April, 26 2022, 06:42pm EDT
Sanders Asks President Biden to Fulfill Campaign Promise and Cancel Amazon's Federal Contracts
During remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Tuesday called for President Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent companies that are engaged in illegal anti-union activities, like Amazon, from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government on the taxpayers dime. Sanders urged President Biden to sign an Executive Order to implement this plan.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
WASHINGTON
During remarks on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) Tuesday called for President Joe Biden to fulfill his campaign promise to prevent companies that are engaged in illegal anti-union activities, like Amazon, from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government on the taxpayers dime. Sanders urged President Biden to sign an Executive Order to implement this plan.
Sanders' remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.
M. President, the American people are increasingly disgusted with the level of corporate greed that we are seeing in this country.
As you know, while prices are rapidly increasing corporate profits are soaring - in the oil industry, in the food industry, in housing, and many other areas. Meanwhile, while the very rich get richer because of inflation many workers are seeing a decline in their real wages.
During this pandemic, unbelievably, while workers struggle, the billionaire class has seen a $2 trillion increase in their wealth - and the level of income and wealth inequality today is the highest it's been in over 100 years. Two people, Mr. Musk and Mr. Bezos, now own more wealth than the bottom 42 percent - over 130 million Americans.
In the midst of all of this, working people have declared loudly and clearly that enough is enough. We must end this corporate greed.
Workers are now fighting back to improve their standard of living, to get the wages and benefits they need, and to get a seat at the negotiating table in a way that we have not seen in many years. They are organizing unions at a grassroots level and they are prepared to go out on strike when the greed of large corporations prevents them from receiving decent wages and decent benefits.
During the last couple of years I have personally been involved in a number of union organizing campaigns and strikes throughout the country - from the John Deere, Nabisco and Kellogg's strikes in the Midwest, to the Warrior Met strike in Alabama, to the Kroger's grocery store strike in Colorado. I have been enormously impressed by the courage and tenacity of these workers who are demanding nothing less than economic justice.
M. President, as you may know, an historic union victory was achieved nearly one month ago by Amazon workers in Staten Island.
Amazon, as you know, is one of the most profitable and one of the most powerful corporations in America. It is also one of the largest employers in America with close to a million employees.
We're talking about a company that made a record-breaking $36 billion profit last year - a 453% increase from where it was before the pandemic. In other words, Amazon is doing better today than it has ever done.
We're talking about a company that is owned by Jeff Bezos, the second wealthiest person in America worth $170 billion.
Interestingly, given our regressive and unfair tax system, we're talking about a company that paid nothing in federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018 and paid a lower tax rate than a nurse or a firefighter last year after making billions in profits.
We're also talking about Mr. Bezos, who, in a given year, despite his extraordinary wealth, also pays nothing in federal income taxes. That's what you can do when you make campaign contributions and have an army of accountants and lawyers working for you.
M. President, during the pandemic, Mr. Bezos, like other billionaires, became much richer. In fact, since March of 2020 Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer. M. President, do you know why people in this country are angry? During the pandemic, tens of thousands of essential workers had no choice but to go to work. And they died. That's what happens when you live paycheck to paycheck. And during that same period, Mr. Bezos became $65 billion richer.
Mr. Bezos has enough money to own a $500 million, 417-foot mega-yacht.
He has enough money to afford a $175 million estate in Beverly Hills that includes a 13,600 square-foot mansion.
He has enough money to afford a $78 million, 14-acre estate in Maui.
He has enough money to own a $23 million mansion in Washington, DC with 25 bathrooms.
He has enough money to buy a rocket ship to blast William Shatner to the edge of outer space.
And yet, even though Mr. Bezos can afford all of those mansions and all of those yachts and all of those rocket ships, Mr. Bezos refuses to pay his workers decent wages, decent benefits or provide decent working conditions. This is what excessive greed is all about. And the American people want action.
From the very beginning of the union organizing effort until today, Mr. Bezos and Amazon have done everything possible, legal and illegal, to defeat the union.
In fact, Amazon cannot even come to grips with the reality that the workers in Staten Island won their union election fair and square. In order to stall the process out, their lawyers have appealed that election result to the NLRB. Their strategy is obviously to use their incredible wealth to stall, stall and stall.
In every way possible, they are refusing to negotiate a fair first contract with the Amazon Labor Union.
In fact, Amazon has been engaged in a massive attempt to undermine the union organizing drive - in direct violation of labor laws and regulations.
