SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
union
'Earthquake of Biblical Proportions' as Democrat Flips Deep-Red Texas State Senate Seat
In a speech before cheering supporters, Democrat Taylor Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people."
Feb 01, 2026
Democrats scored a major upset on Saturday, as machinist union leader Taylor Rehmet easily defeated Republican opponent Leigh Wambsganss in a state senate special election held in a deep-red district that President Donald Trump carried by 17 percentage points in 2024.
With nearly all votes counted, Rehmet holds a 14-point lead in Texas' Senate District 9, which covers a large portion of Tarrant County.
In a speech before cheering supporters, Rehmet dedicated his victory "to everyday working people" whom he credited with putting his campaign over the top.
This win goes to everyday, working people.
I’ll see you out there! pic.twitter.com/kPWzjn2LhW
— Taylor Rehmet (@TaylorRehmetTX) February 1, 2026
Republican opponent Wambsganss conceded defeat in the race but vowed to win an upcoming rematch in November.
“The dynamics of a special election are fundamentally different from a November general election,” Wambsganss said. “I believe the voters of Senate District 9 and Tarrant County Republicans will answer the call in November.”
Republican Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick reacted somberly to the news of Rehmet's victory, warning in a social media post that the result was "a wake-up call for Republicans across Texas."
"Our voters cannot take anything for granted," Patrick emphasized.
Democratic US Senate candidate James Talarico, on the other hand, cheered Rehmet's victory, which he hinted was a sign of things to come in the Lone Star State in the 2026 midterm elections.
"Trump won this district by 17 points," he wrote. "Democrat Taylor Rehmet just flipped it—despite Big Money outspending him 10:1. Something is happening in Texas."
Steven Monacelli, special correspondent for the Texas Observer, described Rehmet's victory as "an earthquake of Biblical proportions."
"Tarrant County is the largest red county in the nation," Monacelli explained. "I cannot emphasize enough how big this is."
Adam Carlson, founding partner of polling firm Zenith Research, noted that Rehmet's victory was truly remarkable given the district's past voting record.
"The recent high water mark for Dems in the district was 43.6% (Beto 2018)," he wrote, referring to Democrat Beto O'Rourke's failed 2018 US Senate campaign. "Rehmet’s likely to exceed 55%. The heavily Latino parts of the district shifted sharply to the left from 2024."
Polling analyst Lakshya Jain said that the big upset in Texas makes more sense when considering recent polling data on voter enthusiasm.
"Our last poll's generic ballot was D+4," he explained. "Among the most enthusiastic voters (a.k.a., those who said they would 'definitely' vote in 2026)? D+12. Foreseeable and horrible for the GOP."
Bud Kennedy, a columnist for the Forth Worth Star-Telegram, argued that Rehmet's victory shows that "Democrats can win almost anywhere in Texas" in 2026.
Kennedy also credited Rehmet with having "the perfect résumé for a District 9 Democrat" as "a Lockheed Martin leader running against a Republican who had lost suburban public school voters, particularly in staunch-red Republican north Fort Worth."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Did the Democrats Lose? Because They Gave Up on the Working Class 40 Years Ago
It really hurts to have called this one. I so wanted to be wrong.
Nov 06, 2024
I feel like I’ve been in a brawl, a massive street fight where the punches are words and concepts instead of fists. I got clobbered while trying as hard a possible to warn the Democrats that they are losing the working class and that they absolutely must change course.
It should have been obvious that the Democrats could not cuddle up to Wall Street and then pretend that the “opportunity society” would help working people emerge from 40 years of mass layoffs and stagnant wages. It was so clear that the Democrats would be viewed as members and defenders of the elite establishment that rules over both the economy and government, and that Trump would be seen as the disrupter—the friend of the working class.
It really hurts to have called this one. I so wanted to be wrong.
The Democrats assumed the working class had nowhere else to go. They were wrong!
Exactly how the Democratic Party lost the working class is described in my book, Wall Street’s War on Workers: How Mass Layoffs and Greed Destroyed the Working Class and What to do about it.
It’s about how Democratic Party elites abandoned the working-class over the past four decades while enriching financial elites, promoting runaway inequality, and tolerating a tsunami of mass layoffs.
The book provides original research that shows how the Democratic Party vote declined in the Blue Wall counties of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin as the mass layoff rate increased. The Democrats—once the party of the working class—were blamed for the economic and social destruction that followed. They earned it by doing nothing to stop mass layoffs whose sole purpose was to enrich CEOs and their Wall Street partners.
The book also refutes the widely shared notion about the “deplorable” white working class. It provides conclusive data that shows these workers actually have become more liberal, not illiberal, on divisive social issues over the past several decades.
