yet, this is in fact a website run by the Army. You wouldn't know that unless you notice the little tagline in the lower right corner that links to goarmy.com, which is the Army recruiting website. And by the Army's own words to me, one of their most effective recruiting vehicles is goarmy.com.
So, you know, the director of the program told me that-of the marchtosuccess.com, said that "We're providing a great service to schools that normally would cost them." But what he doesn't say is that this marchtosuccess.com is currently registering an average of 17,000 new users each month, and you can elect to have a recruiter monitor your test progress. This is not a teacher; this is an Army recruiter, who can coach you along and then presumably help you when it comes to make decisions that obviously a recruiter hopes will land you in the armed forces.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And Ari Rosmarin of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the implications of this for privacy rights and for civil rights?
ARI ROSMARIN: Well, they're very serious. One of the hard things about doing Know Your Rights education around this issue, both in New York but also around the country, is that advocates and communities have done a good job of educating people over the last now about seven years about No Child Left Behind and what the privacy implications are there, but what folks often don't realize is that, coming out of that, there's also this massive program that's funded, obviously, as David talked about-billions of dollars that go into a whole range of recruitment efforts of-towards getting information about young people through myriad different ways that mostly they have no idea is taking place. So there's a danger when, for example, a student will turn in an opt-out form, which maybe will get to-which keeps you out of-your school from giving your information to a recruiter under No Child Left Behind. Meanwhile, the military has six other ways of getting that information, so that there really has yet to be a meaningful, comprehensive way to keep your information away from military recruiters, which is, you know, unprecedented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And how can parents opt out, if they want to?
ARI ROSMARIN: Of the JAMRS database, it's actually, unfortunately-there is a way, but they make-they want to make it very difficult for you. According to the Pentagon, the only way to what they call opt out of the database is for your parent-a student cannot do this his or herself-a parent needs to send a letter to the Pentagon, asking the Pentagon to take their student out of the list. And even then, you're not removed to the list-from the list; you're put into what's called a suppression file, which is a separate list within the JAMRS system and database system that keeps you away out of that list, but you're never really removed from the list.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, there's a lawsuit against the JAMRS database?
ARI ROSMARIN: There was. In 2005, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon, charging them with violating a couple different laws, the Privacy Act and the Defense Act. Basically, the military was putting information into this database and keeping it in certain ways that were in violation of the law, including keeping information on students as young as fifteen in the database, when the law only allows seventeen and over; keeping it for longer than three years, they're keeping it for five years; collecting Social Security numbers-a number of different things.
And that lawsuit ultimately settled, and we were successfully able to keep the military from-keeping it for only three years, stopping collecting Social Security numbers, clarifying opt-out information, clarifying the privacy regulations.
But interestingly, the one thing that-or one of the main things that we wanted, but the military refused to give in on, was the collection of racial and ethnic data. And that's something that is not called for under the statute, but the military felt it was so important that they keep racial and ethnic data in the database that they pushed hard and refused to give in on that point. And when you look at the-at enlistment numbers, the two factors that are the clearest indicators of who's going to end up in the military are racial and ethnic data and college plans. And so, the military is certainly thinking about that when they do their recruitment.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, David Goodman, could you tell us about the use of video games by the military in their recruitment efforts?
DAVID GOODMAN: Two-yeah, two of the main videogames being used by the military. One is a video game that the Army itself has created. It is called "America's Army." Amazingly, one in four males between the age of thirteen and twenty-four have played this game. The new version, "America's Army 3," was just released in June. And users who play it are, the Army says, 29 percent more likely to be interested in serving in the military. So this one is actually created by the Army.
Another one that the Army-
JUAN GONZALEZ: And is it-and it's available free online or what?
DAVID GOODMAN: Free online, yes.
Another is "Halo 3," which is a hit Xbox game. It has sold more copies than the Harry Potter series. The Army spent over a million dollars to sponsor "Halo 3." And it has links. This is a Microsoft game but has links where players can link out to the goarmy.com recruiting website. So these are some of the other ways that the military is going.
But, Juan, I did just want to follow up on this question of what can concerned parents do.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, we have about thirty seconds. Yeah, go ahead. DAVID GOODMAN: OK. And that is that around the country, the ASVAB test is being administered in many high schools, and this is used by the military for recruiting, for placement in the military. And many students and parents are trying to get that test out of the schools, because it's mandatory in many of the schools where it's administered. So that's a very important piece of activism that has been going on.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I want to thank both of you for being with us. Ari Rosmarin is the senior advocacy coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union, and David Goodman is a contributing writer at Mother Jones magazine. We'll link to his website-his article on our website.
»
Back to School: Military Recruiters Increasingly Targeting High School Teens
Friday 04 September 2009
by: Juan Gonzalez Visit article original @ Democracy Now!
At Corcoran High School in Syracuse, New York, Army recruiter Sgt. Dwayne DeVane talks to a group of 10th-graders. (Photo: Dick Blume / The Post-Standard)
As millions of students prepare for the start of another school year, we focus on an issue that concerns many parents: the increasing presence of military recruiters in the nation's high schools and the military's ability to gather information about students. We speak with journalist David Goodman about his Mother Jones article "A Few Good Kids?" and with the New York Civil Liberties Union's Ari Rosmarin, who works on the organization's Project on Military Recruitment and Students' Rights.
JUAN GONZALEZ: As millions of students prepare for the start of another school year, we turn to an issue that concerns many parents: the increasing presence of military recruiters in the nation's high schools and the military's ability to gather information about students.
Journalist David Goodman writes in the new issue of Mother Jones, quote, "Using data mining, stealth websites, career tests, and sophisticated marketing software, the Pentagon is harvesting and analyzing information on everything from high school students' GPAs and SAT scores to which video games they play. Before an Army recruiter even picks up the phone to call a prospect, the soldier may know more about the kid's habits than do his own parents."
To talk more about this, David Goodman joins us on the phone. He's a contributing writer at Mother Jones magazine. His latest article is titled "A Few Good Kids." He's also the co-author, with his sister Amy, of three books. We're also joined by Ari Rosmarin, senior advocacy coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union. He works on the organization's Project on Military Recruitment and Students' Rights.
Welcome to the both of you. I want to start with David. It's not just No Child Left Behind. You talk in your article about all kinds of other ways that the government has been and the military has been getting information on America's youth.
DAVID GOODMAN: That's right, Juan. You know, as families and students around the country are about to return to school this week, and New York starts next week, what they may be unaware of is that in the pack-you know, my daughter, who's in high school, along with every high school student-comes this sheaf of papers that you get in a week or two before. Buried in that sheaf is a letter informing them that all information about every high school junior and senior in the country is being sent to military recruiters by default, unless you happen to notice this letter and choose to opt out.
Oddly enough, this letter comes as a result of President George Bush's signature education law, the No Child Left Behind Act, which in 2002 included a provision, slipped in by then-Representative, now-Senator David Vitter from Louisiana, requiring all high schools to provide directory and contact information to recruiters. It effectively transformed this supposed education law into the most aggressive military recruitment tool that the armed services have had to date.
But that, as you point out, is not the only way that information is being gathered. At the same time as the No Child Left Behind law began harvesting this kind of directory information, which the military has not had before-you know, the sight of recruiters at malls and hanging around at high school football games and such has been the more typical scene that we are accustomed to with the all-volunteer Army. They go out, and they try and meet young people wherever they think they'll hang out. Having emails, cell phone numbers and home phone numbers is a whole new level for, you know, what-how recruiters can access young people. But there's more.
We found out, in 2005 privacy advocates were amazed to discover that the Pentagon had been amassing an extraordinary number of names, at this point 34 million names of young people, which is said to be "the largest repository of 16-25-year-old youth data in the country"-those are the military's own words-in something called the JAMRS database. That's the Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies program of the Defense Department. This is where all information has now been centralized, from Selective Service to the No Child Left Behind directory info.
But also it's from commercial data brokers. These are-include groups such as the Student Marketing Group and American Student List. The Pentagon is currently spending about $600,000 a year on these data brokers. Now, what's of concern here, these data brokers are getting information from when you buy a yearbook, when you buy a student ring, when you take any number of, you know, just commercial purchases. However, both of these large commercial data brokers have been accused of using deceptive practices to gather the information. So the New York Attorney General-
JUAN GONZALEZ: David, you actually mention one website, marchtosuccess.com, which you say the Army spent $1.2 million backing this, and it supposedly helps to-provides tips to young people on standardized test taking, and only at the very bottom is it mentioned that it's sponsored by the US military?
DAVID GOODMAN: That's right, marchtosuccess.com is being used by teachers all around the country. They send students to this website, ostensibly to provide them with free standardized test taking tips. And this is designed by the top test prep firms-Kaplan, Princeton Review. Peterson's is the current contractor providing the information. And yet, this is in fact a website run by the Army. You wouldn't know that unless you notice the little tagline in the lower right corner that links to goarmy.com, which is the Army recruiting website. And by the Army's own words to me, one of their most effective recruiting vehicles is goarmy.com.
So, you know, the director of the program told me that-of the marchtosuccess.com, said that "We're providing a great service to schools that normally would cost them." But what he doesn't say is that this marchtosuccess.com is currently registering an average of 17,000 new users each month, and you can elect to have a recruiter monitor your test progress. This is not a teacher; this is an Army recruiter, who can coach you along and then presumably help you when it comes to make decisions that obviously a recruiter hopes will land you in the armed forces.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And Ari Rosmarin of the New York Civil Liberties Union, the implications of this for privacy rights and for civil rights?
ARI ROSMARIN: Well, they're very serious. One of the hard things about doing Know Your Rights education around this issue, both in New York but also around the country, is that advocates and communities have done a good job of educating people over the last now about seven years about No Child Left Behind and what the privacy implications are there, but what folks often don't realize is that, coming out of that, there's also this massive program that's funded, obviously, as David talked about-billions of dollars that go into a whole range of recruitment efforts of-towards getting information about young people through myriad different ways that mostly they have no idea is taking place. So there's a danger when, for example, a student will turn in an opt-out form, which maybe will get to-which keeps you out of-your school from giving your information to a recruiter under No Child Left Behind. Meanwhile, the military has six other ways of getting that information, so that there really has yet to be a meaningful, comprehensive way to keep your information away from military recruiters, which is, you know, unprecedented.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And how can parents opt out, if they want to?
ARI ROSMARIN: Of the JAMRS database, it's actually, unfortunately-there is a way, but they make-they want to make it very difficult for you. According to the Pentagon, the only way to what they call opt out of the database is for your parent-a student cannot do this his or herself-a parent needs to send a letter to the Pentagon, asking the Pentagon to take their student out of the list. And even then, you're not removed to the list-from the list; you're put into what's called a suppression file, which is a separate list within the JAMRS system and database system that keeps you away out of that list, but you're never really removed from the list.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, there's a lawsuit against the JAMRS database?
ARI ROSMARIN: There was. In 2005, the New York Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Pentagon, charging them with violating a couple different laws, the Privacy Act and the Defense Act. Basically, the military was putting information into this database and keeping it in certain ways that were in violation of the law, including keeping information on students as young as fifteen in the database, when the law only allows seventeen and over; keeping it for longer than three years, they're keeping it for five years; collecting Social Security numbers-a number of different things.
And that lawsuit ultimately settled, and we were successfully able to keep the military from-keeping it for only three years, stopping collecting Social Security numbers, clarifying opt-out information, clarifying the privacy regulations.
But interestingly, the one thing that-or one of the main things that we wanted, but the military refused to give in on, was the collection of racial and ethnic data. And that's something that is not called for under the statute, but the military felt it was so important that they keep racial and ethnic data in the database that they pushed hard and refused to give in on that point. And when you look at the-at enlistment numbers, the two factors that are the clearest indicators of who's going to end up in the military are racial and ethnic data and college plans. And so, the military is certainly thinking about that when they do their recruitment.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And, David Goodman, could you tell us about the use of video games by the military in their recruitment efforts?
DAVID GOODMAN: Two-yeah, two of the main videogames being used by the military. One is a video game that the Army itself has created. It is called "America's Army." Amazingly, one in four males between the age of thirteen and twenty-four have played this game. The new version, "America's Army 3," was just released in June. And users who play it are, the Army says, 29 percent more likely to be interested in serving in the military. So this one is actually created by the Army.
Another one that the Army-
JUAN GONZALEZ: And is it-and it's available free online or what?
DAVID GOODMAN: Free online, yes.
Another is "Halo 3," which is a hit Xbox game. It has sold more copies than the Harry Potter series. The Army spent over a million dollars to sponsor "Halo 3." And it has links. This is a Microsoft game but has links where players can link out to the goarmy.com recruiting website. So these are some of the other ways that the military is going.
But, Juan, I did just want to follow up on this question of what can concerned parents do.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Yeah, we have about thirty seconds. Yeah, go ahead. DAVID GOODMAN: OK. And that is that around the country, the ASVAB test is being administered in many high schools, and this is used by the military for recruiting, for placement in the military. And many students and parents are trying to get that test out of the schools, because it's mandatory in many of the schools where it's administered. So that's a very important piece of activism that has been going on.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I want to thank both of you for being with us. Ari Rosmarin is the senior advocacy coordinator at the New York Civil Liberties Union, and David Goodman is a contributing writer at Mother Jones magazine. We'll link to his website-his article on our website.
»
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
UN to Consider New Position for Women
Monday 07 September 2009
by: Donald Steinberg Visit article original @ GlobalPost
A group of women in Cote d'Ivoire sit with their children. Cote d'Ivoire has lately been a major site of sexual violence, rape and gender-based torture. (Photo: Ann Jones)
New York - The United Nations may soon undergo a shake-up that could affect half the people on the planet.
As the U.N. reviews its internal structures for addressing women's interests around the world, surely the most significant changes expected will concern women and armed conflict. The question is - will this reform make a fundamental difference in the lives of women impacted by war?
Just as the U.N. takes the lead on protecting war-affected children through UNICEF and a high-profile special representative, advocates have looked to the U.N. to protect women from widespread abuse and to ensure their full participation in peace processes, post-conflict reconstruction and governance.
But nearly nine years after the U.N. Security Council passed a groundbreaking resolution to promote such a role, issues such as rape, trafficking, reproductive health and girls' education continue to receive short shrift.
One culprit is the alphabet soup of U.N. architecture itself. Multiple agencies - the Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Office of the Special Advisor for Gender Issues (OSAGI), the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), and others - fight for the same scarce resources with little political power. The offices are filled with talented and dedicated people, but their efforts are thwarted by a system that gives responsibility to all but holds no one accountable. Meanwhile, the two main tasks - ensuring an active field presence for gender proponents in U.N. missions, and mainstreaming gender issues in the work of key U.N. agencies - are largely left wanting. Now, with the broad support of the U.N. secretariat, a coalition of member states, and civil society groups, a new entity - known bureaucratically as the 'composite entity' or 'option D' - could be approved as early as next month in the U.N. General Assembly. It would bring the principal actors under a single office, headed by a high-profile Under-Secretary-General, and enable greater coordination and synergies. It would also ensure women's issues were at the nexus of U.N. debates, as the new Under-Secretary General would participate in all senior policy-making bodies and serve as a watchdog for the interest of half the world's population.
The proposal enjoys broad support among non-governmental organizations, including 340 groups around the world that are part of the Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) campaign. They view this as the best possible outcome in the current environment, in which some member states still ask what all the fuss is about.
In fact, the real solution is a full-time, well-financed specialized agency with universal reach, a so-called UNICEF for Women. But pragmatists believe this is a bridge too far in the present fiscal climate, and a deal is emerging that would simply appoint a high-visibility Under-Secretary-General and leave the rest of the details to be worked out under her direction.
Since this structure is to be left in place for up to five years before being reviewed, however, the potential impact is all about the details. As GEAR points out, to make this change really matter for real women, the following commitments must be secured from the beginning:
1) Women in civil society around the world - and especially from conflict-related countries - must have a genuine voice in the new entity, not just on an ad hoc consultative basis, but through a formal decision-making role. The principle must be, "Nothing About Us Without Us."
2) There must be time-bound goals for achieving reductions in violence against women, participation of women in peace processes, allocation of reconstruction resources to projects of interest to women and other steps. Progress must be measurable, and governments, U.N. offices, and individuals must be held accountable for achieving them, with stiff penalties for failing to do so.
3) As much as $1 billion more dollars a year - or about 30 cents per woman - must be dedicated to these issues. This will allow a presence for the new entity in all war-impacted countries, supported by projects that can make a difference. And if the money must come primarily from voluntary contributions, as now seems likely, pledges should be taken now and the Secretary-General must go from capital to capital to collect them.
4) The new Under-Secretary-General must be a world-class figure, able to generate not only public attention and mobilize political will among governments, but with substantial knowledge of the U.N. system. The Secretary-General must give this leader the respect and resources needed to do her job, and the access to the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to achieve progress.
Negotiations over the next month will say much about whether the world is prepared to keep faith with half its population, or whether the promise of protection and participation will be just one more dream deferred.
--------
Donald Steinberg is Deputy President for Policy at International Crisis Group. He is a member of the board of the Women's Refugee Commission and formerly served as President Clinton's special assistant for African Affairs.
»
UN to Consider New Position for Women
Monday 07 September 2009
by: Donald Steinberg Visit article original @ GlobalPost
A group of women in Cote d'Ivoire sit with their children. Cote d'Ivoire has lately been a major site of sexual violence, rape and gender-based torture. (Photo: Ann Jones)
New York - The United Nations may soon undergo a shake-up that could affect half the people on the planet.
As the U.N. reviews its internal structures for addressing women's interests around the world, surely the most significant changes expected will concern women and armed conflict. The question is - will this reform make a fundamental difference in the lives of women impacted by war?
Just as the U.N. takes the lead on protecting war-affected children through UNICEF and a high-profile special representative, advocates have looked to the U.N. to protect women from widespread abuse and to ensure their full participation in peace processes, post-conflict reconstruction and governance.
But nearly nine years after the U.N. Security Council passed a groundbreaking resolution to promote such a role, issues such as rape, trafficking, reproductive health and girls' education continue to receive short shrift.
One culprit is the alphabet soup of U.N. architecture itself. Multiple agencies - the Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Office of the Special Advisor for Gender Issues (OSAGI), the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), and others - fight for the same scarce resources with little political power. The offices are filled with talented and dedicated people, but their efforts are thwarted by a system that gives responsibility to all but holds no one accountable. Meanwhile, the two main tasks - ensuring an active field presence for gender proponents in U.N. missions, and mainstreaming gender issues in the work of key U.N. agencies - are largely left wanting. Now, with the broad support of the U.N. secretariat, a coalition of member states, and civil society groups, a new entity - known bureaucratically as the 'composite entity' or 'option D' - could be approved as early as next month in the U.N. General Assembly. It would bring the principal actors under a single office, headed by a high-profile Under-Secretary-General, and enable greater coordination and synergies. It would also ensure women's issues were at the nexus of U.N. debates, as the new Under-Secretary General would participate in all senior policy-making bodies and serve as a watchdog for the interest of half the world's population.
The proposal enjoys broad support among non-governmental organizations, including 340 groups around the world that are part of the Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) campaign. They view this as the best possible outcome in the current environment, in which some member states still ask what all the fuss is about.
In fact, the real solution is a full-time, well-financed specialized agency with universal reach, a so-called UNICEF for Women. But pragmatists believe this is a bridge too far in the present fiscal climate, and a deal is emerging that would simply appoint a high-visibility Under-Secretary-General and leave the rest of the details to be worked out under her direction.
Since this structure is to be left in place for up to five years before being reviewed, however, the potential impact is all about the details. As GEAR points out, to make this change really matter for real women, the following commitments must be secured from the beginning:
1) Women in civil society around the world - and especially from conflict-related countries - must have a genuine voice in the new entity, not just on an ad hoc consultative basis, but through a formal decision-making role. The principle must be, "Nothing About Us Without Us."
2) There must be time-bound goals for achieving reductions in violence against women, participation of women in peace processes, allocation of reconstruction resources to projects of interest to women and other steps. Progress must be measurable, and governments, U.N. offices, and individuals must be held accountable for achieving them, with stiff penalties for failing to do so.
3) As much as $1 billion more dollars a year - or about 30 cents per woman - must be dedicated to these issues. This will allow a presence for the new entity in all war-impacted countries, supported by projects that can make a difference. And if the money must come primarily from voluntary contributions, as now seems likely, pledges should be taken now and the Secretary-General must go from capital to capital to collect them.
4) The new Under-Secretary-General must be a world-class figure, able to generate not only public attention and mobilize political will among governments, but with substantial knowledge of the U.N. system. The Secretary-General must give this leader the respect and resources needed to do her job, and the access to the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to achieve progress.
Negotiations over the next month will say much about whether the world is prepared to keep faith with half its population, or whether the promise of protection and participation will be just one more dream deferred.
--------
Donald Steinberg is Deputy President for Policy at International Crisis Group. He is a member of the board of the Women's Refugee Commission and formerly served as President Clinton's special assistant for African Affairs.
»
by: Donald Steinberg Visit article original @ GlobalPost
A group of women in Cote d'Ivoire sit with their children. Cote d'Ivoire has lately been a major site of sexual violence, rape and gender-based torture. (Photo: Ann Jones)
New York - The United Nations may soon undergo a shake-up that could affect half the people on the planet.
As the U.N. reviews its internal structures for addressing women's interests around the world, surely the most significant changes expected will concern women and armed conflict. The question is - will this reform make a fundamental difference in the lives of women impacted by war?
Just as the U.N. takes the lead on protecting war-affected children through UNICEF and a high-profile special representative, advocates have looked to the U.N. to protect women from widespread abuse and to ensure their full participation in peace processes, post-conflict reconstruction and governance.
But nearly nine years after the U.N. Security Council passed a groundbreaking resolution to promote such a role, issues such as rape, trafficking, reproductive health and girls' education continue to receive short shrift.
One culprit is the alphabet soup of U.N. architecture itself. Multiple agencies - the Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Office of the Special Advisor for Gender Issues (OSAGI), the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), and others - fight for the same scarce resources with little political power. The offices are filled with talented and dedicated people, but their efforts are thwarted by a system that gives responsibility to all but holds no one accountable. Meanwhile, the two main tasks - ensuring an active field presence for gender proponents in U.N. missions, and mainstreaming gender issues in the work of key U.N. agencies - are largely left wanting. Now, with the broad support of the U.N. secretariat, a coalition of member states, and civil society groups, a new entity - known bureaucratically as the 'composite entity' or 'option D' - could be approved as early as next month in the U.N. General Assembly. It would bring the principal actors under a single office, headed by a high-profile Under-Secretary-General, and enable greater coordination and synergies. It would also ensure women's issues were at the nexus of U.N. debates, as the new Under-Secretary General would participate in all senior policy-making bodies and serve as a watchdog for the interest of half the world's population.
The proposal enjoys broad support among non-governmental organizations, including 340 groups around the world that are part of the Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) campaign. They view this as the best possible outcome in the current environment, in which some member states still ask what all the fuss is about.
In fact, the real solution is a full-time, well-financed specialized agency with universal reach, a so-called UNICEF for Women. But pragmatists believe this is a bridge too far in the present fiscal climate, and a deal is emerging that would simply appoint a high-visibility Under-Secretary-General and leave the rest of the details to be worked out under her direction.
Since this structure is to be left in place for up to five years before being reviewed, however, the potential impact is all about the details. As GEAR points out, to make this change really matter for real women, the following commitments must be secured from the beginning:
1) Women in civil society around the world - and especially from conflict-related countries - must have a genuine voice in the new entity, not just on an ad hoc consultative basis, but through a formal decision-making role. The principle must be, "Nothing About Us Without Us."
2) There must be time-bound goals for achieving reductions in violence against women, participation of women in peace processes, allocation of reconstruction resources to projects of interest to women and other steps. Progress must be measurable, and governments, U.N. offices, and individuals must be held accountable for achieving them, with stiff penalties for failing to do so.
3) As much as $1 billion more dollars a year - or about 30 cents per woman - must be dedicated to these issues. This will allow a presence for the new entity in all war-impacted countries, supported by projects that can make a difference. And if the money must come primarily from voluntary contributions, as now seems likely, pledges should be taken now and the Secretary-General must go from capital to capital to collect them.
4) The new Under-Secretary-General must be a world-class figure, able to generate not only public attention and mobilize political will among governments, but with substantial knowledge of the U.N. system. The Secretary-General must give this leader the respect and resources needed to do her job, and the access to the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to achieve progress.
Negotiations over the next month will say much about whether the world is prepared to keep faith with half its population, or whether the promise of protection and participation will be just one more dream deferred.
--------
Donald Steinberg is Deputy President for Policy at International Crisis Group. He is a member of the board of the Women's Refugee Commission and formerly served as President Clinton's special assistant for African Affairs.
»
UN to Consider New Position for Women
Monday 07 September 2009
by: Donald Steinberg Visit article original @ GlobalPost
A group of women in Cote d'Ivoire sit with their children. Cote d'Ivoire has lately been a major site of sexual violence, rape and gender-based torture. (Photo: Ann Jones)
New York - The United Nations may soon undergo a shake-up that could affect half the people on the planet.
As the U.N. reviews its internal structures for addressing women's interests around the world, surely the most significant changes expected will concern women and armed conflict. The question is - will this reform make a fundamental difference in the lives of women impacted by war?
Just as the U.N. takes the lead on protecting war-affected children through UNICEF and a high-profile special representative, advocates have looked to the U.N. to protect women from widespread abuse and to ensure their full participation in peace processes, post-conflict reconstruction and governance.
But nearly nine years after the U.N. Security Council passed a groundbreaking resolution to promote such a role, issues such as rape, trafficking, reproductive health and girls' education continue to receive short shrift.
One culprit is the alphabet soup of U.N. architecture itself. Multiple agencies - the Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the Office of the Special Advisor for Gender Issues (OSAGI), the Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), and others - fight for the same scarce resources with little political power. The offices are filled with talented and dedicated people, but their efforts are thwarted by a system that gives responsibility to all but holds no one accountable. Meanwhile, the two main tasks - ensuring an active field presence for gender proponents in U.N. missions, and mainstreaming gender issues in the work of key U.N. agencies - are largely left wanting. Now, with the broad support of the U.N. secretariat, a coalition of member states, and civil society groups, a new entity - known bureaucratically as the 'composite entity' or 'option D' - could be approved as early as next month in the U.N. General Assembly. It would bring the principal actors under a single office, headed by a high-profile Under-Secretary-General, and enable greater coordination and synergies. It would also ensure women's issues were at the nexus of U.N. debates, as the new Under-Secretary General would participate in all senior policy-making bodies and serve as a watchdog for the interest of half the world's population.
The proposal enjoys broad support among non-governmental organizations, including 340 groups around the world that are part of the Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR) campaign. They view this as the best possible outcome in the current environment, in which some member states still ask what all the fuss is about.
In fact, the real solution is a full-time, well-financed specialized agency with universal reach, a so-called UNICEF for Women. But pragmatists believe this is a bridge too far in the present fiscal climate, and a deal is emerging that would simply appoint a high-visibility Under-Secretary-General and leave the rest of the details to be worked out under her direction.
Since this structure is to be left in place for up to five years before being reviewed, however, the potential impact is all about the details. As GEAR points out, to make this change really matter for real women, the following commitments must be secured from the beginning:
1) Women in civil society around the world - and especially from conflict-related countries - must have a genuine voice in the new entity, not just on an ad hoc consultative basis, but through a formal decision-making role. The principle must be, "Nothing About Us Without Us."
2) There must be time-bound goals for achieving reductions in violence against women, participation of women in peace processes, allocation of reconstruction resources to projects of interest to women and other steps. Progress must be measurable, and governments, U.N. offices, and individuals must be held accountable for achieving them, with stiff penalties for failing to do so.
3) As much as $1 billion more dollars a year - or about 30 cents per woman - must be dedicated to these issues. This will allow a presence for the new entity in all war-impacted countries, supported by projects that can make a difference. And if the money must come primarily from voluntary contributions, as now seems likely, pledges should be taken now and the Secretary-General must go from capital to capital to collect them.
4) The new Under-Secretary-General must be a world-class figure, able to generate not only public attention and mobilize political will among governments, but with substantial knowledge of the U.N. system. The Secretary-General must give this leader the respect and resources needed to do her job, and the access to the U.N. General Assembly and Security Council to achieve progress.
Negotiations over the next month will say much about whether the world is prepared to keep faith with half its population, or whether the promise of protection and participation will be just one more dream deferred.
--------
Donald Steinberg is Deputy President for Policy at International Crisis Group. He is a member of the board of the Women's Refugee Commission and formerly served as President Clinton's special assistant for African Affairs.
»
Monday, September 07, 2009
Labor Day 2009
Well, once again it's Labor Day.........I have been absent most of the summer because I have been laboring....
......unlike 20-25% of my Union Brothers in the UBC.........This Labor Day I am thankful for my union and the fact that through the collective bargaining process I am able to provide a living wage to support my family. I also am able to provide health care benefits and put money towards a pension plan for my retirement.........All of this is possible because I am a union member. Here are some pictures from labors past.
My posts for today are all labor related........the post that follows this is about the historic event of a miners strike in West Virgina.........this particular incident was brought to my attention by way of a song "Bombs on Blair Mountain" by the Portland based band "My Life in Black and White". This short but powerful song tells the story of the struggle of West Virgina coal miners against the oppression of the mine owners. "Bombs on Blair Mountain" is on their new release "Hold The Line" available on their website. Their earlier releases are also available @ the website or on Amazon.com.
(My Life In Black And White
Hailing from the rain soaked streets of Portland Oregon, My Life In Black And White consists of five best friends who are fueled by passion and Pabst Blue Ribbon.
http://www.mylifeinblackandwhite.com/ )
The Battle of Blair Mountain
The Battle of Blair Mountain
by Desmond Kilkeary, English Division
Probably unknown to most people, since 2002 the first week of April has been legally established (AB1900) as California Labor History Week, its purpose to bring greater awareness of worker's rights, work place safety issues, and labor history into the public schools.
Accordingly, It would seem appropriate to remember a forgotten incident of labor history in this issue. A recent publication by Robert Shogan, The Battle of Blair Mountain, deserves our attention. As Cecil Roberts, President of the United Mine Workers of America, says of it: “Now, the real story of America's largest labor uprising—and the largest armed insurrection on U.S. soil since the Civil War—comes alive.” But few know this story: arguably, every worker should.
In 1921, some 10,000 West Virginia coal workers, outraged over years of brutality and lawless exploitation, picked up their rifles and marched against their tormentors, the powerful mine owners who ruled their corrupt state. For ten days the miners fought a pitched battle against an opposing legion of deputies, state police, and makeshift militia.
Only the declaration of martial law and the intervention of a federal expeditionary force, spearheaded by a bomber squadron commanded by General Billy Mitchell, ended this undeclared civil war and forced the miners to throw down their arms.
The upheaval burst forth in the small town of Matewan in Mingo County, the center of West Virginia's richest coal field. This part of the conflict, aptly portrayed in the 1987 John Sayles dramatic film, Matewan, which won the Academy Award for best cinema tography, can and should be rented at most video stores. The cast includes Chris Cooper, Mary McDonnell, James Earl Jones, and David Strathairn (all working for union scale) amongst others you'll surely recognize. The labor position on class warfare is powerfully delivered by newly arrived labor organizer Joe Kenehan (Chris Cooper) to the miners:
Ain't but two sides to this world. Them that work and them that don't. You work, they don't. That's all you got to know about the enemy.
By early May of 1920, union operatives had formed fourteen locals and signed up more than 3,000 of Mingo County's 4,000 miners. At this time, West Virginia was the last bastion of non-union mines; in most of the other states mine workers had organized, and John L. Lewis's United Mine Workers made up the nation's largest and strongest union. The UMW was determined to enroll all of the mine workers.
West Virginia operators, however, did all they could to oppose unionism. The main problem was that at this time mine workers were forced to sign legally binding “yellow-dog” contracts (upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court) under which miners pledged not to join a union under penalty of forfeiting their jobs as well as the right to live in company housing.
The trouble started when Baldwin-Felts agents (known to miners as gun thugs), working with for the Stone Mountain Mining company, attempted to evict union miners and their families from company owned housing within the town jurisdiction of Matewan. They, however, lacked the necessary court order. The Baldwin-Felts Agency (which had a nationwide reputation for union busting) policed the mining camps, collected rents, guarded the mines and the payroll, evicted tenants from company housing, and kept out “undesirables” (prostitutes and union men). They also did undercover work posing as ordinary miners or workers and reported back to the agency on the plans and remarks of their co-workers who appeared sympathetic to the union. Nevertheless, these private “detectives” (like the better known Pinkertons) had no right to assume the authority of duly appointed law enforcement agents, but they assumed it anyway, and were despised for doing it.
The attempted Matewan evictions led to a shooting incident between town officials, Mayor Testerman and Police Chief SD Hafted, together with a number of armed miners who had been deputized, and a number of Baldwin-Felts agents. The incident, which lasted just twenty minutes, involved over 100 rounds fired, and ended with two miners and seven detectives dead including Albert and Lee Felts. Mayor Testerman was mortally wounded and died the next day.
Such was the beginning of America's largest labor uprising since the Civil War, ironically, a struggle in which America was also sharply divided into two nations: North and South rather than workers and employers. This latter conflict involved a collision of labor's desperation and management's intransigence that led to an unprecedented wave of strikes beginning in 1919 which involved more than four million workers nationally.
As it happened, Logan County, West Virginia (itself a creation of the Civil War), was the base of the mine operators’ power. The owners subsidized Logan County's Sheriff Don Chafin's department; in return Chafin's deputies did all that they could to protect the owners against the union and its organizers. Outrage over the Sheriff's strong-arm tactics had boiled over in the summer of 1919, about nine months before the Baldwin-Felts agents boarded the train for Matewan, so the area was a veritable tinderbox waiting to explode. It soon did!
As conditions worsened, the United Mine Workers union called for a strike; however, the United States Attorney General, Alexander Mitchell Palmer—who spearheaded the great Red Scare of 1919-1920— intervened and won an injunction against the strike on the eve of the scheduled walkout. Labor was furious as was the Secretary of Labor, William Wilson, who had been working hard to resolve the problem by offering a 14 percent pay raise for miners. Wilson threatened to resign in disgust.
Unbidden by their leaders, 400,000 miners walked off the job, shutting down the industry. Eventually, a federal arbitration commission recommended a 27 percent wage increase, but the mine operators would not agree. Finally, on Thursday May 12, 1921, one week short of the first anniversary of the Matewan shoot-out, the violence escalated and the union launched a full-scale attack on the town of Merrimack (near Matewan), laying siege to the town.
The sustained outbreak of violence came to be known as the “Three Days’ Battle,” and estimates ran as high as twenty deaths on both sides. This prompted President Harding to sign a proclamation of martial law for West Virginia. On May 19, Governor Morgan proclaimed martial law declaring West Virginia to be in “a state of war, insurrection, and riot.”
Mingo County authorities created a vigilance committee made up of the “better citizens of Mingo County,” men of business, men of property, to reinforce the state police and the newly constituted national Guard as well as a newly recruited volunteer army known as the State Militia, which lacked proper uniforms but wore white armbands to distinguish themselves from the union men with the red bandanas. Most miners had taken to wearing blue bib overalls and tying around their necks a red bandana which soon became the hallmark of the insurgent army, leading both friends and foes to refer to them as “rednecks.”
While a shipment of Thompson submachine guns arrived in Mingo County for the State Police, union miners were being arrested for carrying union literature, for speaking against martial law, and for carrying arms. Held without bail or hearing, they overflowed the Mingo County jail and were sent to prisons in adjoining counties. A military commission ruled on offenses ranging from larceny, adultery and disorderly conduct to disobeying sentries and perjury. A makeshift prison was erected in a freight terminal to house “criminals,” among whom was Mother Jones.
The Harding Administration not only sent troops but set up a base for air operations under the command of Brigadier General Billy Mitchell.
Small battles or skirmishes, local group encounters, intermittent sniping, marches and counter marches, kidnappings and ransoms, marked the progress of the union forces as they made their way through southern West Virginia toward the town of Logan, which they hoped to envelop in a gigantic pincer movement. A major problem with the plan was the imposing presence of Blair Mountain, an easily defended high ground consisting of twin peaks which looked down on a pass leading into Logan.
During the ensuing conflict, thousands of rounds were fired by both sides using all kinds of small arms including machine guns. The precise death toll was never established, but estimates range from fewer than twenty to more than fifty. Both miners and defenders were well armed and had plenty of ammunition which they fired freely. The roar of the guns became a steady pounding in the ears of the men on both sides: you could hear it for miles along the river.
Eventually, the federal troops arrived. The miners were optimistic, believing that their grievances would be vindicated. Governor Morgan and his allies, the coal mine operators, expected that the arrival of the troops would end their troubles with the union. The governor was right; the officer class was more than sympathetic to the owner's interests with which they identified and saw the miners simply as mutineers.
Although clearly disappointed with the turn of events, the miners were not of a mind to war against the federal government and its military which proved to be unsympathetic to their interests. The army of workers, some ten thousand strong, simply quit the battle and went home. Once the war was over, the federal government opted out.
Federal prosecution would have been redundant since the State of West Virginia was coming down on the union rebels with all its might and authority. Led by a vengeful governor Morgan, determined to punish the rebel leaders by choosing to charge them with the most serious crimes of murder and treason, which it turned out were easier to bring than to make stick, the focus shifted to the courts. No one could deny that the insurgents had committed violent acts and rejected lawful authority, but the claim that they were trying to make war against the state distorted reality.
The aftermath of the “war” included a number of trials for treason conducted by biased judges and corrupt prosecutors; however, the crime of treason was hard to prove, and nearly all of the defendants were exonerated, but one lowly insurgent, Walter Allen—a minor figure in the rebel army—was convicted of the charge even though nothing more damaging than that he had been seen "with the armed forces" in Logan County and "had been carrying a gun" was presented. Out on bail while awaiting an appeal, Allen simply disappeared and was never seen again. The state dropped the treason charges against the other twenty men.
While most of the arrested miners were acquitted or had the charges against them dropped, the rebellion proved to be a disaster. The miners didn't lose the war, they lost the peace, and the financial injuries suffered under the state's legal system proved to be devastating to the labor movement. The numerous legal battles essentially emptied the union coffers. As Shogan describes it: “A political wind was blowing with gale force against the miners in West Virginia and against organized labor throughout the country:”
In West Virginia union membership tumbled from 50,000 to a few hundred. Nationally, the United Mine Workers membership declined from 600,000 to fewer than 100,000. From 1920 to 1923 the American Federation of Labor lost two million workers or nearly 25 percent of its total membership. And the courts seemed ready to issue strike-breaking injunctions almost for the asking.
It seemed to all that the struggle between working people and employers backed by the government and its military had been forever lost.
It took the Great Depression and Franklin Roosevelt to rescue the unions and the rest of the American Labor Movement from near oblivion. Success came on the heels of the auto worker's sit-down strike against General Motors in 1936-1937, which was the boldest venture for American organized labor since the miners' march on Blair Mountain.
When the auto workers occupied GM's huge complex in Flint, Michigan, police assaulted the building but were driven back by a barrage of auto parts dropped from second story windows. The war had started again.
1921 -- [September 1] US: The Battle of Blair Mountain
The murders of Sid Hatfield & Ed Chambers, on August 1, set off this battle. Hatfield & Chambers were executed on the Welch County court house steps in front of their wives by the Baldwin-Feltz death squad agency for their role in the Matewan labor battle, where two Feltz family thugs were killed by Hatfield & his deputies.The Battle Of Blair Mountain" - Democratic UndergroundIn the Battle of Blair Mountain, up to 20,000 pissed coal miners marched on anti-union stronghold Logan County to overthrow Sheriff Dan Chaffin, the coal company tyrant who murdered miners with impunity.
- http://www.newyouth.com/archives/usa/west_virginias_mine_wars.html
- The book Bloodletting in Appalachia, by former Attorney General of West Virginia is a good resource, as well as,
- Life, Work & Rebellion in the Coal Fields: The Southern West Virginia Miners 1880-1922, by David Alan Corbin.
- for The Battle of Matewan, see Daily Bleed Gallery page, http://recollectionbooks.com/siml/library/BattleOfMatewan.htm
29, the morning train, to evict families living at stone mountain coal camp just outside of Matewan. Sheriff Sid Hatfield and his friend and deputy, ... A nation wide strike needs to come about.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=114x14715
PAWV - Blair Mountain History
Blair Mountain is a unique place, with a unique and powerful story to tell. ... Miners turn their weapons over to soldiers after the strike ends.
http://www.pawv.org/news/blairhist.htm
PAWV - Blair Mountain Announcement Made
Endangered Status Announced; For Blair Mountain ... Private planes dropped homemade bombs on the miners in an unprecedented – and unparalleled – air strike on U.S. soil.
http://www.pawv.org/news/blairnews.htm
Another Battle Over West Virginia’s Blair Mountain | a Better West
Blair Mountain was added to the National Register of Historic Places last month, after years of collective effort seeking the designation. Much of the 10-mile tract is currently owned by...
http://www.abetterwestvirginia.com/2009/04/07/another-battle-over-west-virginias-blair-mou...
West Virginia's Mine Wars
When the strike began, ... Blair Mountain stands as a powerful symbol for workers to this day. The miners who participated vowed never to discuss the details of the march to protect themselves from...
http://www.wvculture.org/history/minewars.html
Friends of Blair Mountain
The following are but a selection of books and videos available about the Battle of Blair Mountain.
http://www.friendsofblairmountain.org/booksvideos.html
US Unemployment At 26 Year High -- Has This Affected You?
posted by: Natasha G. 2 days ago
The U.S. Department of Labor announced that unemployment rate for the month of August was 9.7 percent -- the highest it has been in 26 years. Job losses for the month reached 216,000.
The statistics seem discouraging, but in reality, the news is mixed. The biggest losses were seen in construction and manufacturing, but health care and educational services actually saw an increase in jobs. In addition, the number of jobs lost has actually declined compared to previous months.
Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis released a statement in response to the new statistics, discussing what the department is doing about the situation. Actions include:
-extending the number of weeks eligible for unemployment insurance
-subsidizing 65 percent of COBRA premiums
-investing nearly $4 billion in federal Recovery Act funds in training workers
Besides the Department of Labor's website, Recovery.gov is a great resource to find out what is being done by the federal, state and local government. (For example, did you know that the Nevada Division of Forestry used grant money from the federal government to create jobs aimed to preserve forests and promote green energy?)
Laboring on Labor Day
Laboring on Labor Day
Are you working on Labor Day? Do you have health insurance? Come to our Main Street blog for more about what's going on with young workers in the United States and—young or old—to share your own stories of making ends meet.
We knew this economy was tough for everyone, but some things we learned from these young workers were truly shocking, especially when we compared them with what a similar group of young workers told us a decade ago.
- 31 percent of young workers do not have health insurance. In 1999, that number was only 24 percent.
- 36 percent of young workers worry about not being able to get a permanent, full-time job with benefits. In 1999, only 27 percent did.
- Today, 24 percent of young workers told us their income was less than what they needed to pay the bills. Ten years ago, just 10 percent said the same.
But perhaps most shocking is the question we didn't think we had to ask in 1999: Today, one-third of workers younger than 35 still live with their own or their spouse's parents. Those who earn less than $30,000 per year are equally likely to live with parents. That's a generation that has been prevented by economic uncertainty from reaching an independent adulthood. (And a generation of parents who never thought they'd still have kids at home.)
With figures like these, it's clear there are a lot of working people out there—young and not-so-young—with stories to tell. We want to hear those stories, from searching for the right job to the effects of not having health insurance. We want to hear how you make it work as an adult living in your parents' house—or how you make it as a parent with your grown child still at home.
All week, Working America's Main Street blog will be highlighting things we've learned from this survey. Please stop by and tell us your story. Help us put a human face on the statistics.
Sincerely,
Working America, AFL-CIO
What Workers Face This Labor Day
September 4, 2009
by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Matt Corley, Benjamin Armbruster, Nate Carlile, and Zaid Jilani
LABOR
What Workers Face This Labor Day
On Monday, President Obama will celebrate America's 127th Labor Day by giving a speech on "jobs, the economy and maybe a little health care" at the annual AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati, OH. Despite positive indications that the U.S. economy is beginning to "climb out of the worst recession in decades," Obama's speech will come at a difficult time for America's workers as job losses continue. In the current recession, 6.7 million jobs have been lost through July, with another 216,000 jobs lost in August. Even those who are still working are facing significant challenges. Earlier this week, a new report financed by the Ford, Joyce, Haynes, and Russell Sage Foundations found that labor protections in America "are failing significant numbers of workers." According to the survey, which was "the most comprehensive examination of wage-law violations in a decade," 68 percent of the low wage workers who were interviewed said they were subjected to pay violations in their previous work week alone. This included 26 percent who were paid less than the minimum wage and 76 percent who didn't receive legally required overtime pay. In all, the researchers discovered that "the typical worker had lost $51 the previous week through wage violations, out of average weekly earnings of $339," adding up to a 15 percent loss in pay. The report "clearly shows we still have a major task before us," said Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in a statement, promising that the Department of Labor in the Obama administration "will be marked by an emphasis on the protection" of the rights of America's workers.
NEED FOR MORE LABOR PROTECTIONS: In December 2008, the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress released a report noting that "one of the hallmarks of President George W. Bush's administration has been its failure to enforce laws designed to protect ordinary Americans," particularly the Labor Department's "inadequate enforcement of important workplace protections." The Obama administration has pushed to clean up the mess, requesting a 10 percent budget increase for worker protection programs. Solis told the New York Times this week that she is currently in the process of hiring 250 more wage-and-hour investigators. But as the Wonk Room's Pat Garofalo points out, this effort "should be complemented by the Senate confirming the Labor Department nominees who are still stuck in no-man's land. This will help put in place people willing to enforce the wage laws that are on the books, but were neglected under former Labor Secretary Elaine Chao." In particular, the administration's nominee to run the Wage and Hour Division, Lorelei Boylan, is still stuck in the Senate. Additionally, last week, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY), ranking Republican on the Senate HELP Committee, asked President Obama to withdraw his nomination for Patricia Smith to be Department of Labor Solicitor, citing "inconsistent testimony" regarding a program that she launched in New York to monitor wage theft. According to the New York Times, there are currently five Labor Deptartment nominees awaiting Senate confirmation. AFL-CIO Secretary Treasurer Richard Trumka -- who is running unopposed for the AFL-CIO presidency -- told the Wonk Room that those in Congress who are holding up the nominees are doing so "because they don't want those positions filled."
THE STATE OF UNION MEMBERSHIP: As Center for American Progress Action Fund analysts David Madland and Karla Walter have written, more workers with union jobs are good for the economy. In 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, "union members accounted for 12.4 percent of employed wage and salary workers, up from 12.1 percent a year earlier." Though union membership rose from 2006 to 2008, the percentage of American workers who belong to a union is still significantly lower than it was in 1983, the first year for which comparable union date are available. In speech this week explaining why no Republicans will vote for the Employee Free Choice Act -- which would make it easier for workers to join a union -- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) claimed that workers don't actually want to join unions due to the "very enlightened management in this country now." But this isn't true. According to an AFL-CIO survey found, there are 60 million American workers who say that they would join a union if they could. The reason they haven't isn't because of a lack of desire. A study by the Economic Policy Institute found that employers fought back against unionization efforts by threatening "to close plants in 57 percent of the campaigns and...cut wages and benefits in 47 percent," while firing pro-union workers 34 percent of the time. Employers use tactics such as forced one-on-one meetings with supervisors to "to intimidate workers and determine their support for unionization."
THE CHALLENGES FOR YOUNG WORKERS: Earlier this week, the AFL-CIO released a new report, "Young Workers, A Lost Decade," which found that workers younger than 35 have "not only have young workers lost financial ground over the past 10 years -- they have also lost some of their optimism." Alarmingly, the nationwide survey found that "31 percent of young workers reports being uninsured, up from 24 percent without health insurance coverage 10 years ago" and "one-third of young workers cannot pay the bills and seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses." When the AFL-CIO conducted a similar survey in 1999, it found that more than 75 percent of young workers were more hopeful than worried about their economic future. In 2009, just over half feel that way, a 22 percent drop. Perhaps the most illustrative data point from the survey for the plight that young workers face is that nearly one in three of them "will be laboring on Labor Day; they are significantly more likely to be at work on this holiday than workers older than 35. Even fewer low-income young workers have the day off." Young workers are much more likely than older workers to believe that "labor unions are necessary to protect the working person."
Labor Day: Celebrating the Past, Preparing for the Future
Labor Day Weekend. It’s a time for all of America’s working men and women to relax, reflect and rejuvenate. America’s labor movement brought us the weekend, the eight-hour workday, the minimum wage, an end to child labor and much, much more. Labor Day is our day to celebrate our successes, while looking ahead to our next challenges.
- Labor Law Reform—Restoring the freedom to form unions and bargain for a better life.
- Health Care Reform—Quality, affordable care for everyone.
- A Lost Decade for Young Workers—Our future.
This Labor Day weekend, we are taking a moment to reflect on the future of America’s working men of women. Young workers today have lower-paying jobs than they did 10 years ago—those able to find jobs at all. Health care is a luxury, and retirement security is something for their parents, not them.
In fact, 34 percent of workers younger than 35 still live at home with their parents. Low-income young workers are as likely to live with parents as on their own.
A new report by the AFL-CIO and Working America, “Young Workers: A Lost Decade,” finds that the economic meltdown over the past decade has handicapped young workers’ ability to transition into adulthood and financial independence.
After getting married, my wife and I decided to move in with my parents to pay off our bills. We could afford to live on our own, but we’d never be able to get out of debt. We have school loans to pay off, too. We’d like to have children, but we just can’t manage the expense of it right now...so we’re putting it off till we’re in a better place.
—Nate Scherer, 31, lives in Columbus, Ohio, where he shares a home with his wife, his parents and his brother.
The situation facing young workers like Nate is far worse than it was 10 years ago and is cause for alarm. What do you think it means for our future? Read more about the report on our blog and share your thoughts.
Read the full report. (pdf)
Here are just a few of the report's disturbing findings:
- 31 percent of young workers report being uninsured, up from 24 percent 10 years ago, and 79 percent of the uninsured say they don’t have coverage because they can’t afford it or their employer does not offer it.
- Only 31 percent say they make enough money to cover their bills and put some money aside—22 percentage points fewer than in 1999.
- Seven in 10 do not have enough saved to cover two months of living expenses—a real danger when so many jobs are disappearing.
The future of our country depends on the prosperity of each generation, and while the magnitude of the problems is huge, so are the opportunities. Young workers remain full of hope and want to be involved. As a movement, we must engage proactively with this generation.
Young workers in particular must be given the tools to lead the next generation to prosperity. Our national survey shows just how broken our economy is for our young people—and what’s at stake if we don't fix it.
—AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
As we look to the future this Labor Day, let's all think about what we can do to make our economy work better for the next generation. Keep in mind that one exciting result of our survey is that not only do young people want to be involved, their priorities are even more progressive than the older generation of workers.
Join us on our blog all weekend for Labor Day stories and opportunities to connect.
Together, we can make a difference.
Marc Laitin
AFL-CIO Online Mobilization Coordinator
Monday, June 22, 2009
The Three Essentials of Financial Reform
Tuesday 16 June 2009
by: Robert Reich | Visit article original @ Robert Reich's Blog
President Obama has promised regulations to prevent another crisis in the financial industry. (Photo: AP)
As the White House unveils its long-awaited proposals to prevent another Wall Street meltdown in the future, keep a lookout for three essentials. Without them the Street will revert to its old ways as soon as the coast clears. In fact, now that the government has bailed out the Street, the biggest banks will take even larger and more irresponsible risks because they're officially too big to fail. So these three reforms are critical.
1. Stop bankers from making huge, risky bets with other peoples' money. At the least, require they back their bets with a large percentage of their own capital, and bar them from raising money off their balance sheets through derivative trades. Also require they take their pay in stock options or warrants that can't be cashed in for at least three years, so they'll take a longer-term view. Best of all would be a requirement that investment banks return to being partnerships and the capital on their books be their own, not yours or your pension fund's. When investment banks were partnerships, every partner took an active interest in what every other partner and trader was doing. The real mischief started once they started selling shares to the public.
2. Prevent any bank from becoming too big to fail. Separate commercial from investment banking, as they were before the late 1990s. Commercial banks should return to their basic function of linking savers with borrowers. Investment bankers should return to their casino function of placing bets in the stock market and advising you and others about where to place your own own bets. Combining the basic utility with the casino only made bankers far richer and subjected you and me to risks we didn't bargain for. If separating commercial from investment banking isn't enough to bring all banks down to reasonable size, use antitrust laws to break them up.
3. Root out three major conflicts of interest. (1) Credit-rating agencies should no longer be paid by the companies whose issues are being rated; they should be paid by those who use their ratings. (2) Institutional investors like pension funds and mutual funds should not be getting investment advice from the same banks that profit off their investments; the advice should come from sources without a financial stake; (3) the regional Feds that are responsible for much bank oversight should no longer be headed by presidents appointed by the region's bankers; non-bankers should have the major say, and the regional presidents should have to be confirmed by the Senate.
These three reforms will reduce the possibility that you and I and other taxpayers will ever again have to spend billions bailing out bankers who robbed us blind while amassing fortunes. But because that would make it next to impossible to make such fortunes in the future, the big bankers will fight every one of these with all guns blazing, and their lobbyists in full force. They'll try to inundate you in a blizzard of buzz words. They want your eyes to gaze over, but don't let them. Keep focused on these three issues. Congress, for its part, may not be much help. It's awash in money from Wall Street. Big Finance is second only to the health-industrial complex in owning a large portion of the Hill. Barney Frank at House Banking can be relied on to try his best but others in the House and Senate may well roll over. The President wants to do the right thing but he's spread thin and spending political capital on health care. Tim Geithner doesn't have the stomach to take on the Street; the plan he announced a few days ago to regulate pay is a bad joke. Expect lots of blather about rearranging boxes on the regulatory organization chart.
Bottom line: Genuine financial reform will be almost as difficult to achieve as real universal health care. Immense private interests are amassed against the public interest in both cases because staggering amounts of money are at stake. But they are the two most important domestic issues right now. Keep careful watch, and weigh in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