Let's be clear: Amazon has already been penalized more than $75 million for breaking federal discrimination and labor laws.
Amazon is currently being sued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to reinstate a worker who was illegally fired for organizing a union.
To date, there are currently 59 unfair labor cases against Amazon pending at the NLRB.
Several current and former employees have alleged that Amazon has engaged in illegal harassment and discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Amazon misclassifies delivery drivers as independent contractors rather than employees to evade tax, wage, and benefit responsibilities.
Amazon's inadequate workplace safety policies also pose grave risks to workers. If you can believe it, according to a New York Times investigation, Amazon has a 150% percent turnover rate. Workers come into the warehouses, they are worked as hard as humanly possible, and they leave. And a whole set of new workers come in to replace them.
Further, in some locations, their workplace injury rates are more than 2.5 times the industry average.
Last December, six Amazon workers died after they were required to continue working during unsafe weather conditions in a warehouse that did not have appropriate safety facilities or policies.
It is abundantly clear that time and time again Amazon has engaged in illegal anti-union activity.
Amazon may be a large and profitable corporation, it may be owned by one of the wealthiest people in America, but it cannot be allowed to continue to violate the law and the rights of its employees. If working people are asked to obey the law they do it or they are punished by the law. That same principle must be upheld for a large and powerful corporation like Amazon.
And that is why, this morning, I sent a letter to President Biden urging him to sign an executive order to prohibit companies like Amazon that have violated labor laws from receiving federal contracts paid for by the taxpayers of America.
Let me quote from this letter:
"Dear President Biden:
Last September, I was delighted to hear you state that you 'intend to be the most pro-union President leading the most pro-union administration in American history.'
At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, where too many workers are falling behind, your sentiment is exactly right. We need to build the trade union movement in America and allow more workers to engage in collective bargaining.
One of the most effective ways for you [President Biden] to begin accomplishing this important goal would be to ensure that no corporation that is engaged in illegal anti-union activities receives a contract paid for by the taxpayers of the United States.
As you will recall, during the presidential campaign you [President Biden] promised to 'institute a multi-year federal debarment for all employers who illegally oppose unions' and to 'ensure federal contracts only go to employers who sign neutrality agreements committing not to run anti-union campaigns.'
That campaign promise was exactly right. Today, I am asking you [President Biden] to fulfill that promise ... As you may know, Amazon, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in America, is the poster child as to why this anti-union busting Executive Order is needed now more than ever."
M. President: I ask unanimous consent to include the full text of my letter into the record.
President Biden, more than any other president in modern American history, has talked over and over again about being pro-union - and I appreciate the President's rhetoric and know him to be sincere on this issue.
Just this afternoon, in an article in Politico, in response to my letter, "A White House official said that the president 'has stated consistently and firmly that every worker in every state must have a free and fair choice to join a union and the right to bargain collectively with their employer.' The official, who declined to be named, added that Biden believes 'there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, and no anti-union propaganda from employers while workers are making that vitally important choice about a union.'"
But that is exactly what is happening at Amazon. There is intimidation. There is coercion. There are threats and anti-union propaganda. In fact, all of that is precisely what Amazon is doing.
In my view, the time for talk is over. The time for action is now.
Taxpayer dollars should not go to companies like Amazon and multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos who repeatedly break the law.
No government - not the federal government, not the state government and not the city government - should be handing out corporate welfare to union busters and labor law violators.
So today I say to President Biden: You promised to prevent union busters like Amazon from receiving lucrative contracts from the federal government. Please keep that promise.
LATEST NEWS
New Jersey Governor Signs Freedom to Read Act Barring Book Bans
The law, said the Democrat, "cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students."
Dec 09, 2024
Democratic New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Monday signed legislation protecting librarians and prohibiting public schools and libraries from banning books—a move that came as Republican state lawmakers are proscribing a record number of titles, many of them works addressing sexual orientation, gender identity, and racial injustice.
Flanked by educators, librarians, and other advocates, Murphy signed
A.3446/S.2421—known as the Freedom to Read Act—in the Princeton Public Library.
"The Freedom to Read Act cements New Jersey's role on the forefront of preventing book bans and protecting the intellectual freedom of our educators and students," said Murphy. "Across the nation, we have seen attempts to suppress and censor the stories and experiences of others. I'm proud to amplify the voices of our past and present, as there is no better way for our children to prepare for the future than to read freely."
