July, 10 2018, 12:00am EDT
Group of 132 Lawmakers Urges Trump to Rescind Anti-Worker Executive Orders
AFGE thanks Rep. Schakowsky for leading effort to denounce illegal directives
WASHINGTON
Another group of lawmakers has urged President Trump to rescind three executive orders "that would undermine collective bargaining, union representation and whistleblower protection for federal workers."
Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois spearheaded the July 9 letter, which was signed by 132 members of Congress - including more than half of the Democratic caucus and more than one-fourth of the U.S. House.
"Federal workers are public servants who deserve the workplace rights and protections that last month's Executive Orders would take away. Those Orders are unfair and will make it harder to attract and retain a qualified federal workforce," the letter states.
The American Federation of Government Employees, which filed the first lawsuit challenging President Trump's directives, thanked the lawmakers for speaking up in support of federal employees and their rights under the law.
"President Trump seems to believe he's above the law, but we will not be intimidated by his illegal tactics," AFGE National President J. David Cox Sr. said. "We will not allow this or any other administration to trample on the Constitutional rights of federal workers."
The letter spearheaded by Rep. Schakowsky follows separate letters sent to the White House by a bipartisan group of 44 House members and 45 Senate Democrats urging President Trump to rescind the executive orders, as well as an amicus brief filed by a bipartisan group of current and former lawmakers in support of lawsuits filed by AFGE and other federal unions.
"Thank you to Representative Schakowsky for spearheading this letter, and many thanks to all of the elected leaders who have spoken out against President Trump's illegal and unconstitutional actions," Cox said.
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) is the largest federal employee union proudly representing 700,000 federal and D.C. government workers nationwide and overseas. Workers in virtually all functions of government at every federal agency depend upon AFGE for legal representation, legislative advocacy, technical expertise and informational services.
(202) 737-8700LATEST NEWS
Why Trump Doesn't Get to Say Arizona 'Went Too Far' on Abortion
"In overturning Roe, Trump's Supreme Court directly invited Arizona's total ban," wrote columnist Robert Reich. "It's all Trump's doing."
Apr 10, 2024
One progressive lawmaker complained of "whiplash" Wednesday as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump attempted to distance himself—and his own stated abortion policy proposals—from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban.
A day after the high court upheld a ban on abortion care from the moment of conception, with no exceptions for pregnancies that result from rape or incest, the former president agreed with a reporter that the state had gone "too far" and that abortion law in Arizona will "be straightened out."
As U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) noted, on Monday Trump clearly said he believes states should be empowered to determine their own abortion laws, as well as saying he is "proudly the person responsible" for the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022—clearing the way for state abortion bans.
"Now that Arizona turned the law back to 1864, he says it shouldn't be up to the states?" asked McGovern.
As President Joe Biden's reelection campaign pointed out, the Arizona Supreme Court cited Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the decision that overturned Roe, 22 times in its decision to reinstate the 1864 law.
"One person is responsible: Donald Trump," said the Biden campaign.
Bans like Arizona's, said Rahna Epting, executive director of MoveOn, are "the Republican plan."
"This is Donald Trump's plan," said Epting. "They can't run from it. They can't hide from it. And they can't lie to voters about it."
Trump—who lied at least 30,573 times while in office—claimed on Wednesday that he would not sign a national abortion ban if Congress sent one to his desk.
While Democratic politicians have called out the Republican this week, "mainstream outlets are misleadingly sanitizing the language of Donald Trump, this time by obscuring evidence that he would sign a national abortion ban," Media Matters for America researchers highlighted Tuesday.
Right-wing judges and legislators have moved full steam ahead with pushing for abortion bans and restrictions, even as it has become increasingly clear that forced pregnancy is unpopular with Americans.
Pew Research's latest survey in Arizona found that 49% of adults believe abortion care should be legal in most or all cases, while 46% said it should be illegal.
An AP-NORC poll found last year that 64% of adults believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. The survey was taken after several women in states with so-called "exceptions" to abortion bans suffered physical and mental health harms after being denied abortions despite health complications.
Like Trump, Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake tried Tuesday to denounce the state Supreme Court ruling, but several critics reminded the public that she spoke in favor of the 1864 law in 2022. Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.), whose district Biden won in 2020, quickly posted a statement on social media calling the decision a "disaster for women and providers."
Columnist and former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich said the ruling "should make Trump squirm," considering his stated support for each state's right to decide their own abortion policies and his "proud" ownership of the Dobbs ruling.
"In overturning Roe, Trump's Supreme Court directly invited Arizona's total ban," wrote Reich. "It's all Trump's doing. In 2016, during a debate with Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, Trump pledged to remake the U.S. Supreme Court with nominees who were against abortion... Later in that debate, Trump predicted his nominees would help deliver the end of Roe v. Wade."
"Trump's 'pro-life' justices did end Roe—therebyleaving it up to the states whether to ban abortion," he added. "So Arizona has now resurrected its 1864 law that did just that. Trump can't escape responsibility."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Do the Right Thing,' Say Assange Defenders as Biden Mulls Dropping Case
"This would be the best decision Biden ever made," said one supporter of the jailed WikiLeaks publisher.
Apr 10, 2024
U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday said his administration is weighing the Australian government's requests to drop charges against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has been deprived of his freedom since 2010 and is currently jailed in London's notorious Belmarsh Prison while fighting extradition to the United States.
Asked by reporters at the White House about requests from Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and members of the country's Parliament for the U.S. and United Kingdom to drop the extradition effort and charges against Assange—an Australian citizen—Biden said that "we're considering it."
Stella Assange, Julian's wife, responded to Biden's remarks on social media. "Do the right thing," she wrote. "Drop the charges. #FreeAssangeNOW."
Srećko Horvat, a Croatian philosopher and co-founder of the Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 pan-European progressive political party,
said that "this would be the best decision Biden ever made."
British journalist Afshin Rattansi
asked, "Why has Julian Assange been put through this ordeal in the first place?"
Assange—who is 52 years old and suffers from various health problems—faces multiple U.S. charges under the Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for his role in publishing classified government documents, some of them revealing war crimes and other misdeeds. Among the files published by WikiLeaks are the "Collateral Murder" video—which shows a U.S. Army helicopter crew killing a group of Iraqi civilians—the Afghan and Iraq war logs.
Three U.S. administrations have pursued charges against Assange. During the administration of former President Donald Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 Republican nominee—officials including then-Secretary of State Mike Pompeo allegedly plotted to assassinate Assange to avenge WikiLeaks' publication of the "Vault 7" documents exposing CIA electronic warfare and surveillance activities. In 2010, Trump called for Assange's execution.
The U.K. High Court ruled last month that Assange could not be immediately extradited to the U.S., where he faces up to 175 years behind bars if convicted on all counts. The tribunal gave the Biden administration until April 16 to guarantee that Assange won't face the death penalty. Absent such assurance, Assange will be allowed to continue appealing his extradition.
Last month, Assange's legal team denied reports that a plea deal with the U.S. government may have been in the works.
Assange has been imprisoned in Belmarsh since 2019. Before that, he spent nearly seven years in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where he had been granted political asylum under the government of leftist former President Rafael Correa.
The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
found in 2016 that Assange had been arbitrarily deprived of his freedom since his first arrest on December 7, 2010. In 2019, Nils Melzer, then the U.N.'s special rapporteur on torture, said Assange had been subjected to "psychological torture."
Following the High Court's decision last month, Amnesty International legal adviser Simon Crowther said that "the U.S. must stop its politically motivated prosecution of Assange, which puts Assange and media freedom at risk worldwide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
NLRB Head Says Corporate Union-Busters Want to Distract Public With Legal Challenges
"These esoteric arguments came about why?" said National Labor Relations Board Chief Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. "Because we dared to issue a complaint against SpaceX after it unlawfully fired eight workers."
Apr 10, 2024
Amid an ongoing nationwide surge in union organizing across numerous industries in the U.S., powerful corporations in recent months have argued the federal watchdog tasked with ensuring fair labor practices is, itself, unconstitutional—but the nation's top labor lawyer said Tuesday she doesn't buy the claims of Amazon, Trader Joe's, and other companies.
The "deep-pocketed, low-road employers want to divert [the National Labor Relations Board's] sparse resources to defending ourselves in court," NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo said at a virtual event, "to slow down or prevent us from engaging in concerted action. They're just trying to stop our enforcement actions."
Abruzzo spoke at a webinar titled "Preserving the Administrative State: Threats to Administrative Law Enforcement in the Courts," hosted by the left-leaning think tank Roosevelt Institute.
Watch the event below:
The event was held just over three months after SpaceX, billionaire enterpreneur Elon Musk's space exploration company, filed a complaint against the NLRB after the board accused it of unlawfully firing eight employees. SpaceX claimed that a "constitutionally required degree of control is lacking" at the agency because its judges and five board members cannot immediately be dismissed by a president.
In moves Abruzzo on Tuesday called "jumping on the bandwagon," an attorney for Trader Joe's argued at a hearing weeks later that the "structure and organization" of the NLRB is unconstitutional, and Amazon made a similar claim in February. Starbucks said in its own legal filing that the limitation on removing NLRB judges and members "frustrates the presidential control Article II [of the U.S. Constitution] demands."
"These esoteric arguments came about why?" said Abruzzo. "Because we dared to issue a complaint against SpaceX after it unlawfully fired eight workers for speaking about their workplace concerns. And then Amazon jumps on the bandwagon, Starbucks jumps on the bandwagon, Trader Joe's, others get in on the action just because we're trying to hold them accountable for repeatedly violating workers rights to organize and collectively bargain through representatives of their free choosing."
All the companies have been accused by the board's prosecutors of violating labor law—a fact that Abruzzo said the corporations are eager for the public to forget.
A key goal of the legal filings is to "to divert attention away from the fact that they are actually lawbreakers who need to be held accountable in a timely manner," Abruzzo said at the Roosevelt Institute webinar. "And frankly, that strategy is working. There's a lot of public reporting about the challenges as opposed to the law-breaking."
In addition to SpaceX's alleged illegal firing of workers, the companies have been accused of retaliating against employees, limiting workers' access to a warehouse, and closing store locations to discourage union activity, among other violations.
NLRB judges have already ruled against Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe's in several workers' rights cases.
Two of the companies—SpaceX and Amazon—were founded by the two richest men in the United States, Musk and Jeff Bezos.
"Once billionaires are scared of the power of the NLRB, they bring in the big guns," Diana Reddy, a labor law professor at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said at the Roosevelt Institute event.
Abruzzo said courts are likely to reject the companies' claims, noting the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the organizational structure of the NLRB in 1937.
Other federal agencies, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have also been challenged as unconstitutional by corporate interests. Rulings in those cases are expecting in the coming months.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular