

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.

Across the country we are seeing conservative governors and
legislators make it a priority to stamp out workers' rights and
eliminate unions. These lawmakers are hiding behind the guise of fiscal
austerity and budget cuts in order to move a conservative corporate
agenda that seeks to weaken the power of workers to organize and bargain
collectively for better wages and a better quality of life.
Across the country we are seeing conservative governors and
legislators make it a priority to stamp out workers' rights and
eliminate unions. These lawmakers are hiding behind the guise of fiscal
austerity and budget cuts in order to move a conservative corporate
agenda that seeks to weaken the power of workers to organize and bargain
collectively for better wages and a better quality of life.
Nowhere is this more evident than in Ohio, where GOP Governor John
Kasich has already stated that collective bargaining rights for low
income, mostly minority women workers are "toast" under his
administration. Meanwhile, in a sign that it's just politics as usual,
Gov. Kasich announced a pay raise for his own senior staff before even
coming into office.
Tonight in Cincinnati, on the eve of Martin Luther King Day, hundreds
of workers will take the conversation back by holding a gathering by
candlelight at City Hall. They will join community leaders, clergy and
union members to call on Gov. Kasich to honor Dr. King's legacy by
rebuilding the middle class and, rather than stripping them of rights,
protecting child care and home care workers who do some of the hardest
work in our society.
Ohio is a poster child of the problem around the country.
Joblessness in Ohio is at 9.8 percent and over half a million workers
are struggling to find work. But instead of focusing on how to put
Ohioans back to work, Gov. Kasich is determined to weaken the voice of
workers and weaken the middle class just to pay back big business
special interests.
Across the country, workers will take up this fight and push back on
politicians who, even at this time of record economic inequality, want
to scapegoat workers for financial conditions that were caused by Wall
Street and corporate greed.
Part of that effort will be to push back on the many myths that have
pervaded the national conversation on public workers - and the efforts
to pit private sector and public sector workers against one another.
The Truth about Public Sector Workers
- Public employees are the hard-working people who provide the vital
services we depend on. These are our firefighters, nurses, teachers,
and police officers who have committed their lives to public service.
-Republican legislators and corporate special interests are joining
together - not to create jobs, but to launch vicious attacks against
public employees.
-According to the Economy Policy Institute (EPI), after accounting
for factors including level of education, hours worked and non-cash
compensation, on average, full-time state and local employees are
undercompensated compared to "otherwise similar private-sector workers."
-Private sector workers earned average annual wages of
$55,132 - $6,061 greater than the $49,072 earned by public sector
workers.
-When looking at total compensation including
employer-provided benefits, the gap narrowed, but the private sector
workers still earned $2,001 more per year than public sector workers
($71,109 in total compensation, versus $69,108).
-Public employees are not to blame for the current budget crises in
the states. Public employees pay a significant portion of the costs of
their pensions. It's the politicians who failed to make the required
contributions and put these pension funds in a hole. Furthermore, these
are modest benefits - of the 7.7 million retired state and local
government workers in 2008, the average retirement benefit was $22,653.
Workers Fighting Back Around the Country
In the coming months, working families will join with community
members in their states to change the conversation by holding events
like the one in Ohio - by writing letters, calling lawmakers, organizing
petitions and educating the public about the effort to scapegoat
workers. Already in states workers are standing up and calling on
lawmakers to work on fixing our economy:
In Missouri: "Labor union leaders speak out against making Missouri a
Right to Work State, saying it wouldn't create jobs or increase
revenue." [Missouri.net ,1/11/11, https://bit.ly/i39y5a]
"The Missouri AFL-CIO says Missourians are looking for action by the
legislature on one issue -- jobs. And the labor organization says it will
work with business groups to get Missourians back to work."
[Missouri.net, 1/11/11, https://bit.ly/fxL6ml]
In Florida: "The AFL-CIO and two outside experts Monday disputed what
they say are "myths" that Florida's public employee retirement plans
are underfunded and provide lavish benefits.[Bloomberg, 1/10/11, https://bit.ly/fNdN7f]
In Indiana: "Opponents of a so-called "right to work" law are keeping
the pressure on at the statehouse. A day after House Democrats invoked a
seldom-used rule to force a vote to try to kill the bill without a
hearing, the Indiana AFL-CIO dispatched 75 grocery and food-processing
workers to the statehouse to lobby against the bill." [WIBC, 1/6/11, https://bit.ly/hfK2mS]
In Ohio: "Incoming state leaders plan to target public employment
laws in 2011, but this past week backers of the collective bargaining
process promised to put up a fight." [Lancaster Eagle Gazette, 1/2/11, https://bit.ly/eNteeN]
"Republicans won't be able to alleviate Ohio's budget crisis by
weakening the power of government-worker unions to bargain collectively
for their members, a liberal policy group said yesterday." [Columbus
Dispatch, 12/31/10, https://bit.ly/eIH214]
In Wisconsin: "You will find that right-to-work legislation has no
bearing on job creation. You will also find in right-to-work states that
the middle-class worker is compensated less, has no say-so about safety
or issues in the workplace and can be fired at will for no reason at
all." [Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12/28/11, https://bit.ly/gAozoj]
IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS, workers will engage with state and
local lawmakers and with the community on what state legislatures should
really be focused on - creating jobs and bringing balance back to our
economy. In Indiana, workers are unveiling a "workers' bill of rights,"
outlining the priorities of working people to create a middle-class
economy. In Wisconsin, working people are keeping close watch on Gov.
Scott Walker, who pledged to create 250,000 jobs during his campaign,
demanding to know "where are the jobs?" And in Missouri, working people
are holding politicians accountable through a series of events to
highlight their record in the creation of jobs and pointing to their
corporate ties.
And that's just the beginning...
The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) works tirelessly to improve the lives of working people. We are the democratic, voluntary federation of 56 national and international labor unions that represent 12.5 million working men and women.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” said the CEO of one North Carolina-based steel product company.
US President Donald Trump pledged that the manufacturing industry would come "roaring back into our country" after what he called "Liberation Day" last April, which was marked by the announcement of sweeping tariffs on imported goods—a policy that has shifted constantly in the past 10 months as Trump has changed rates, canceled tariffs, and threatened new ones.
But after promising to turn around economic trends that have developed over decades—the shipping of jobs overseas, automation, and the obliteration of towns and cities that had once been manufacturing centers—Trump's trade policy appears to have put any progress achieved in the sector in recent years "in reverse," as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Federal data shows that in each of the eight months that followed Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, manufacturing companies reduced their workforce, with a total of 72,000 jobs in the industry lost since April 2025.
The Census Bureau also estimates that construction spending in the manufacturing industry contracted in the first nine months of Trump's second term, after surging during the Biden administration due to investments in renewable energy and semiconductor chips.
"But the tariffs haven’t helped," said Hanson.
Trump has insisted that his tariff policy would force companies to manufacture goods domestically to avoid paying more for foreign materials—just as he has claimed consumers would see lower prices.
But numerous analyses have shown American families are paying more, not less, for essentials like groceries as companies have passed on their higher operating costs to consumers, and federal data has made clear that companies are also avoiding investing in labor since Trump introduced the tariffs—while the trade war the president has kicked off hasn't changed the realities faced by many manufacturing sectors.
"While tariffs do reduce import competition, they can also increase the cost of key components for domestic manufacturers," wrote Emma Ockerman at Yahoo Finance. "Take US electric vehicle plants that rely on batteries made with rare earth elements imported from overseas, for instance. Some parts simply aren’t made in the United States."
At the National Interest, Ryan Mulholland of the Center for American Progress wrote that Trump's tariffs have created "three overlapping challenges" for US businesses.
"The imported components and materials needed to produce goods domestically now cost more—in some cases, a lot more," wrote Mulholland. "Foreign buyers are now looking elsewhere, often to protest Trump’s global belligerence, costing US firms market share abroad that will be difficult to win back. And if bad policy wasn’t enough, US manufacturers must also contend with the Trump administration’s unpredictability, which has made long-term investment decisions nearly impossible. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that small business bankruptcies have surged to their highest level in years."
Trump's unpredictable threats of new tariffs and his retreats on the policy, as with European countries in recent weeks when he said he would impose new levies on countries that didn't support his push to take control of Greenland, have also led to "a lost year for investment" for many firms, along with the possibility that the US Supreme Court could soon rule against the president's tariffs.
“If Trump just picked a number—whatever it was, 10% or 15% to 20%—we might all say it’s bad, I’d say it’s bad, I think most economists would say it’s bad,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Yahoo Finance. “But the worst thing is there’s no certainty about it.”
Constantly changing tariff rates make it "very difficult for businesses... to plan," said Baker. “I think you’ve had a lot of businesses curtail investment plans because they just don’t know whether the plans will make sense.”
While US manufacturers have struggled to compete globally, China and other countries have continued exporting their goods.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” H.O. Woltz III, chief executive of North Carolina-based Insteel Industries, told the Wall Street Journal.
US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) noted Monday that the data on manufacturing job losses comes a week after Vice President JD Vance visited his home state to tout "record job growth."
"Here’s the reality: Families face higher costs, tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs, and over $200 million in approved federal infrastructure and manufacturing investments here were cut by this administration," said Kaptur. "Ohio deserves better."
"These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The Department of Homeland Security is using a little-known legal power to surveil and intimidate critics of the Trump administration, according to a harrowing report published Tuesday by the Washington Post.
Experts told the Post that DHS annually issues thousands of "administrative subpoenas," which allow federal agencies to request massive amounts of personal information from third parties—like technology companies and banks—without an order from a judge or a grand jury, and completely unbeknownst to the people whose privacy is being invaded.
As the Post found, even sending a politely critical email to a government official can be enough to have someone's entire life brought under the microscope.
That is what Jon, a 67-year-old retiree living in Philadelphia, who has been a US citizen for nearly three decades, found out after he sent a short email urging a DHS prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, to reconsider an attempt to deport an Afghan asylum seeker who faced the threat of being killed by the Taliban if he was forced to return to his home country.
