June, 30 2014, 01:05pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Charles Idelson, (510) 273-2246 or Holly Miller, 510-273-2289
Â
RNs: Rulings Continue Corporate Tilt with Further Attacks on Democracy, Women, Worker's Rights
Rulings Also Reflect Cynical Misuse of Free Speech
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court ruling today limiting the collective voice of Illinois home care workers continues a dangerous pattern of undermining democracy as well as eroding the rights of workers to have a collective voice through their unions, and signals a desire for broader restrictions, said National Nurses United, the largest U.S. organization of nurses.
NNU also blasted a second court ruling sharply limiting access to reproductive healthcare for women by allowing corporations to refuse to provide contraceptive care in health coverage.
"Today's actions continue a steady assault on the rights of workers and consumers by what has become the Supreme Corporate Court with a general tilt towards wealthy corporate interests, and further the manipulation of 'free speech'," said NNU Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro.
In Harris v Quinn, the anti-union decision, the court limiting the decision to what it termed "partial public employees" who work in home health settings, but the 5-4 ruling "sends strong signals of the rightwing majority's desire for more sweeping restrictions on the ability of workers to collectively participate in public policy through their unions as a counter weight to the virtually unlimited corruption of public life by corporate interests," DeMoro said.
The decision comes one year after the limited Knox v Local 1000 care in which the Roberts Court admonished a public-sector union for spending funds on one election fight, but invited further legal attacks under the pretext of "free speech" rights for workers, DeMoro noted. Indeed, two cases to expand those decisions in both the public and private sector seem headed for court review in the next Court session starting in October.
Unions are required to represent, and spend resources to represent, all workers in a bargaining unit for negotiating their wages, benefits, and working conditions, and for decades have been required to offer those objecting to contributing to that effort to provide a "fair share" alternative.
Corporations and rightwing organizations such as those which brought the Harris v Quinn case have long sought to destroy the voice of unions as a check on corporate power by eliminating the ability of unions to collect dues from members they represent - in hopes of bankrupting unions.
No similar restraints are placed on corporations on political activity which can, for example, openly lobby for tax breaks for corporations or limits on workers rights without any means for dissent by shareholders who might seek a more equitable tax burden for corporations and higher tax revenues for public protections and civic responsibility.
Even in the public sector Harris v Quinn and the Knox ruling that preceded it open the door to public employers imposing cuts on workers while unions that represent those employees are sharply limited in their ability to use the public arena to fight back at a time work actions such as strikes are already severely limited in many jurisdictions.
Harris v Quinn is also an ominous step in further eroding the rights of healthcare workers to advocate for improved care, DeMoro added. "The goal of the anti-union crowd is to disempower the ability of nurses and other healthcare workers to speak out for patient and public safety on everything from food inspections to a healthier environment to safer health care settings."
DeMoro also condemned the Hobby Lobby decision for its direct attack on women's health, as well as opening the door for employers to opt out of other health coverage for workers under the cover of "free speech rights."
"Increasingly we see this court cynically manipulating the tradition of free speech to further expand the power of corporations over all segments of public life," said DeMoro. "From decisions that money equals free speech, which especially benefits large corporate interests to protecting corporations from consumer challenges to anti-union decisions, the First Amendment has been steadily corrupted by this court."
Perverting free speech rights for corporate interest is one way, DeMoro concluded, in which the court has been sharply shifting the ground of economic, political, and social life towards wealthy corporate interests.
Last year, for example, the court majority limited the grounds under which workers can sue employers for sexual discrimination, the grounds under which pharmaceutical giants can be sued for product defects, and placed even tighter limits on class action suits against companies.
Those decisions continued several years of handouts from the Roberts Court to big business, perhaps most evident in the Lilly Ledbetter case in which the court barred Ledbetter from recovering back pay for years of pay discrimination, and of course the Citizens United ruling, wrenching open the door for virtually unlimited corporate spending in elections.
"With a Supreme Court that is increasingly moving hand in hand with Wall Street and corporate interests to eviscerate our democracy, it's a reminder working people can not count on the courts for justice, and must rely on our own stepped up activism for a more just society," DeMoro said.
Corporate focused decisions of the Supreme Corporate Court include (partial list):
Harris v Quinn
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire
American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant
Mutual Pharmaceutical Company v. Bartlett
Pliva v. Mensing
Vance v. Ball State
Knox v. Local 1000
AT & T Mobility v. Concepcion
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000LATEST NEWS
After Bank Collapses, US Regulators Urged to Impose Rules on Climate-Related Financial Risk
"If management at a wide swath of banks failed to properly address a well-understood risk, they cannot be trusted to independently address other complex emerging risks," argued 50 green groups.
Mar 28, 2023
In the wake of recent bank collapses and protests across the United States demanding financial institutions end fossil fuel financing, 50 climate, environmental justice, and Indigenous rights groups on Tuesday advocated for new regulations.
"We the undersigned strongly urge financial regulators and Congress to learn from the collapse and bailout of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) and rapidly implement new regulations to mitigate against climate-related financial risk," the coalition wrote.
"Climate-related risks are moving us toward a financial crisis. But regulators have not taken adequate steps to actually mitigate those risks."
The groups' letter was sent to key leaders at the U.S. Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), National Economic Council, and relevant U.S. House and Senate committees.
After explaining how the SVB collapse is partly the result of poor management enabled by regulatory rollbacks under the Trump administration, the letter states that "this is only the latest example of a bank being wholly unprepared for a large and obvious financial risk."
The letter continues:
It is a stark reminder of the chaos that can unfold when a financial institution has high exposure to a risky industry, and of the fact that the leaders of major financial institutions are frequently far more concerned with their short-term gains than with robust risk management measures that ensure their safety and the safety and soundness of the financial system. As a reminder of the latter, senior managers at SVB paid themselves millions in bonuses hours before their bank failed and the federal government financially backstopped it. Here again, stronger rules—including the Dodd-Frank executive compensation rules that remain unfinished—could have incentivized greater bank attention to risks.
To prevent any potential for a cascade of bank runs after SVB's collapse, federal regulators have now effectively set a precedent of guaranteeing all bank deposits in all banking institutions nationwide, to be backstopped by the Federal Deposit Insurance Fund and then taxpayer dollars. Moreover, the Federal Reserve has begun lending at extraordinarily generous terms to any other banks with assets whose real value has been curbed by interest rate hikes—in effect, the Fed is offering a first-of-its-kind, get-out-of-bank-failure-free card to any firms that made the same foreseeable mistake as SVB. Regulators justified this extraordinary shift in the structures of American finance by relying on emergency rules in place to prevent systemic risk to the financial system. In effect, regulators argued that SVB's inability to mitigate one of the most obvious forms of financial risk—the potential for rising interest rates amid high inflation—constituted a grave risk to the whole financial system, and, thereby, the whole economy.
"If management at a wide swath of banks failed to properly address a well-understood risk, they cannot be trusted to independently address other complex emerging risks," the groups argued. "Regulators must intervene to protect the financial system from risks associated with climate change and the ongoing transition to a green economy."
The letter notes recent remarks from Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen about the economic and financial impact of the climate emergency as well as how, as it worsens, "banks of all sizes holding mortgage-backed bonds will see their assets drop in value" while "banks invested in the fossil fuel industry will eventually be saddled with stranded assets."
"Climate-related risks are moving us toward a financial crisis. But regulators have not taken adequate steps to actually mitigate those risks," the coalition warned, calling on U.S. policymakers to:
- Move with urgency and speed to implement proposed guidance for banks and financial institutions related to preparation for climate-related financial risks and to follow up with more detailed guidance;
- Rapidly move forward on rigorous exams for banking institutions, including for medium-sized banks, regardless of industry pressure for light-touch supervision of climate-related risks; and
- Please also see previous coalition letters recommending action on the Federal Reserve's and the Treasury Department's climate guidance.
"Banks cannot be trusted to independently evaluate and protect against the systemic risks of the climate crisis in real-time. They also cannot be trusted to avoid creating risks for other institutions and the financial system through their support for fossil assets and greenhouse gas emissions," the letter says. "This process requires regulators to set clear rules and ensure banks and financial institutions do not engage in unsafe behavior and do not create undue risks and costs for the financial system and the economy."
Signatories include Greenpeace USA, Lakota People's Law Project, Sierra Club, and Third Act—who came together earlier this month for a "Stop Dirty Banks" national day of action, the first elderly-led mass climate demonstration in U.S. history.
"Today is a major drive to take the cash out of carbon," declared Third Act's Bill McKibben. "We want JPMorgan Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America to hear the voices of the older generation which has the money and structural power to face down their empty, weasel words on climate. We will not go to our graves quietly knowing that the financial institutions in our own communities continue to fund the climate crisis."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bush, Pressley to Co-Chair New Congressional Equal Rights Amendment Caucus
"It has been 100 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted and introduced in Congress," noted Rep. Cori Bush. "That is far too long... and we refuse to wait any longer."
Mar 28, 2023
A coalition of Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Reps. Cori Bush and Ayanna Pressley on Tuesday announced the launch of a new caucus aimed at realizing the centurylong goal of adding an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.
"It has been 100 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first drafted and introduced in Congress, and more than a half century since both chambers passed it," Bush (D-Mo.) said in a statement announcing the founding of the Congressional Equal Rights Amendment Caucus. "That is far too long for women, Black and Brown folks, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized groups to wait for constitutional gender equality—and we refuse to wait any longer."
Pressley (D-Mass.) said: "I am proud to launch the ERA Caucus with my sister-in-service Congresswoman Bush to affirm the Equal Rights Amendment as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution, establish gender equality as a national priority, and center our most vulnerable and marginalized communities, who stand to benefit the most."
\u201cToday, @AyannaPressley and I are launching the ERA Caucus \u2014 100 years after the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress.\n\nWe are joining forces to make sure that equality becomes enshrined in the supreme law of our land.\n\nEquality is overdue.\u201d— Cori Bush (@Cori Bush) 1680030712
Caucus member Rep. Summer Lee (D-Penn.) said that "it's not shocking that when the Constitution was first drafted, women, Black, Brown, queer, and marginalized folks were intentionally written out. What is shocking is that in 2023, our Constitution still does not include equal rights regardless of sex—meaning our Constitution still does not reflect or protect all people."
"To the right-wing politicians and judges waging a full-on assault on the rights of women and queer youth, we're not afraid and we won't be silenced," Lee added. "We're organized and mobilized to make equal rights the law of the land."
After passing the House in 1971 and the Senate the following year, the ERA was submitted to the states for ratification. Congress set a March 1979 deadline for ratification; only 35 of the requisite 38 states approved the proposal by that time. Although the deadline was extended until 1982, no more states ratified the amendment and several state legislatures voted to rescind their ratifications.
\u201cThrilled to join @RepCori and @RepPressley today to found @ERACaucus and fight for gender equality. Women were deliberately left out of the Constitution, but with the #EqualRightsAmendment, we can guarantee equal rights for all people under the law.\u201d— Judy Chu (@Judy Chu) 1680029701
A 21st-century effort to revive the ERA saw Nevada, Illinois, and Virginia approve the measure in recent years. Supporters say 38 states have now backed the ERA, although there is uncertainty over the expired deadlines and rescinded ratifications.
Pressley's office said that in addition to affirming the ERA, the new congressional caucus will "raise awareness in Congress to establish constitutional gender equality as a national priority; partner with an inclusive intergenerational, multiracial coalition of advocates, activists, scholars, organizers, and public figures; and center the people who stand to benefit the most from gender equality, including Black and Brown women, LGBTQ+ people, people seeking abortion care, and other marginalized groups."
\u201cA century after the #EqualRightsAmendment was introduced, we\u2019re still waiting. \n\nAs a Vice Chair on the @DemWomenCaucus, I applaud @RepCori and @RepPressley for launching the @ERACaucus. \n\nLet\u2019s get it done. #ERANow\u201d— Rep. Teresa Leger Fern\u00e1ndez (@Rep. Teresa Leger Fern\u00e1ndez) 1680041462
In a Tuesday interview with The Hill, Pressley said she was "thinking a lot about my 14-year-old daughter, Cora, and how I do not want her to continue to live in a country in a world where we have so conflated and normalized the disparate treatment and outcomes and disparate access and the second-class status it is to be a woman in this society."
"I look forward to the day when calendars will say and on this day in history, the ERA caucus was established," she added, "but I really look forward to the day when our calendars will say on this day in history, the ERA was passed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A 'Landmark Victory' for Consumers and Climate as California Passes Big Oil Price Gouging Law
"Whether it's price gouging at the pump or drilling in people's backyards, Big Oil's days of harming our health and our pocketbooks must end," said one advocate.
Mar 28, 2023
Climate and consumer advocates on Tuesday hailed California lawmakers' passage of legislation aimed at tackling Big Oil price gouging as the proposal headed to the desk of Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said he will sign the measure into law.
The California Assembly voted 52-19 on Monday in favor of S.B. X1-2—authored by state Sen. Nancy Skinner (D-9)—which will empower the California Energy Commission (CEC) to impose profit caps and penalties on refiners and create an intra-agency watchdog tasked with conducting greater oversight of fossil fuel companies to minimize profiteering.
The new law will allow the CEC to levy daily fines of $5,000-$20,000—up to a maximum of $500,000—if a company does not provide the agency with data to determine if it is complying with the legislation. CEC fines are currently capped at $2,000.
Newsom—who is slated to sign the bill into law at 4:30 pm PT on Tuesday—called Monday "a big day for consumers, a big day for Mother Nature, and a big day in this country."
"I'm very, very pleased as a taxpayer, as a Californian, and as an American," he added. "I hope this is a signal to other states."
The law will take effect 90 days after it's signed by Newsom—who has also called for a windfall profits tax on fossil fuel companies.
"This is a landmark victory for California consumers who will soon have the force of a state watchdog with teeth protecting them from gouging at the gas pump," Consumer Watchdog president Jamie Court said Tuesday.
Kassie Siegel, director of the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, asserted that Monday's vote "shows the tide is turning against Big Oil in California."
"Despite the industry spending millions on lobbying, California is now one step closer to protecting working Californians from the oil industry's greed," Siegel continued. "Whether it's price gouging at the pump or drilling in people's backyards, Big Oil's days of harming our health and our pocketbooks must end."
In a statement, Stop the Oil Profiteering (STOP) spokesperson Jamie Henn said that "California wasn't afraid to stand up to Big Oil. It's time for Washington to follow their lead."
"This landmark legislation will give regulators the tools they need to investigate Big Oil's shady business practices and crack down on the price gouging that fueled last year's obscene profits," Henn added. "The public is clamoring for politicians to take on this reckless industry—it's inspiring to see Gov. Newsom answering the call."
Earlier this month, the watchdog Accountable.US published a report revealing that the biggest oil companies operating in the United States raked in a collective $290 billion in profits last year while they "consistently prioritized shareholder returns over alleviating the pressure of high energy prices."
According to the American Automobile Association, California has the nation's highest gasoline prices, with a gallon of regular unleaded averaging $4.82.
"Five California oil refiners made obscene profits last year from astronomical gasoline prices at the pump, hurting working families up and down the state," Shoshana Wexler of the climate group 350 Bay Area Action said in a statement. "The Legislature has passed a bill that would expose the ways this grand heist was carried out and hopefully ensure it never happens again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.