

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.
One congresswoman pointed out that "she does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email."
Congressional Democrats were among the critics taking aim at US Speaker of the House Mike Johnson on Monday for the Louisiana Republican's "genuinely insane" remarks on his refusal to swear in Democratic Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva of Arizona.
Twenty days into a federal government shutdown that resulted from Republicans' fight for healthcare cuts set to negatively impact tens of millions of Americans, Johnson said he would administer the oath of office to Grijalva, "I hope, on the first day we come back."
"Instead of doing TikTok videos, she should be serving her constituents," Johnson added. "She could be taking their calls. She could be directing them, trying to help them through the crisis that the Democrats have created by shutting down the government."
Another Democrat elected to represent Arizonans, Congressman Greg Stanton, fired back at the speaker: "How pathetic. Mike Johnson is now blaming Adelita Grijalva for not doing her job. Quit taking orders from Trump and swear her in now."
Grijalva won the special election for her late father's seat last month, pre-shutdown. Johnson could have swiftly administered the oath of office, and despite the shutdown, he can still do so. He has denied that he has intentionally delayed swearing her in to push off a vote on releasing files about deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, a former friend of President Donald Trump—but many critics don't believe him.
Responding to the speaker on Monday, Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said: "Republicans refuse to swear in an elected member of Congress. Why? They are covering up the Epstein files."
As Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes threatens legal action over the delay—with a filing expected this week—Grijalva, Democratic lawmakers, and others have used various social media platforms to call out Johnson.
In one such video, posted online last week, Grijalva speaks with Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), the newest member of the House, about how he was sworn in just a day after winning his special election, like two of his GOP colleagues.
As viewers of Grijalva's videos know, she finally got access to her office on Capitol Hill last week, but her ability to functionally serve constituents remains limited.
Pointing to similar comments that the House speaker made last week on CNN, Congresswoman Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.) explained Monday: "Unlike Mike Johnson, I actually spoke to Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva this week. She does not have access to an official website for constituents to receive updates, an office phone number for constituents to call, or a congressional email to receive news like the rest of Congress. Why? Because until Johnson swears her in, she is not a member of Congress."
Podcaster and writer Matthew Sitman is among those highlighting how this is bigger than Grijalva. He said: "I really don't think it's possible to make a big enough deal of this. If it's accepted that this quisling has absolute, unilateral power to decide when, or even if, to swear in duly elected representatives, they will further abuse that power—why not refuse other Democrats?"
Writer Nick Field similarly wondered, "So why do we think Donald Trump and Mike Johnson will accept the results and seat new House members if they lose the majority in next year's midterms?"
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," said an Illinois cattle producer.
US ranchers and industry groups are responding critically to President Donald Trump's proposal that the United States "would buy some beef from Argentina," in a bid to "bring our beef prices down," while pursuing an up to $40 billion bailout for the South American country.
Trump made the suggestion to reporters on Air Force One Sunday, according to the Associated Press. A few days earlier, he'd said that a deal to cut the price of beef was "gonna be coming down pretty soon." The AP noted various reasons for "stubbornly high" US prices, including drought and reduced imports from Mexico.
"President Trump's plan to buy beef from Argentina is a betrayal of the American rancher," Christian Lovell, an Illinois cattle producer and senior director of programs at the organization Farm Action, said in a Monday statement. "Those of us who raise cattle have finally started to see what profit looks like after facing years of high input costs and market manipulation by the meatpacking monopoly."
"After crashing the soybean market and gifting Argentina our largest export buyer, he's now poised to do the same to the cattle market," he continued, referring to one of the impacts of Trump's tariff war. "Importing Argentinian beef would send US cattle prices plummeting—and with the meatpacking industry as consolidated as it is, consumers may not see lower beef prices either. Washington should be focused on fixing our broken cattle market, not rewarding foreign competitors."
"Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people."
"With these actions, President Trump risks acting more like the president of Argentina than president of the United States," Lovell declared. The US leader is a key ally of the nation's actual president, Javier Milei, whose austerity agenda has created the need for a massive bailout from Washington, DC.
Farm Action's proposed fix for the US is to tackle the "structurally flawed system" with three steps: "Reinstate Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling (MCOOL) for beef and pork, restore competitive markets by enforcing antitrust laws, and rebuild the US cow herd to achieve national self-reliance in beef production."
The group was far from alone in criticizing Trump's weekend remarks and offering alternative solutions to reduce US prices.
"We appreciate President Trump's interest in addressing the US beef market, which has been producing all-time record-high consumer beef prices," said Bill Bullard, CEO of R-CALF USA, the nation's largest cattle association, in a statement. "We urge the president to address the fundamental problems in the beef market, not just its symptom."
"The symptom is that the US has shrunk its beef cow herd to such a low level that it can no longer produce enough beef to satisfy domestic demand," he continued. "But the fundamental problem is that decades of failed trade policies have allowed cheap, undifferentiated imports to displace the domestic cow herd, driving hundreds of thousands of cattle farmers and ranchers and millions of domestic beef cows out of the domestic beef supply chain."
"In addition, the nation's beef packers and beef retailers have been allowed to concentrate to monopolistic levels, enabling them to interfere with competitive market forces," he asserted. "Attempting to lower domestic beef prices simply by inviting even more imports will both exacerbate and accelerate the ongoing dismantling of the domestic beef supply chain."
Instead of promoting US beef production, Trump now wants to establish a preferred position for Argentine beef in the US. Why, exactly? Is this what America First means?
[image or embed]
— Scott Horton (@robertscotthorton.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 2:23 PM
National Cattlemen's Beef Association CEO Colin Woodall said that "NCBA's family farmers and ranchers have numerous concerns with importing more Argentinian beef to lower prices for consumers. This plan only creates chaos at a critical time of the year for American cattle producers, while doing nothing to lower grocery store prices."
"Additionally, Argentina has a deeply unbalanced trade relationship with the US," Woodall noted. "In the past five years Argentina has sold more than $801 million of beef into the US market. By comparison, the US has sold just over $7 million worth of American beef to Argentina. Argentina also has a history of foot-and-mouth disease, which, if brought to the United States, could decimate our domestic livestock production."
Justin Tupper, president of the US Cattlemen's Association, highlighted the rising costs that ranchers are enduring.
"The cost of producing beef today is accurately represented in the consumer markets where it is sold," he said. "Ranchers are facing historic highs for feed, fuel, labor, and land—and those costs have risen far faster than beef prices on grocery shelves."
"When policymakers hint at intervention or suggest quick fixes, they can shake the market's foundation and directly impact the livelihoods of ranchers who depend on stable, transparent pricing," Tupper warned in the wake of the president's recent remarks. "Sudden price moves make it harder for independent producers to plan, invest, and keep their operations running."
"Efforts to support consumers must consider the economic realities on the ground and ensure the voices of independent ranchers lead the discussion," he added. "Market-driven prices—not mandates or panic interventions—have delivered value for generations. Let's focus on transparency, market integrity, and maintaining the conditions for sustainable rural economies."
Trump's signal that the US may buy more beef from Argentina comes as poll after poll shows that Americans—whose federal minimum wage hasn't increased in over 15 years—are stressed about the climbing costs of groceries. In addition to beef, shoppers are facing higher prices for staples such as coffee and eggs.
The Democratic National Committee also called out Trump's proposal on Monday, with Kendall Witmer, the DNC's rapid response director, charging that "Trump has done more in the past month to help Argentina than he has to help the American people, who are struggling to afford everything from rent to groceries."
"Because of Trump, farmers are on the brink of bankruptcy, and the government has been shut down for almost a month," Witmer added. "You would think that the so-called 'America First' president would be focused on reopening the government and saving millions of Americans from skyrocketing healthcare premiums—but Trump is showing his true colors. He only cares about helping himself and his friends, even at the expense of the American people. Let's be clear: MAGA now stands for Make Argentina Great Again."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," said one campaigner.
As climate leaders and policymakers arrive in Belém, Brazil next month, for the global climate summit that officials have pledged will stand apart from previous conferences due to its emphasis on "implementation," the country's government-run Petrobras firm will be drilling for oil just over 200 miles away in the Amazon, after the company was granted a license Monday.
Petrobras said it plans to begin drilling immediately in a project that will last about five months at the mouth of the Amazon River—the Foz de Amazonas region.
Despite President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's reputation as an international climate leader, he has claimed that oil revenue will help fund Brazil's transition to renewable energy, but Ilan Zugman, Latin America and Caribbean director at the grassroots climate action group 350.org, said Monday that in granting the license, the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) was "doubling down on a model that has already failed."
Petrobras is planning to drill an oil well at an offshore site, Block 59, that is 310 miles from the mouth of the Amazon.
IBAMA previously denied Petrobras the license, saying the company had not provided adequate plans for how it would protect wildlife in the case of an oil spill.
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations."
In September, the agency approved a pre-operational environmental assessment and said a new "fauna simulation" would take place after the license was issued, allowed Petrobras to prove after obtaining permission for drilling that it would protect wildlife.
The Amazon region is home to about 10% of the planet's wildlife, and climate advocates have raised alarm that the river's currents would swiftly bring the damage from an oil spill straight to the habitats of many animals and plants.
Brazilian NGO the Climate Observatory said the approval of the license "sabotages" the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30), which World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General Celeste Sauro said recently "aspires to be a turning point, a moment when the world shifts from ambition to implementation."
Last year was the first year to exceed 1.5°C above average preindustrial temperatures, and the previous 10 years have been the warmest on record. Scientists and the International Energy Agency have warned that no new oil or other fossil fuel projects have a place on a pathway to reaching net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050.
“The decision is disastrous from an environmental, climate, and sociobiodiversity perspective," said the Climate Observatory.
The group told The Guardian that civil society organizations would be taking the Brazilian government to court over the license, saying its approval was rife with "illegalities and technical flaws."
Despite IBAMA's approval, an opinion signed by 29 staff members at the agency in February said they recommended denying the license due to the risk of “massive biodiversity loss in a highly sensitive marine ecosystem."
Zugman called the decision a "historic mistake."
"The history of oil in Brazil shows this clearly: huge profits for a few, and inequality, destruction, and violence for local populations," said Zugman. "Brazil must take real climate leadership and break the cycle of extraction that has led us to the current climate crisis. We urgently need a just energy transition plan, based on renewables, that respects Indigenous, quilombola, and riverside peoples and guarantees them a leading role in decisions about climate and energy—including at COP30."
Earlier this year, Indigenous leaders representing dozens of Amazon ethnicities and tribes signed a declaration demanding that officials at COP30 "nullify oil blocks that have not had the consent of Indigenous people," "halt investment in new oil infrastructure," and create phase-out plans for oil and gas operations.
Nick Young, co-head of story and communications at Greenpeace International, called IBAMA's decision "disastrous."
"A spill here would be catastrophic and uniquely hard to contain in the Amazon plume," said Young. "And in addition to the risk of oil spills, the science clearly shows that we cannot afford to burn even existing oil reserves, let alone new ones."
"For us all to have a future, the oil industry can have no future," he added. "It makes zero sense to allow them to find new oil to throw on the fire."