In the email, Jon warned Dernbach not to "play Russian roulette" with the man's life and implored him to “apply principles of common sense and decency.”
Just five hours after he sent the email, Jon received a message from Google stating that DHS had used a "subpoena" to request information about his account. Google gave him seven days to respond to the subpoena, but did not provide him with a copy of the document; instead, it told him to request one from DHS.
From there, he was sent on “a maddening, hourslong circuit of answering machines, dead numbers, and uninterested attendants,” which yielded no answers.
Within weeks of sending the email, a pair of DHS agents visited Jon's home and asked him to explain it. They told Jon that his email had not clearly broken any law, but that the DHS prosecutor may have felt threatened by his use of the phrase "Russian Roulette" and his mention of the Taliban.
Days later, after weeks of hitting a wall, Google finally sent Jon a copy of the subpoena only after the company was contacted by a Post reporter. It was then that Jon learned the breadth of what DHS had requested:
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time, and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers.
Google also informed him that it had not yet responded to the subpoena, though the company did not explain why.
But this is unusual. Google and other companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, told the Post that they nearly always comply with administrative subpoenas unless they are barred from doing so.
With the ACLU's help, Jon filed a motion in court on Monday to challenge the subpoena issued to Google.
"In a democracy, contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right," Jon said. "I exercised that right to urge my government to take this man's life seriously. For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted. I hope that by standing up for my rights and sharing my story, others will know what to do when these abusive subpoenas and investigations come knocking on their door."
As the Trump administration uses DHS and other agencies to compile secret watchlists and databases of protesters for surveillance, targets people for deportation based solely on political speech, and asserts its authority to raid residences without a judicial warrant, administrative subpoenas appear to be another weapon in its arsenal against free speech and civil rights.
According to “transparency reports” reviewed by the Post, Google and Meta both received a record number of administrative subpoenas during the first six months of the second Trump administration. In several instances, they have been used to target protesters or other dissidents for First Amendment-protected activity:
In March, Homeland Security issued two administrative subpoenas to Columbia University for information on a student it sought to deport after she took part in pro-Palestinian protests. In July, the agency demanded broad employment records from Harvard University with what the school’s attorneys described as “unprecedented administrative subpoenas.” In September, Homeland Security used one to try to identify Instagram users who posted about [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids in Los Angeles. Last month, the agency used another to demand detailed personal information about some 7,000 workers in a Minnesota health system whose staff had protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s intrusion into one of its hospitals.
“These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said Stephen A. Loney, a senior supervising attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "If you can’t criticize a government official without the worry of having your private records gathered and agents knocking on your door, then your First Amendment rights start to feel less guaranteed. They want to bully companies into handing over our data and to chill users’ speech. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.”
"You don’t see evidence of gang association," said one legal expert. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
After a US Border Patrol Agent shot two Venezuelan immigrants in Portland, Oregon in January, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that the two victims were "vicious Tren de Aragua gang members" who "weaponized their vehicle" against federal agents, who had no choice but to open fire in self-defense.
However, court records obtained by the Guardian reveal that a Department of Justice prosecutor subsequently told a judge the government was "not suggesting" that one of the victims, Luis Niño-Moncada, was a gang member.
The Guardian also obtained an FBI affidavit contradicting DHS claims about the second victim, Yorlenys Zambrano-Contreras, being "involved" in a shooting in Portland last year, when in reality she was a "reported victim of sexual assault and robbery."
Attorneys representing Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras, who both survived the shooting and were subsequently hospitalized, told the Guardian that neither of them have any prior criminal convictions.
Legal experts who spoke with the Guardian about the shooting said it appeared that DHS was waging a "smear campaign" against the victims.
Sergio Perez, a civil rights lawyer and former US prosecutor, noted in an interview that prosecutors filed criminal charges against Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras just two days after they were shot, even before it had obtained crucial video evidence of the incident.
"This government needs to go back to the practice of slow and thorough investigations," he told the Guardian, "rather than what we consistently see in immigration enforcement activities—which is a rush to smear individuals."
Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that the court records obtained by the paper don't show DOJ presenting any of the usual evidence that prosecutors use to establish defendants' alleged gang membership.
"What’s interesting about the filings is that you don’t see evidence of gang association," said Palmer. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
DHS in recent months has made a number of claims about people who have been shot or killed by federal immigration officers that have not held up to scrutiny.
Most recently, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was a "domestic terrorist" intent on inflicting "maximum damage" on federal agents, when video clearly showed that Pretti was swarmed by multiple federal agents and was disarmed before two agents opened fire and killed him.
Noem also openly lied about the circumstances and actions that resulted in the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent weeks earlier.
In November, federal prosecutors abruptly dropped charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in October in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
In the indictment filed against Martinez, prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot her had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez’s car collided with his vehicle.
However, uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he “fired five rounds and she had seven holes” in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez also claimed that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined DHS claims about how the shooting unfolded.
No explanation was provided for why charges against Martinez were dropped.