The Democrats assumed the working class had nowhere else to go. They were wrong!
Actually, the book should be retitled: Wall Street’s War on Workers and How the Democrats Enabled It.
It's time to end this sad chapter in U.S. history when the Democratic Party leaders refuse to be genuine allies for workers and the Republican Party is rewarded for pretending to be.
BTW, Amazon is giving away the book for $5.67, hardback or Kindle. All royalties go to the Labor Institute’s Political Economy for Workers courses, one of which was conducted this year for Amazon workers who are struggling to form a union.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Ready to Win': Mercedes-Benz Workers in Alabama Move to Join UAW
"We're here to tell you that we are the majority. Mercedes workers are ready to stand up."
Feb 27, 2024
The United Auto Workers announced Tuesday that a majority of the approximately 6,000 workers at a Mercedes-Benz plant in Vance, Alabama have indicated they support joining the union.
That's the largest Mercedes-Benz plant in the U.S., and getting more than half of its employees to sign union cards is a major win for the UAW.
"We're here today to make a major announcement. A majority of our co-workers at Mercedes here in Alabama have signed our union cards and are ready to win our union and a better life with the UAW," Mercedes worker Jeremy Kimbrell said in a statement. "We haven't taken this step lightly. For years, we've fallen further behind while Mercedes has made billions."
"We’re here to tell you that we are the majority.
Mercedes workers are ready to stand up.
This is our decision.
It’s our life.
It’s our community.
These are our families.
It's up to us."#StandUpMercedes pic.twitter.com/tV0ctaPW2M
— UAW (@UAW) February 27, 2024
Kimbrell cited insufficient wage increases and the abuse of temporary workers as reasons the plant should be unionized. Volkswagen workers in Chattanooga, Tennessee achieved majority support for joining the UAW earlier this month. This indicates the UAW is making gains in the South, which has historically been a difficult task.
The UAW has been working hard to fight for autoworkers and expand the union over the past year, and it was able to get improved contracts with the "Big Three" auto companies—Ford, General Motors, and Stellantis—after a six-week strike last year.
President Joe Biden even became the first sitting U.S. president to join striking workers on a picket line. The UAW later went on to endorse Biden for reelection and declare that former President Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee, is a "scab."
Rather than slowing its efforts to improve conditions for autoworkers after its win with the Big Three, the UAW instead proceeded to launch "the largest organizing drive in modern American history." The union clearly has momentum and no plans to stop its fight for workers' rights, and the Mercedes-Benz plant in Alabama achieving majority support for unionization is just the latest example.
"There comes a time when enough is enough," Kimbrell said. "Now is that time. We know what the company, what the politicians, and what their multi-millionaire buddies will say. They'll say now is not the right time. Or that this is not the right way. But here's the thing. This is our decision. It's our life. It's our community. These are our families. It's up to us."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats Walking the Picket Lines vs. Anti-Worker Republicans
The UAW is fighting for worker rights. At least one major political party is standing with them.
Sep 26, 2023
When Dwight Eisenhower was running for president in 1952 as the nominee of a saner Republican Party, he appeared at the American Federation of Labor convention and delivered a full-throated embrace of industrial unions.
“Today in America unions have a secure place in our industrial life,” Eisenhower told the delegates. “Only a handful of unreconstructed reactionaries harbor the ugly thought of breaking unions. Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.”
Well, Ike, meet the Republicans who are running for your party’s 2024 presidential nomination. Since United Auto Workers union members struck the Big Three automakers, GOP candidates have confirmed that the party of Eisenhower is now the party of unreconstructed reactionaries.
While Democrats such as President Joe Biden and Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan have joined UAW picket lines — and echoed the union critique of the auto companies, declaring that “record corporate profits should be shared by record contracts for the UAW” — Republicans like Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina want to fire the strikers.
Recalling former President Ronald Reagan’s decision to dismiss striking members of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization in 1981, Scott said, “I think Ronald Reagan gave us a great example when federal employees decided they were going to strike. He said, ‘You strike, you’re fired.’ Simple concept to me, to the extent that we can use that once again.”
The anti-union senator’s proposal to extend Reagan’s assault on public-sector workers to the private sector drew a stiff rebuke from the UAW. Union President Shawn Fain ripped Scott’s remarks as “just another example of how the employer class abuses the working class in America; employers willfully violate labor law with little to no repercussions.”
Fain filed a complaint against Scott with the National Labor Relations Board on Thursday and declared, “Time for more stringent laws to protect workers’ rights!”
Scott was hardly an outlier among the top GOP contenders.
Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, an anti-union zealot in the mode of former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, denounced both Biden and the UAW strike.