According to a statement from Murphy's office:
Under the law, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are barred from excluding books because of the origin, background, or views of the material or of its authors. Further, boards of education and governing boards of public libraries are prevented from censoring library material based on a disagreement with a viewpoint, idea, or concept, or solely because an individual finds certain content offensive, unless they are restricting access to developmentally inappropriate material for certain age groups.
The legislation "also provides protections for library staff members against civil and criminal lawsuits related to complying with this law."
New Jersey Association of School Librarians President Karen Grant said that "the Freedom to Read Act recognizes the professionalism, honor, work ethics, and performance of school and public library staff" and "promotes libraries as trusted sources of information and recognizes the many roles that libraries play in students' lives."
"The bill will protect the intellectual freedom of students as well as acknowledge that school libraries are centers for voluntary inquiry, fostering students' growth and development," Grant added. "Additionally, we are grateful for the broad coalition of support from so many organizations for this legislation."
The leader of one of those groups—Garden State Equality executive director Christian Fuscarino—said, "Gov. Murphy just made it clear: In New Jersey, censorship loses, and freedom wins."
"At a time when access to diverse and inclusive materials is under attack across the nation, this legislation sends a powerful message that New Jersey will stand firm in protecting intellectual freedom and fostering a culture of understanding and inclusion," Fuscarino added.
The New Jersey law comes amid a near-tripling in the number of books banned or challenged by Republican state lawmakers and right-wing organizations over the past year, with PEN America counting over 10,000 such titles during the 2023-24 academic year—up from 3,362 titles during the previous scholastic year.
With Murphy's signature, New Jersey joins Minnesota and Illinois in passing state legislation to counter GOP book-banning efforts.
As the Chicago Tribunereported Sunday, "a number of school districts, many of them in deeply conservative areas of south and central Illinois," are giving up state grants rather than adopting principles against book-banning."Keep ReadingShow Less
'Completely Un-American': Progressives Slam Trump Plan to End Birthright Citizenship
"Emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," said Rep. Delia Ramirez.
Dec 09, 2024
Progressives in Congress and other migrant rights advocates sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump for his comments on immigration during a Sunday interview, including on his hopes to end birthright citizenship.
During a 76-minute interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker, Trump said he "absolutely" intends to end birthright citizenship, potentially through executive order, despite the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Among many lies the Republican told, he also falsely claimed that the United States is the only country to offer citizenship by birth; in fact, there are dozens.
In response,
outgoing Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said on social media Monday: "This is completely un-American. The 14th Amendment guarantees birthright citizenship. Trump cannot unilaterally end it, and any attempt to do so would be both unconstitutional and immoral."
Congresswoman Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution as a cornerstone of American ideals. It reflects our belief that America is the land of opportunity. Sadly, this is just another in the long line of Trump's assault on the U.S. Constitution."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants, said in a statement: "'Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.' It is important to remember who we are, where many of us came from, and why many of our families traveled here to be greeted by the Mother of Exiles, the Statue of Liberty."
Ramirez argued that "the story of our nation wouldn't be complete without the sweat, tears, joy, dreams, and hopes of so many children of immigrants who are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS. It is the story of so many IL-03 communities, strengthened by the immigration of people from Poland, Ukraine, Italy, Mexico, and Guatemala, among others. It is the story of many members of Congress who can point to the citizenship of their forebears and ancestors because of immigration and birthright."
"Let's be clear: Trump is posing the question of who gets to be an American to our nation. And given that today's migrants are from Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin and Central America, it is clear he is questioning who are the 'right' people to benefit from birthright citizenship," she continued. "Questioning birthright citizenship is anti-American, and eliminating it through executive action is unconstitutional. Donald Trump knows that."
"But emboldened by a Supreme Court that would use its power to uphold white supremacy rather than the Constitution of our nation, Trump is on a mission to weaken the very soul of our nation," she warned. "I—like many sons and daughters of immigrants and first-generation Americans—believe in and fight for a land of freedom, opportunities, and equality. To live into that promise, we must stand against white nationalism—especially when it is espoused at the highest levels of government."
Although Republicans are set to control both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives next year, amending the Constitution requires support from two-thirds of both chambers of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures, meaning that process is unlikely to be attempted for this policy.
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) highlighted the difficulties of passing constitutional amendments while discussing Trump in a Monday appearance on CNN. The incoming chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus was born in the Dominican Republic and is the first formerly undocumented immigrant elected to Congress.
As Mother Jones reporter Isabela Dias detailed Monday:
Critics of ending birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants argue it would not only constitute bad policy, but also a betrayal of American values and, as one scholar put it to me, a "prelude" to mass deportation.
"It's really 100 years of accepted interpretation," Hiroshi Motomura, a scholar of immigration and citizenship at UCLA's law school, told me of birthright citizenship. Ending birthright citizenship would cut at the core of the hard-fought assurance of equal treatment under the law, he said, "basically drawing a line between two kinds of American citizens."
Trump's NBC interview also addressed his long-promised mass deportations. The president-elect—whose first administration was globally condemned for separating migrant families at the southern border and second administration is already filling up with hard-liners—suggested Sunday that he would deport children who are U.S. citizens with undocumented parents.
"I don't want to be breaking up families, so the only way you don't break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back," Trump told Welker.
Responding in a Monday statement, America's Voice executive director Vanessa Cárdenas said, "There's a growing consensus that the Trump mass deportation agenda will hit American consumers and industries hard, but the scope of what Trump and his team are proposing goes well beyond the economic impact."
"Trump and allies are making clear their mass deportation agenda will include deporting U.S. citizens, including children, while aiming to gut a century and a half of legal and moral precedent on birthright citizenship," she added. "In total, their attacks go well beyond the narrow lens of immigration to the fundamental question of who gets to be an American."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Green, Indigenous Groups Warns Arctic Still at Grave Drilling Risk When Trump Returns
"Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is all risk with no reward," said one advocate.
Dec 09, 2024
Wildlife protection groups and Indigenous leaders in Alaska said Monday that they would push to discourage bidding in an oil and gas lease sale just announced by the U.S. Interior Department for part of the Arctc National Wildlife Refuge.
Under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which opened the refuge for oil and gas drilling, the Biden administration announced the second of two lease sales, set to be held on January 9, 2025.
The first Trump administration held the initial lease sale in 2021, but with banks and insurance companies increasingly reticent to back drilling projects in the area, it generated little interest and led to less than 1% of the projected sale revenue.
Releasing its final record of decision, the Interior Department said Monday that 400,000 acres of wilderness in the refuge's 1.6-million-acre northwest Coastal Plain would be put up for bidding at a minimum price of $30 per acre—despite vocal opposition from the Gwich'in Nation and the Iñupiat Alaska Natives.
The land supports local communities as well as porcupine caribou herds and polar bears.
"Our way of life, our food security, and our spiritual well-being is directly tied to the health of the caribou and the health of this irreplaceable landscape," Kristen Moreland, executive director of Gwich'in Steering Committee, toldBloomberg News. "Every oil company stayed away from the first lease sale, and we expect them to do the same during the second."
The record of decision concludes the Bureau of Land Management's process for developing a supplemental environmental impact statement, which was required after President-elect Donald Trump's first administration completed an analysis with "fundamental flaws and legal errors," as the Sierra Club said Monday.
Selling the drilling rights just before Trump takes office could complicate the GOP's plans to hold a more expansive sale later on, but Dan Ritzman, director of Sierra Club's Conservation Campaign, emphasized that regardless of who is in office when the sale takes place, "oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge is a direct threat to some of the last untouched landscapes on Alaska's North Slope and to the caribou herds that the Gwich'in people rely on."
"The 2017 tax act, forced through Congress by Donald Trump and his Big Oil CEO allies, opened up the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing," said Ritzman. "Letting him oversee a lease sale over these pristine lands would be beyond irresponsible. In the meantime, President [Joe] Biden should listen to the Gwich'in and do all that he can to preserve these lands and waters. His legacy is on the line."
Erik Grafe, an attorney at environmental law firm Earthjustice, said the group is "committed to going to court as often as necessary to defend the Arctic Refuge from oil drilling and will work toward a more sustainable future that does not depend on ever-expanding oil extraction."
"Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is all risk with no reward," said Grafe. "Oil drilling would destroy this beautiful land, held sacred by Gwich'in people, and would further destabilize the global climate, but it offers zero benefit to taxpayers or consumers."
Defenders of Wildlife called on Congress to repeal the 2017 tax law's mandate for leasing sales in the "iconic American landscape" of the Arctic Refuge.
"Turning the coastal plain into an oilfield will obliterate the pristine wilderness of the Arctic Refuge," said Nicole Whittington-Evans, Alaska senior program director for the group, "directly threatening the future of the Porcupine caribou herd and the physical, cultural, and spiritual existence of the Gwich'in people who depend on them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular