

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

US lawmakers should back a proposed law to strengthen protections for workers who are trying to organize a union and bargain collectively, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 12-page report, "The Employee Free Choice Act: A Human Rights Imperative," details how US labor law facilitates abuses and violates international standards. Human Rights Watch has in the past extensively documented systematic interference with the right of workers to organize and bargain collectively in the United States.
"Weak US labor law effectively denies millions of workers the right to form a union and bargain collectively," said Carol Pier, senior researcher on labor rights and trade for Human Rights Watch. "Congress should bring worker protections closer to international standards by passing the Employee Free Choice Act."
A worker's right to freedom of association includes the right to organize unions and bargain collectively and is well established under international law. International norms require that workers have an effective remedy when this right is violated and that penalties for violation be strong enough to deter illegal conduct. They require employers to allow union representatives to communicate with workers and say that election procedures cannot be used to delay or prevent union formation. Once workers organize, they have the right to try to improve their working conditions through good-faith collective bargaining with their employer.
US law falls far short. Union election rules that give employers an unfair advantage impede union formation. Minimal penalties for violations fail to discourage those wishing to violate even existing rules. Endemic enforcement delays deny workers meaningful redress. And inadequate collective bargaining protections mean that, even if workers are able to organize, they may still not reach a collective agreement.
The Employee Free Choice Act, though not a cure-all, would begin to fix many of these shortcomings and bring US law closer to international standards. It would streamline the union certification process, strengthen remedies for workers whose employers retaliate against them for trying to form a union or bargain collectively, and help workers reach initial bargaining agreements with their employers.
Weak Remedies and Enforcement Delays
The Employee Free Choice Act would strengthen remedies for illegal anti-union conduct during organizing drives and initial contract negotiation. It would institute civil fines for willful or repeated illegal acts; increase the amount of money due to victimized workers; and require the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is charged with enforcing US labor law, to seek injunctive relief if it believes that an employer "significantly interferes with, restrains, or coerces employees" in the exercise of their rights (as is already required in cases against unions).
US employers who violate current labor laws face no punitive penalties and few, if any, economic consequences. In most cases, they must simply complete a two-step "remediation process": restore the status quo ante by recreating working conditions prior to the violations, and post a workplace notice pledging to stop and not to repeat the unlawful conduct.
For example, an employer found guilty of firing a worker for organizing must post the "mea culpa" notice and offer to reinstate the worker with back pay, minus income earned in the interim. But most workers find other jobs during the long period while their cases are pending and do not want their old ones back. An employer guilty of making anti-union threats or of readjusting security cameras to spy on union supporters must simply hang the requisite notice and stop the illegal conduct.
"Employers violate workers' rights knowing they'll face minimal consequences," said Pier. "This bill could finally make them think twice before breaking the law."
Unfair Union Election Procedures
Under the Employee Free Choice Act, workers would choose between two options for exercising their right to organize: a "card check" - freely signed authorizations by a majority of workers indicating their desire to organize - and an NLRB-run election. As long as the NLRB authorized the card-check results, employers would have to accept them and recognize the union.
US employers can currently refuse to recognize a union based on a card check. Employers can demand instead that majority support be shown through an NLRB election. The pre-election period creates an opening for anti-union employers to exploit a tilted playing field with distorted anti-union campaigns or unlawful anti-union activity.
Biased US union election rules presently allow employers to campaign vigorously against union formation and to deny union organizers a similar opportunity to respond. Employers can force workers to attend anti-union captive-audience meetings during work time and prohibit union advocates from holding parallel meetings. Employers can issue a steady anti-union drumbeat during the workday while barring union organizers from the workplace. And in most cases, employers can prevent union representatives from distributing information on company premises, including sidewalks and parking lots.
"Union elections are rife with employer coercion and mock the notion of fair, democratic voting," said Pier. "The Employee Free Choice Act would dramatically increase workers' chance of freely exercising their right to organize."
Bad-Faith Collective Bargaining
The Employee Free Choice Act would also provide some relief for the thousands of US workers stuck in first-contract negotiations with employers bargaining in bad faith. It would allow such workers to seek mediation and then arbitration leading to a binding contract.
Under the current law, even if workers successfully organize, they are often denied a collective agreement. If a US employer is found guilty of illegal "surface bargaining" - negotiating with no desire to reach a contract - the remedy is simply to return to bargaining, where bad-faith negotiating can begin again. Many disheartened workers abandon this futile process and their union, driven by their employers to surrender their right to freedom of association.
"With the Employee Free Choice Act, workers could finally escape the endless cycle of bad-faith bargaining and exercise their right to negotiate," said Pier.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
"The court must stand firmly on the side of truth, fairness, and the basic principle that we should not take a life while serious questions of innocence remain unanswered."
The ACLU on Wednesday urged the US Supreme Court to intervene and block the state of Tennessee from executing a man who could be exonerated by DNA evidence.
In its plea to the court, the ACLU said that Tennessee is "sitting on unidentified DNA and fingerprint evidence" that could prove the innocence of Tony Carruthers, who has been on death row for three decades after being convicted of kidnapping and murdering three people in 1996.
The ACLU has repeatedly asked for Carruthers' execution, which is scheduled for Thursday, to be postponed so that investigators can take between two and three weeks to examine potentially exculpatory forensic evidence.
Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, legal director of the ACLU of Tennessee, said the state had a duty to ensure that it had convicted the right man, and he pointed to troubling aspects of the case that should give courts pause before signing off on his execution.
“Mr. Carruthers was forced to represent himself at trial, and now faces death based on flimsy circumstantial evidence and unreliable witnesses," Cameron-Vaughn said. "Forensic evidence the state refuses to test could change everything. The Supreme Court must act now to stop Tennessee from taking an irreversible step while so many critical questions remain unanswered.”
Maria DeLiberato, senior counsel at the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, argued that the Supreme Court is "the final safeguard between Tennessee and this irreversible injustice" that would come from executing someone for a crime they may not have committed.
"We are only hours away from the state of Tennessee executing a potentially innocent man while they are sitting on evidence that could prove who really committed this crime," DeLiberato said. "The court must stand firmly on the side of truth, fairness, and the basic principle that we should not take a life while serious questions of innocence remain unanswered and while readily available forensic testing could answer those very questions."
Republican Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee on Tuesday said he would not intervene to stop Carruthers' execution, even after local faith leaders and past exonerees delivered a petition signed by more than 130,000 Americans asking him to reconsider.
The president's tirade—which even the Senate majority leader called "concerning"—came as the GOP decided to exclude the funding from the package amid opposition from both Republican and Democratic senators.
As President Donald Trump on Wednesday publicly called for firing the Senate parliamentarian because she ruled against a GOP plan to include $1 billion in taxpayer dollars for the White House ballroom in the next budget reconciliation package, an upper chamber Republican confirmed that the proposal has been dropped from the bill.
"Shockingly, Republicans have kept the very important position of 'Parliamentarian' in the hands of a woman, Elizabeth MacDonough, who was appointed, long ago, by Barack Hussein Obama and a vicious Lunatic known as Senator Harry Reid, who ran the Senate for the Dumocrats with an 'iron fist,'" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.
"Over the years, she has been brutal to Republicans, but not so to the Dumocrats—So why has she not been replaced? There are many fair people who would be qualified for that vital job," the president continued. "The Republicans play a very soft game compared to the Dumocrats. It is their single biggest disadvantage in politics. The Dumocrats cheat, lie, and steal, especially when it comes to Votes in Elections, but stick together, whereas the Republicans allow the Elizabeth MacDonoughs of the World to stay in power, and brutalize us. We need THE SAVE AMERICA ACT passed, and NOW—And, likewise, kill the Filibuster, which would give us everything! If we don’t pass at least one of these two provisions quickly, you will never see another Republican President again."
"The Dumocrats will end up with 2 additional States, DC and Puerto Rico, and all that entails, including 4 Senators, many Congressmen, and many additional Electoral Votes, and they will also get their dream of a packed United States Supreme Court with their most favorite number—21 Justices," he added. "The Dumocrats will eliminate the Filibuster on the First Day that they get an opportunity to do so. The Republicans aren't doing it because they say the Dumocrats will never do it, but the Republicans are WRONG. Get smart and tough Republicans, or you'll all be looking for a job much sooner than you thought possible!"
While former President Barack Obama was in office when MacDonough was appointed to her current role in 2012, that decision was made by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). She has angered both parties with her decisions over the years.
Trump's post followed reporting early this week that the president was pressuring US Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) to fire MacDonough for her weekend ruling. The Hill reported that when asked about the post on Wednesday, Thune said that "I didn't read it, so I need to look at it."
"Obviously, it's concerning when anybody gets targeted like that. But it's, I guess, his opinion," the Senate majority leader said. "We'll make sure everybody's got security around here."
The proposed $1 billion in taxpayer funding would go toward security-related enhancements to the ballroom project, which has already involved tearing down the East Wing of the White House and former first lady Jacqueline Kennedy's Rose Garden. Standing outside the construction site trying to promote the project on Tuesday, Trump bragged about a planned "drone empire" on the roof.
As Common Dreams exclusively reported earlier Wednesday, 50 state legislators condemned the GOP's attempt to spend $1 billion in taxpayer money on the project in a letter to the president. They called on him "to reject this $1 billion boondoggle and instead direct those resources toward the affordability crisis your policies have created."
Thune signaled Wednesday that GOP lacked the support needed to get the ballroom funding through, telling reporters that "there may be some issues related to the parliamentarian, but most of the issues we have here are votes. The things we're dealing with here is vote count."
He suggested that firing MacDonough "would create even more vote issues here if we were to try to do something like that."
Later Wednesday, Politico reported that after a GOP lunch meeting, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said, "We were told that the ballroom money is out" of the proposal, and he would "like to read the text."
As the outlet noted: "Several GOP senators aired public concerns about including any ballroom funding in a bill otherwise dedicated to immigration enforcement. A larger swath of Republicans were privately opposed, with the mood souring further Tuesday amid anger over Trump's decision to endorse Ken Paxton over incumbent Sen. John Cornyn in the upcoming GOP primary runoff in Texas."
"Voters are responding to candidates willing to directly challenge concentrated power, rising costs, political corruption, and the growing disconnect between working people and political establishments in both parties,” said the head of Our Revolution.
After a strong night for progressive candidates in Democratic primaries across the country on Tuesday, things are continuing to look up for Maine's presumptive Democratic Senate nominee, Graham Platner, as he seeks to unseat Republican Sen. Susan Collins.
A poll out Wednesday from the independent firm Pan Atlantic Research showed the 41-year-old former Marine leading the incumbent senator by a clear margin of 48%-41% in November's general election among likely voters.
It's a three-point jump in Platner's favor since the last Pan Atlantic poll in March, where he led with 44% of the vote to Collins' 40%. According to the New York Times' poll aggregator, it's the seventh straight poll to show Platner with a clear lead.
Wednesday's poll showed Platner having striking success with women and independent voters, where he leads Collins by margins of 19 points and 13 points, respectively.
But crucially, Platner is also tied with Collins among non-college-educated voters, who broke hard for President Donald Trump in 2024, even as former Vice President Kamala Harris ultimately carried the state.
Platner's continued momentum—on a platform built around Medicare for All, tax hikes for billionaires, and an end to reckless and costly overseas military engagements—comes alongside a series of election results that Joseph Geevarghese, the executive director of the left-wing advocacy group Our Revolution, said demonstrated that populist economic messaging from working-class candidates can galvanize voters.
“The throughline across many of these races is that voters are responding to candidates willing to directly challenge concentrated power, rising costs, political corruption, and the growing disconnect between working people and political establishments in both parties,” Geevarghese said.
"What’s notable is that this energy is manifesting in very different political terrains—from deep blue urban districts to tougher working-class and red-to-blue areas," he continued. "Whether it’s Bob Brooks speaking to economic frustration in Pennsylvania, Chris Rabb unapologetically confronting establishment politics and endless war, or Ruwa Romman building a grassroots organizing operation in Georgia, these campaigns reflect a growing appetite for candidates rooted in economic populism, movement politics, and multiracial working-class organizing.”