“When you have the most pro-union president and he touts that he is emboldening the unions, this is what you get,” griped Haley. “The union is asking for a 40% raise, the companies have come back with a 20% raise. I think any of the taxpayers would love to have a 20% raise and think that’s great.”
What she neglected to mention, however, is that the UAW asked for a sizable wage boost — over a number of years — to make union members whole after they sacrificed earnings, cost-of-living increases and benefits to keep the auto companies afloat during the Great Recession. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “Across the U.S., auto manufacturing workers have seen their average real hourly earnings fall 19.3 percent since 2008.”
There is nothing huddled or helpless about the UAW. It’s fighting for worker rights
And of course Haley failed to acknowledge that the union demand for a 40% pay bump merely parallels the increase in pay for CEOs in an industry that has made $250 billion in profits over the past decade.
As ugly as the anti-worker rhetoric from Scott and Haley has been, there’s a case to be made that the most crudely anti-union sentiments were expressed by Donald Trump, the former president who for years has sought — cynically, but with some success — to fool industrial workers into imagining him as their ally. Since the strike began, Trump's rhetoric has been even more anti-union, and more disingenuous, than that of the CEOs of GM, Ford and Stellantis.
During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” last week, Trump was asked which side he was on in the strike. Trump pointedly avoided taking the side of the strikers and their union. “I’m on the side of making our country great,” he announced, before launching into a critique of electric vehicles.
As part of his diatribe, Trump ripped into UAW leaders and members for focusing in negotiations on preserving jobs and improving pay and conditions as the industry transitions to electric vehicle production.
“The auto workers are being sold down the river by their leadership,” claimed Trump, who alleged that Fain is “not doing a good job in representing his union, because he’s not going to have a union in three years from now. Those jobs are all going to be gone, because all of those electric cars are going to be made in China.”
Since the strike began, Trump's rhetoric has been even more anti-union, and more disingenuous, than that of the CEOs of GM, Ford and Stellantis.
Trump’s playing one of the oldest cards in the corporate deck, seeking to drive a wedge between workers and their union. He planned to up the ante Wednesday with an appearance in Detroit. But the union is having none of it. Though the UAW has not made an endorsement in the presidential race, Fain ripped into Trump.
“Every fiber of our union is being poured into fighting the billionaire class and an economy that enriches people like Donald Trump at the expense of workers,” said Fain. “We can’t keep electing billionaires and millionaires that don’t have any understanding what it is like to live paycheck to paycheck and struggle to get by and expecting them to solve the problems of the working class.”
Trump would have done better to study up on the perspective of Eisenhower, who referred to right-wingers who attacked labor laws as “stupid” and said, “I have no use for those — regardless of their political party — who hold some foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when unorganized labor was a huddled, almost helpless mass.”
There is nothing huddled or helpless about the UAW. It’s fighting for worker rights, and polling shows that — no matter what these Republican presidential contenders say — 75% of the American people are on the union’s side.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Giving the Union What It's Demanding Would Be Good for Automakers
The Big Three could unlock federal funding, avoid disruptions to their inventories, and ensure that their financial losses are spread out over several years rather than just a few months — all by simply meeting UAW’s salary demands.
Sep 22, 2023
The United Auto Workers (UAW), a union of nearly 150,000 workers at America’s “Big Three” automakers, are on strike.
On the face of it, UAW’s demands sound audacious. They’re calling for a 46 percent pay raise and a four-day workweek, among other things. But in the broader context of a decades-long decline in labor rights and wages, they’re perfectly reasonable.
What’s unreasonable is massively profitable corporations’ insistence on squeezing every last drop of productivity from their workers with paltry wages, long hours, and little-to-no job security — and then feigning outrage at union demands.
The Big Three made more than $20 billion in profits in the first half of 2023 alone. Their CEOs are compensated to the tune of tens of millions of dollars a year. Meanwhile, even the top-paid auto workers earn less than six figures a year. Temporary workers start at only $17 an hour.
After years of making concessions, auto workers believe they — and not just their bosses — should share in the industry’s record profits. “Record profits mean record contracts,” as UAW president Shawn Fain put it.
Linking worker pay to CEO compensation is a savvy move. As unions remain popular, the idea of sharing the wealth appeals to a basic sense of fairness among the public.
It also makes financial sense for the automakers themselves. When GM workers went on strike in 2019 for 40 days, the cost to the company was far greater than anticipated — nearly $4 billion.
NBC estimates that meeting the union’s salary demands today would cost the companies comparable amounts — but spread out over much longer periods. “A 40 percent wage bump for UAW members would cost GM $4 billion to $5 billion and Ford $5 billion to $6 billion over four years,” they report.
But rather than offer salaries that enable workers to budget their lives, buy homes, and project expenses, the Big Three want to pay workers individual bonuses during years when profits are high. Their ostensible reason is to remain flexible as the industry is pressured into evolving away from fossil-fuel based vehicles to all-electric vehicles in the face of a warming climate.
But President Joe Biden’s administration just announced a massive funding plan to boost EV production and tied it to labor rights. “Building a clean energy economy can and should provide a win-win opportunity for auto companies and unionized workers who have anchored the American economy for decades,” Biden said.
In short, automakers can unlock federal funding, avoid disruptions to their inventories, and ensure that their financial losses are spread out over several years rather than just a few months — all by simply meeting UAW’s salary demands.
What more incentives do the big companies need?
There’s another beautiful win-win opportunity for workers and automakers in the EV transition. It takes significantly less labor to make an EV compared to a gas-run car. According to Ford, it’s 40 percent more labor efficient to make EVs.
According to UAW, auto workers “are working 60, 70, even 80 hours a week just to make ends meet.” But if they’re making EVs, they could work fewer hours at a higher rate without impacting production or their yearly salaries. Studies show that the companies would likely remain profitable and retain employees better if they switched to a four-day workweek with no loss of pay.
UAW’s demands, in short, are hardly unreasonable. But with corporations insistent on squeezing more profits no matter the cost, merely pointing out the mutually beneficial rewards of meeting union demands isn’t enough to sway shareholders and their allies.
So the striking workers are fighting for their demands. It remains to be seen how much autoworkers can flex their power. The Big Three can certainly test their patience and find out.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'The Real Americone Dream': Ben & Jerry's Scoopers Organizing for a Union
"Our goal in this action is to create a better-working and equal partnership between our community and yours," organizers at the flagship store wrote to the ice cream giant's corporate leaders.
Apr 17, 2023
Ben & Jerry's workers at the ice cream company's flagship shop in Burlington, Vermont on Monday filed for a union election amid a wave of organizing efforts at Amazon, Apple, REI, Starbucks, Trader Joe's, and other major employers across the United States.
Organizers in Burlington are calling themselves Scoopers United and are backed by Workers United, a Service Employees International Union affiliate that has gained national attention for winning union votes at 300 U.S. Starbucks stores since late 2021.
"Our goal in this action is to create a better-working and equal partnership between our community and yours," Scoopers United organizers wrote Sunday to company leaders and co-founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, who started the business in 1978.
The multinational Unilever acquired Ben & Jerry's in 2000. The parent company has not commented on the Burlington effort but its website says that "workers are able to form and/or join trade unions of their choice, and to bargain collectively," and around 80% of the company's total workforce is covered by independent trade unions or collective bargaining agreements.
Both the co-founders and Ben & Jerry's, as a company, have a long history of activism. The ice cream giant's site states that "we seek in all we do, at every level of our business, to advance human rights and dignity, support social and economic justice for historically marginalized communities, and protect and restore the Earth's natural systems."
Scoopers United wrote that "we have seen the positive impact of community within our scoop shop. The support and comradery this store has cultivated are rare and unique. Collectively, we have come to embody Ben & Jerry's slogan of 'peace, love, and ice cream.'"
"We are taught from the beginning of our employment that equality and justice are integral rights of ours as people," organizers continued. "Despite record-breaking profits, incredible bounce-backs post-pandemic, and unwavering smiles, our staff is exploited within our work environment."
According to The Washington Post:
The workers' push to unionize began around April 3, the annual Free Cone Day, when the company gives away free scoops of ice cream. According to union organizers, management took away the tip jar that day.
Ben & Jerry's later returned it after workers protested, the organizers said. But the move to unionize quickly caught on throughout the store. In Burlington, organizers said all 37 scoopers have pledged their support. That's well above the typical threshold in the United States, where at least 30% of eligible employees must sign on to qualify for a federally recognized union election.
Union leaders said their primary motivation is to have a seat at the table with management. Also at issue is management's handling of multiple instances of drug use in the store bathroom, including an overdose last summer, as well as adding job duties without increasing pay, workers say.
"Workers need a voice on issues that affect us. Forming a union will ensure that present and future scoopers have irrefutable rights. To this end, we want to acknowledge the efforts made by current management. The work you have done has not gone unnoticed and provides us hope for future cooperation where we can collaborate as equals," organizers wrote, asking Ben & Jerry's leaders to recognize their right to unionize and sign a dozen fair election principles.
Rebeka Mendelsohn, a 22-year-old shift manager and University of Vermont student, said in a statement that "we're a company that stands for social justice rights and equity, and I want to ensure that this message is translated to all levels of employment."
Mendelsohn told the Post that she wanted to work for the company because of its commitment to social issues such as defending Black Lives Matter and environmental justice. Mendelsohn, who is Jewish, added that she was proud when Ben & Jerry's sued Unilever last year to block ice cream sales in Israeli-occupied West Bank territories—a dispute that was resolved confidentially.
"In the grand scheme of things, my employer is working toward something bigger," Mendelsohn said. "And I see such a potential for a union for employees and staff."
Other organizers and labor rights supporters across the country expressed solidarity with the Burlington workers' push to establish the first union at a Ben & Jerry's shop.
"ICE CREAM UNION," tweeted People for Bernie, sharing the organizers' letter.
Referencing one of the ice cream company's famous flavors, the Fight for $15 campaign declared that a "new Ben & Jerry's union is the real Americone Dream."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Historic Labor Ruling Slams 'Egregious and Widespread Misconduct' by Starbucks
"This ruling proves what we have been saying all along—Starbucks is the poster child of union-busting in the United States," said one organizer, vowing to "fight until every Starbucks worker wins the right to organize."
Mar 01, 2023
Building on a series of blows to Starbucks on Wednesday, a federal administrative law judge found the coffee giant "committed hundreds of unfair labor practices" at stores in and near Buffalo, New York, the origin of a national unionization wave.
In a lengthy ruling, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge, Michael A. Rosas, called out the Seattle-based company for "egregious and widespread misconduct demonstrating a general disregard for the employees' fundamental rights."
The judge ordered Starbucks to cease a long list of anti-union activities, rehire illegally fired employees, reimburse those impacted by unlawful conduct, rescind disciplinary actions, and reopen closed stores.
Rebecca Givan, an associate professor of labor studies at Rutgers University, told The Washington Post that "to order a company to reopen stores that it's closed should be embarrassing for Starbucks."
Rosas also ordered "a meeting or meetings scheduled to ensure the widest possible attendance," during which a notice to the employees and an explanation of rights will be read by CEO Howard Schultz, senior vice president of U.S. operations Denise Nelson, or an NLRB agent. A video of the reading must be distributed to workers electronically or by mail.
In an emailed statement to Bloomberg, Starbucks said that "we believe the decision and the remedies ordered are inappropriate given the record in this matter and are considering all options to obtain further legal review."
The outlet noted that "rulings by NLRB judges can be appealed to labor board members in Washington, and can then be appealed into federal appeals court. The agency can order policies changed and workers reinstated, but lacks authority to hold executives personally liable or make companies pay punitive damages for violations."
Meanwhile, Starbucks employees from the area and across the United States celebrated the "historic" ruling. Local organizer and barista Michael Sanabria declared that "after waiting through months of stalling tactics and the slow wheel of justice to turn, this will reinvigorate and re-energize the momentum of this movement."
Gary Bonadonna Jr., manager of the Starbucks Workers United Rochester regional joint board, said that "when workers launched their organizing campaign in the summer of 2021, we never could have imagined the lengths Starbucks would go to try to stop employees from exercising their legal right to organize."
"This ruling proves what we have been saying all along—Starbucks is the poster child of union-busting in the United States," Bonadonna added. "We are thrilled that the company is being held accountable for their actions and we will continue to fight until every Starbucks worker wins the right to organize."
The ruling came after dozens of white-collar Starbucks workers on Wednesday endorsed a letter calling out the company for requiring them to return to the office and interfering with the unionization efforts at stores nationwide.
Also on Wednesday, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) announced that next week the panel will vote on whether to subpoena Schultz, who has refused to testify voluntarily.
"Tough day for Starbucks and its CEO," More Perfect Union tweeted Wednesday night. "They might want to consider not engaging in constant, illegal union-busting."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As NYT Staffers Strike, Sanders Calls for 'New Ways to Empower' Workers Battling Industry Giants
"We need to rebuild and protect a diverse and truly independent press so that real journalists and media workers can do the critical jobs that they love, and that a functioning democracy requires," said the Vermont progressive.
Dec 09, 2022
On the heels of New York Times workers walking off the job, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Friday made the case for revamping the nation's news media system by giving reporters around the United States the resources necessary to produce high-quality journalism for the benefit of society.
In an email to supporters, the Vermont Independent described how profit-maximizing media outlets have undermined reporting on the most pressing problems facing the country and called for significant reforms and investments to support the accountability and public interest journalism on which democracy depends.
"One reason we do not have enough real journalism in America right now is because far too many media outlets are led primarily by the pursuit of profit."
"Today in America, after decades of consolidation and deregulation, some eight multinational media companies control almost all the news you watch, read, hear, and download," Sanders wrote. "All across the country, corporate conglomerates and hedge fund vultures have bought and consolidated local newspapers and slashed their newsrooms--all while giving executives and shareholders big payouts."
The consequences of this trend have been nothing short of catastrophic, he argued, noting that more than 1,400 communities nationwide have seen their hometown newspapers disappear--with negative knock-on effects for local television, radio, and digital sites that count on them for reporting--as Wall Street giants gobble up and strip mine local news organizations.
Meanwhile, publishers are selling billions of dollars worth of "pharmaceutical and oil ads while failing to provide a consistently fair hearing for issues like Medicare for All or downplaying coverage of the climate crisis," the Vermont progressive continued. Moreover, even though millions of people across the U.S. are struggling paycheck-to-paycheck, "budget-strapped newspapers" have not ramped up their coverage of poverty.
"At precisely the moment we need more reporters covering the healthcare crisis, the climate emergency, and economic inequality," Sanders wrote, "the corporate media is incentivized to ignore or downplay these critical issues."
"The American people desperately need high-quality journalism," the senator stressed. "When we have had real journalism, we have seen crimes like Watergate exposed and confronted. When we have lacked real journalism, we have seen crimes like mortgage fraud go unnoticed and unpunished, leading to a devastating financial crisis that destroyed millions of Americans' lives."
Sanders' intervention comes one day after more than 1,000 unionized New York Times workers participated in a one-day strike over management's refusal to approve a contract with better pay and healthcare benefits following months of negotiations.
Times Guild members' ongoing fight "for a living wage and fair pay," Sanders wrote Friday, "is not so radical when the company just approved $150 million in stock buybacks for its investors."
"Real journalism requires significant resources," he continued, "and one reason we do not have enough real journalism in America right now is because far too many media outlets are led primarily by the pursuit of profit as opposed to investing in the workers and resources it takes to educate the people of this country and hold the powerful accountable."
Sanders argued that "it is long past time" for lawmakers to:
- Reinstate and strengthen media ownership rules;
- Limit the number of stations that large broadcasting corporations can own in each market and nationwide;
- Prevent tech giants like Facebook and Google from using their enormous market power to cannibalize and defund news organizations, especially the small and independent ones without the infrastructure to fight back; and
- Explore new ways to empower media workers to effectively collectively bargain with large corporations like The New York Times.
Some of Sanders' suggestions echo policy recommendations made by University of Pennsylvania professor Victor Pickard, an expert on the political economy of media and the relationship between journalism and democracy.
"Quality journalism is not possible when media workers are unable to earn a living wage, and when corporations prioritize profit above all else."
In an essay published last week in The Progressive, Pickard pointed out that "more than one-fifth of the U.S. population--approximately 70 million Americans--now live in an area with little or no access to local news."
He warned that "all manner of disinformation and conspiracy-peddling are rushing into the vacuum created by the collapse of local journalism, including right-wing propaganda operations made to look like authentic news reporting."
"A dwindling number of newspapers failing to produce even the bare minimum of news that society requires isn't just a journalism crisis--it's a democracy crisis," wrote Pickard. "While journalism isn't a silver bullet for solving the many challenges facing us--from climate change to racial injustice to the soaring rate of income inequality--we cannot begin to confront these wicked problems without a functional fourth estate."
"Thus far," Pickard argued, "the depth of the journalism crisis has outpaced any concerted policy response--especially at the level necessary for reconstructing the entire news media ecosystem."
He continued:
After a modest newspaper subsidy program died with the demise of President Joe Biden's Build Back Better legislation, the only policy intervention to emerge at the federal level is the dubiously named Journalism Competition and Preservation Act (JCPA), which would allow media firms to essentially collude and present a united front to negotiate better terms and extract more revenue from platforms like Facebook and Google.
Despite much hype, the JCPA amounts to a corporate giveaway to big broadcasters and publishers--many of whom have been complicit in exacerbating the journalism crisis--instead of directly supporting journalists or creating new outlets. Indeed, the likes of Sinclair Broadcast Group, Gannett, and Alden stand to benefit from the JCPA. This trickle-down approach to funding journalism attests to the paucity of the American social imagination and the lack of political will to devise nonmarket support for a vital public service. A straightforward alternative to the JCPA would be taxing Facebook and Google to create a dedicated fund (perhaps combined with revenue streams from philanthropists, public subsidies, and other sources) to support nonprofit reporting in news deserts and other underserved areas.
Pickard went on to highlight "glimmers of an alternative news media system... flickering from the wreckage." He cited "the growing number of progressive initiatives at the state and local levels," including efforts to directly subsidize local journalism in New Jersey and California, as well as blossoming nonprofit endeavors, which demonstrate "the potential for radically democratized media outlets that are public not just in name but in ownership and control."
"The explosion of newsroom unionization efforts across the country offers hope as well," wrote Pickard. "The past decade has witnessed nearly 200 successful union drives at news publications. The wave of successful unionizing in recent years attests to the growing sense of solidarity and commitment to social justice among news workers. We might even envision future newsrooms owned and controlled by media workers themselves."
"What brings these various efforts together is a shared vision of journalism that centers people's civic needs rather than a commodity whose value is determined solely by its profitability in the marketplace," he continued. "They treat journalism as an essential public service whose primary purpose is to facilitate participatory democracy, not merely as a vehicle for a handful of rich, white men to make gobs of money."
Nevertheless, "much more must be done," Pickard stressed. "We need systemic projects that guarantee a baseline level of news and information for all members of society, not just the privileged few who live in affluent neighborhoods."
In his email, Sanders wrote that "our Constitution's First Amendment explicitly protects the free press because the founders understood how important journalism is to a democracy."
"Quality journalism is not possible when media workers are unable to earn a living wage, and when corporations prioritize profit above all else," he concluded. "We need to rebuild and protect a diverse and truly independent press so that real journalists and media workers can do the critical jobs that they love, and that a functioning democracy requires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Kellogg's On Strrr-ike': 1,400 Workers Walk Off Job to Protect Benefits
Kellogg's attempt to cut healthcare and other benefits comes as it rakes in record profits, "without regard for the well-being of the hardworking men and women who make the products that have created the company's massive profits."
Oct 06, 2021
Roughly 1,400 workers who make Corn Flakes, Froot Loops, Frosted Flakes, Raisin Bran, and Rice Krispies walked off the job on Tuesday to demand a fair contract, bringing all of the Kellogg Company's U.S. cereal factories to a halt in one of the nation's latest strikes.
Anthony Shelton, president of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers, and Grain Millers International Union (BCTGM), on Tuesday expressed the union's "unwavering solidarity with our courageous brothers and sisters who are on strike against the Kellogg Company" in four cities: Local 3G in Battle Creek, Michigan, where the company is headquartered; Local 50G in Omaha, Nebraska; Local 374G in Lancaster, Pennsylvania; and Local 252G in Memphis, Tennessee.
"For more than a year throughout the Covid-19 pandemic, Kellogg workers around the country have been working long, hard hours, day in and day out, to produce Kellogg ready-to-eat cereals for American families," Shelton said in a statement.
"The company continues to threaten to send additional jobs to Mexico if workers do not accept outrageous proposals that take away protections that workers have had for decades."
Daniel Osborn, president of Local 50G in Omaha, told the Associated Press that as the coronavirus knocked people out of work, remaining employees were often forced to put in 12-hour shifts, seven days a week.
"Kellogg's response to these loyal, hardworking employees," Shelton said, "has been to demand these workers give up quality healthcare, retirement benefits, and holiday and vacation pay."
According to Shelton, "The company continues to threaten to send additional jobs to Mexico if workers do not accept outrageous proposals that take away protections that workers have had for decades."
Last month, the Kellogg Company announced its plan to slash more than 200 jobs at its Battle Creek plant over the next two years.
Kellogg is also trying to institute a two-tier employment system in which "new hires will make less money, have higher health insurance payments, and will not earn a pension," according to the union, which characterized the company's proposal as a divide-and-conquer strategy that asks "the current workforce to sell out the next generation of Kellogg workers."
"Kellogg is making these demands," Shelton continued, "as they rake in record profits, without regard for the well-being of the hardworking men and women who make the products that have created the company's massive profits."
Shelton added that BCTGM is "proud of our Kellogg members for taking a strong stand against this company's greed and we will support them for as long as it takes to force Kellogg to negotiate a fair contract that rewards them for their hard work and dedication and protects the future of all Kellogg workers."
Citing Osborn, AP reported that the Kellogg Company, which said it is "implementing contingency plans," is expected to "try to bring non-union workers into the plants at some point this week to try to resume operations and maintain the supply of its products."
While BCTGM has not officially called for a boycott, a union spokesperson reportedly told HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson that "supporters and consumers could certainly support the Kellogg workers and their fight for a fair contract by choosing NOT to buy Kellogg cereals while the strike is ongoing."
On Twitter, the union shared a link where supporters can contribute to strike funds.
The strike against Kellogg started just one day after nearly 99% of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), a 60,000-member union of film and television production crews, voted to go on strike if studios don't agree to a fair deal for the industry's lowest-paid workers.
Both actions could be early signs of a potential surge in worker organizing, as AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler noted.
The Guardian reported last week that "tens of thousands of workers around the U.S. could go on strike in the coming weeks in what would be the largest wave of labor unrest since a series of teacher strikes in 2018 and 2019, which won major victories and gave the American labor movement a significant boost."
Kellogg's workers aren't the first BCTGM members to strike during the pandemic.
Related Content
Nabisco Strike Ends After Union Members Approve New Contract
In July, aound 600 workers at a Frito-Lay plant in Topeka, Kansas walked off the job to fight against forced overtime hours, low pay, and other conditions that BCTGM Local 218 members deemed unacceptable.
In August, hundreds of BCTGM members working at Nabisco plants in multiple states went on strike to demand better working conditions and to protest the foreign outsourcing plans of Mondelez International, the snack maker's parent company.
Both strikes ended with workers ratifying new collective bargaining agreements.
Keep ReadingShow Less
MSNBC Declines to Voluntarily Recognize Newsroom Union Effort
Organizers said that "we want to support one another and make this an even better place to build a career."
Jun 17, 2021
As current and former employees, media colleagues, and labor rights advocates on Thursday celebrated an announcement that MSNBC's workers have decided to form a union, the cable news channel's president made clear that leadership won't voluntarily recognize the effort.
"At a time when journalists and journalism itself are under siege, we want to join our peers who have paved the road before us in standing up for our rights."
--MSNBC bargaining unit
MSNBC is owned by a division of NBCUniversal, which is a subsidiary of Comcast. In a series of tweets, the editorial staff of MSNBC and The Choice--a news channel on the streaming service Peacock--said that over 200 workers have signed a union petition to join the Writers Guild of America, East (WGAE).
"We are organizing to advocate for equal pay for equal work; diversity at every level of production; clear job descriptions and access to career development; a say in the post-Covid-19 workplace; and fair compensation for the hours we all spend to deliver the news," organizers said.
"We are standing up for each other and our work--because this is who we are," organizers added. "After 10 months of organizing, we are asking for voluntary recognition of our union and look forward to constructive negotiations with MSNBC and Comcast for a fair contract. #ThisIsWhoWeAre."
The tweets echoed a lengthy statement from the MSNBC bargaining unit shared by WGAE, which said in part that "at a time when journalists and journalism itself are under siege, we want to join our peers who have paved the road before us in standing up for our rights."
"We are proud that the hard-working newsroom employees at MSNBC decided to unionize with the WGAE," said Lowell Peterson, the union's executive director. "They join thousands of their colleagues in the news and entertainment industries who recognize that collective bargaining is the most effective way to win a voice at work and to build sustainable careers."
WGAE represents about 7,000 workers, including newsrooms at ABC News, Bustle, CBS News, Fast Company, HuffPost, The Intercept, Salon, Slate, VICE, and Vox as well as Gizmodo Media Group and Hearst Magazines.
"We hope and expect MSNBC to remain true to its commitment to progressive values by respecting its employees' decision and recognizing our union promptly."
Rashida Jones, president of MSNBC, said Thursday in a statement to the New York Times that "we're looking forward to continuing the type of direct, open, and honest communication that has already resulted in meaningful change at the network."
In a message to employees that circulated on social media, Jones said that the network will not recognize the union without a secret ballot election supervised by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB.)
"I respect our employees' right to decide whether they want to be represented by a union, and I believe our employees should be able to make such an important decision through a standard election process," she said.
"An election supervised by the government allows all affected employees the chance to express their view on unionizing through a secret ballot," Jones added. "It is important to give everyone who would be included the chance to understand what this would mean before making their choice."
The Hill noted that "unions have long criticized requests for NLRB secret ballot elections as being designed to give management opportunities to dissuade employees from joining the union."
MSNBC show hosts Chris Hayes and Joy-Ann Reid expressed support for the union effort on Twitter:
Others in the media industry, including former MSNBC employees, highlighted pay concerns among off-camera workers and called the union effort "overdue."
The American Federation of Teachers--the nation's second-largest education union--and the Labor Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives also expressed support for the organizing at MSNBC:
Andrew Joyce, a segment producer at "The Rachel Maddow Show" who helped lead the MSNBC union effort, told the Times that "we as journalists believe that democracy works, as a nation, state, country, city or in a workplace; things work better when policies are made with input from the people."
The developments came as The New Yorker, Pitchfork, and Ars Technica unions announced that after more than two years of negotiations between the NewsGuild of New York and Conde Nast, they averted a strike and reached an agreement in principle on first contracts.
Congratulating the unions on "accomplishing a groundbreaking agreement that sets new standards for fair compensation, equity, and job security in our industry," president Susan DeCarava said that the NewsGuild of New York "is immensely proud of all that our members have achieved due to their unflinching solidarity and resolve in addressing long-standing inequities at Conde Nast."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy