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
workers
'As Toxic as AIPAC': Casar Urges Dems to Reject AI Industry Money and Protect Workers
"We need to clearly be 100% on the side of workers who are vulnerable, kids who are vulnerable, everyday people who are vulnerable to mass surveillance."
Aug 07, 2026
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar this week urged fellow Democrats to reject campaign support from artificial intelligence industry lobbyists and unveiled a bill intended to help protect workers from AI-related mass unemployment.
The Texas congressman took aim at Leading the Future (LTF), a pro-industry super political action committee (PAC), and "AI billionaires that are lobbying for no regulation," during a Thursday interview with MS NOW. He argued that "we need to clearly be 100% on the side of workers who are vulnerable, kids who are vulnerable, everyday people who are vulnerable to mass surveillance."
Casar drew a comparison to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose super PAC is spending millions against Democratic candidates critical of the Israeli government and its forces' genocidal violence in the Gaza Strip. He predicted that LTF and the "big anti-AI regulation donors" would soon be "as toxic as AIPAC is today."
According to AI Money Watch, a project launched in June by the progressive advocacy group Demand Progress, "LTF entered 2026 with $70 million cash on hand and operates through affiliated super PACs (Think Big PAC in New York, American Mission PAC in Texas) and a dark-money 501(c)(4) arm called Build American AI."
AI Money Watch found that the two candidates with the most LTF money spent on them so far during this cycle are both former congressional Democrats from Illinois. The group poured over $1 million into supporting Jesse Jackson Jr., who lost the primary for the 2nd District, and AIPAC-backed Melissa Bean, who beat a progressive in the state's 8th District.
LTF also spent over $1 million each on Ben McAdams, a former Democratic congressman running in Utah's 1st District, and Congressman Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who is formally endorsed by the group. Rounding out the top 5 is James Kingston, a Georgia Republican who won the 1st District primary, with over $960,000 spent on him.
Casar told MS NOW that rejecting such support could help his party earn the trust of voters: "If Democrats clearly stand with the 75% plus of Americans that want sensible AI regulations to prevent mass unemployment, mass surveillance, or mass national security risks, I think we should win over the voters... Even if it means we don't win over all the money."
Gallup found last September that 80% of US adults believe the government should prioritize "maintaining rules for AI safety and data security, even if it means developing AI capabilities at a slower rate." In March, 76% of respondents to a Americans for Responsible Innovation poll said that they had concerns about AI tools enabling unprecedented government surveillance of citizens.
A June poll conducted by Justice Research Group for Working Families Power found that 85% of working-class voters support large-scale retraining and apprenticeship programs for workers whose jobs are changed by artificial intelligence, 73% worry that AI will lead to job losses, and 62% fear the rapidly developing technology would personally affect them or people close to them.
Casar partnered with Reps. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) on Thursday to introduce the AI Tax and Work Protection Act, a bill that would tax industry giants to fund a Work Protection Administration charged with creating jobs to offset layoffs.
"This bill says: We will not let AI billionaires get rich by putting you out of work," said Casar. "Right now, the path we are on is clear: AI will turn a couple of billionaires into trillionaires but leave millions without work. That is unacceptable. And right now, the federal government is doing nothing to protect workers from the threat of AI mass unemployment. Our bill would protect American workers by making big AI companies pay their fair share."
The bill is backed by various policy experts and advocacy organizations, including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees; Groundwork Action; and Demand Progress Action—whose executive director, Sean Vitka, applauded Casar's "continued leadership on artificial intelligence."
"Serious, resilient proposals to address the unfolding impacts of this rapidly advancing technology are far too hard to find in Congress," said Vitka. "Some policymakers don't take AI seriously enough, and some don't understand it at all. With this legislation, Rep. Casar is instead demonstrating the kind of policymaking vision needed to meet the moments ahead."
Related legislation recently introduced by progressives in Congress includes the American AI Sovereign Wealth Fund Act proposed in June by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), which would give the public "a direct ownership stake" in the largest artificial intelligence companies in the country, and the landmark data center moratorium bill unveiled in March by Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
In a sign of how the public is feeling about "AI taking our jobs," data centers driving up utility bills, and "surveillance tech tracking our every move," a coalition of groups is planning a week of action from August 9-16 "to demand that our elected officials stand with the people—not Big Tech billionaires."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Majority of Workers Say AI Will Make Jobs Harder and Only Benefit Those at the Top
“This is really just yet another class divide for the American public."
Aug 03, 2026
Regardless of tech executives' promises that artificial intelligence will make people's workdays more efficient, more productive, and even happier, a new survey out Monday found that employees "are bracing for the impacts of AI rather than embracing them."
That was the interpretation of Elizabeth Pancotti, the vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at the progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative, after the group joined research firm Ipsos in releasing the first results of a yearlong study of worker attitudes on AI.
Workers, said Pancotti, "expect the tech to deepen existing inequality in the workplace."
Just one-third of US workers expect the technology, whose expansion President Donald Trump has aggressively pushed, to improve their jobs, according to the poll.
The rest of the respondents rejected the idea that AI would automate tedious tasks at work and provide support, allowing them to complete more challenging responsibilities faster. Instead, two-thirds of workers said they expect their lives at work to get harder as AI eliminates jobs—theirs or their coworkers—and increases pressure at the workplace.
"This sentiment is consistent across race, gender, education, and income lines," reported Ipsos, while people with a college degree were more likely to believe that AI could improve their jobs. Only 1 in 5 people with a high school education or less said they expected their jobs to be improved by the technology.
Black workers (12%) were more likely than white respondents (4%) to feel that AI could eventually replace their jobs.
“Workers know bosses who say AI will make their jobs easier and allow them to be more productive are pulling a fast one."
More than a quarter of employed people said AI is already having a negative impact on their work, while 41% of unemployed people said the same.
As Jessica Grose wrote in The New York Times last month, AI has made it easy for companies to rapidly post job listings and give "the impression a business is thriving," without following up with many applicants, leaving job seekers in "purgatory."
More than half of the workers surveyed by Groundwork and Ipsos said they believe the widespread use of AI in workplaces will "only or mostly benefit business owners and executives."
"The benefits of AI in the workplace are not being split evenly," said Pancotti. "The workers who expect to reap the rewards of adoption are already high earners in white-collar jobs.”
Just 6% of respondents said workers will benefit, and about 14% said the technology will ultimately not benefit anyone.
About 40% of people making $100,000 per year or more expected their jobs to get better and easier due to AI—more than twice the percentage of people who make under $50,000.
“This is really just yet another class divide for the American public,” Alex Jacquez, senior vice president of policy, advocacy, and research at Groundwork Collaborative, told Semafor.
The poll comes as communities across the country have mobilized to stop AI data centers from being built, arguing that the facilities' massive water and electricity consumption, as well as the evidence that they could ultimately lead to job losses while creating little-to-no permanent work, makes them undesirable additions to their cities and towns.
“Workers know bosses who say AI will make their jobs easier and allow them to be more productive are pulling a fast one," said Pancotti. "Across the board, workers report AI putting more pressure on productivity rather than supporting workers as many AI proponents claim."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Deadly Temperatures, GOP Advances Bill to Ban Federal Heat Protections for Workers
"Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
Jul 24, 2026
A Republican-controlled House committee passed legislation earlier this week that would prevent the US Labor Department from enacting federal standards to protect workers from extreme heat, a move that came amid sweltering heat across the country.
The Heat Workforce Standards Act, led by Rep. Mark Messmer (R-Ind.), passed the House Education and Workforce Committee on Tuesday in a 18-15 vote along party lines. If enacted, the legislation would bar the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from implementing nationwide heat protections for workers—including those proposed by the Biden administration in 2024.
The Biden Labor Department estimated that its proposed rules would protect around 36 million workers. Trump's Labor Department has done nothing to move forward with the Biden-era proposal.
The AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the US, has condemned the GOP bill, noting that "extreme heat is one of the deadliest workplace hazards in America."
"House lawmakers are considering legislation that would block OSHA from issuing or enforcing a federal heat safety standard," the labor group said earlier this week. "That's the wrong direction when workers' lives are on the line."
Ahead of Tuesday's vote, a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups wrote in a letter to members of Congress that the Republican legislation "would permanently remove the federal government’s authority to address a workplace hazard that is already resulting in worker fatalities."
"The Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded 55 worker deaths from heat exposure in 2023, a number that safety researchers widely consider to be an undercount due to frequent misclassification or underreporting of heat-related illnesses and fatalities," the coalition wrote. "More broadly, heat-related deaths in the United States have more than doubled since 1999, and extreme heat now claims more lives each year than any other weather-related hazard."
"Workers have no control over extreme heat, and many are unable to refuse hazardous assignments without jeopardizing their livelihoods," the groups added. "Congress should not respond to an escalating occupational hazard by permanently removing the Department of Labor’s authority to address it."
The Groundwork Collaborative, Workshop, and Harvard Law School’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy estimated in a report published earlier this year that basic, federal workplace heat protections could save up to 1,500 lives annually. The report observed that major industry groups, including the US Chamber of Commerce, have mobilized against proposed national heat protections.
"Companies like Amazon and the United Parcel Service (UPS) that employ hundreds of thousands of workers subjected to extreme workplace temperatures make public statements about their commitments to worker safety while actively lobbying to weaken or block heat regulations," the report noted. "As extreme heat intensifies, the cost of inaction will be measured in lives lost. The question facing policymakers is no longer whether effective protections exist, but whether they have the political will to stand up to those unscrupulous employers lobbying hard to block them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
United Auto Workers Leader Shawn Fain Vows to 'Fight Back Hard' Against Trump DOJ Probe
"This is what happens when you go against corporate America and their allies," said the United Auto Workers president.
Jul 13, 2026
United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain issued a fiery statement on Sunday vowing to "fight back hard" as President Donald Trump's Justice Department launched a probe into allegations that the union leader abused his authority to seek benefits for his fiancée and her sister.
Fain rejected the claims as "false" and accused UAW vice president Rich Boyer, who is vying for the union presidency, of "trying to weaponize these bogus allegations to steal the upcoming UAW election." Fain also hit out at court-appointed federal monitor Neil Barofsky, whom the union president accused of harboring "a political grudge against me because the UAW took an anti-war stance about what was happening in Gaza."
"Rich Boyer has fed the monitor false allegations about me," said Fain. "We're going to fight back hard."
In 2023, Fain emerged as one of the most prominent union leaders in the nation during the UAW's weeks-long "Stand Up Strike" against the Big Three automakers, which yielded historic contracts for UAW members. On Sunday, Fain suggested that the union's successes under his leadership are fueling his opponents' attacks.
"This is what happens when you go against corporate America and their allies," said Fain, "and I'm not going to be intimidated or harassed out of serving our membership."
Bloomberg reported Sunday that the US Justice Department has launched a grand jury probe into allegations that Fain "sought a financial bonus for his fiancée and pushed for a worker’s compensation claim for her sister."
"He allegedly retaliated against Boyer for refusing to approve the benefits by stripping the official of his duties as chief negotiator with Stellantis NV, the maker of Jeep and Ram vehicles," Bloomberg noted. "The allegations became public last month in a report by the court-appointed monitor."
Fain on Sunday denied retaliating against Boyer. "The truth when it comes to Boyer," Fain said, "is that I didn't want him running the Stellantis Department because he wasn't doing a good job for our members."
The UAW president went on to accuse Boyer of trying to "hire family members into UAW positions" and failing to enforce the union's contract with Stellantis.
"Boyer is bad for our union and I'm not going to let him use the monitor's bogus investigation so he can try to fail upwards into a bigger title," said Fain. "Our election is in six weeks. Neil Barofsky will not run our union, no matter how hard he tries. And no company sellout like Boyer is going to dictate our elections."
Barofsky was appointed as UAW monitor in 2021—around two years before Fain was sworn in as union president—as part of a consent decree with the Justice Department in the wake of a corruption investigation.
Relations between Fain and Barofsky have reportedly been strained since late 2023, when the UAW became the largest union in the US to call for a ceasefire in Gaza as the Palestinian enclave faced a massive Israeli assault.
Shortly after the UAW's demand, according to The Detroit News, Barofsky "called Fain for a personal conversation related to the ceasefire statement and other issues around the war—a call Fain would later indicate made him uncomfortable, and that a union lawyer told Barofsky was out of line."
In February 2024, weeks after the UAW's ceasefire call, Fain and Barofsky had an "expletive-laden discussion" that Fain says "led to the monitor launching an investigation into him," The Detroit News reported last week. Fain reportedly said at one point during the February phone meeting that Barofsky accused the union leader of being antisemitic, which Fain furiously denied.
"For anybody to ever f------ say I'm antisemitic, brother, I'll fight your ass in front of this building in a heartbeat," Fain said, according to The Detroit News. "I do not f------ like that, and I don't appreciate it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jobs Report Offers 'Grim Warning Signs' for Cash-Strapped Working Families Under Trump
"Working Americans increasingly report that their paychecks can't keep up with Trump's high prices, but are not confident they’ll be able to find better opportunities," noted one Groundwork Collaborative expert.
Jul 02, 2026
As President Donald Trump's team on Thursday tried to paint the June jobs report as positive, economists and congressional Democrats called it "weak" and "disappointing," with some also ripping the Republican administration's harmful policies, from sweeping tariffs and the Iran War to the mass detention and deportation of immigrants.
The nation's economy added just 57,000 jobs in June, or roughly half of what economists had anticipated, according to the latest monthly report from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. BLS noted that "both the unemployment rate, at 4.2%, and the number of unemployed people, at 7.1 million, changed little in June."
The Department of Labor (DOL) agency also revised job gains down for May by 43,000 and April by 31,000, and said that "over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.5%." That's notably lower than the 4.2% annual inflation rate detailed by BLS a few weeks ago, as Americans struggle to afford groceries, housing, and other basic necessities during Trump's second term.
"Today's weak jobs numbers are grim warning signs of a struggling labor market," Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now Groundwork Collaborative's chief of policy and advocacy, said in a statement.
"Job gains reflect temporary seasonal hires and other workers separated from the broader economy while the majority of the labor force is frozen," he explained. "Working Americans increasingly report that their paychecks can't keep up with Trump's high prices, but are not confident they'll be able to find better opportunities. They're instead focused on trying to keep up with the president's price hikes."
Angela Hanks, a former DOL senior official who's now chief of policy programs at The Century Foundation, similarly called the report "yet more evidence of a fragile economy under President Trump, with job growth coming in well below expectations and sizable downward revisions to the last two months."
"While the unemployment rate dipped slightly to 4.2%, this number only tells us how many people are working—it doesn't tell you whether people can afford to live," she stressed. "The reality behind today's jobs numbers is that the cost of living continues to outpace paychecks: 43% of Americans now say they're worse off financially than they were a year ago, and year-over-year wage growth came in at 3.5%, below overall inflation of 4.2%—meaning that real wages are falling."
"Looking beyond the topline numbers, more than half of all June job growth was concentrated in healthcare and social assistance, continuing a trend of these sectors propping up much of our economy," she pointed out. "The labor force participation rate declined sharply and widely, with nearly every demographic group seeing declines, which partially explains the drop in the unemployment rate. Moreover, certain racial and age disparities actually worsened: Black youth unemployment rate rose to a whopping 26.8%, as did Hispanic youth unemployment, coming in at 20.1%—a reminder that this economy is not delivering for workers who are struggling the most."
Hanks added that “while Trump will surely tout this moderate job growth as a win, not long ago numbers like today's would have prompted serious concern. But families aren't grading Trump on a curve: They feel the impacts of this administration's chaotic and costly economic policies every day. Until working people can actually afford their lives—groceries, housing, healthcare, childcare—claims of a 'strong economy' will continue to ring hollow."
In line with Hanks' prediction, Trump's messengers attempted to frame the figures positively, with his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, celebrating the declining foreign-born labor force amid the administration's deadly crackdown on immigrants, and her deputy, Kush Desai, claiming the report "reinforces that the American labor market remains solid."
Acting Secretary of Labor Keith Sonderling—whom the president earlier this week nominated for the permanent post—said that "Trump's America first agenda continues to provide greater wages for workers and certainty to the sectors which will fuel the next 250 years of US economic security."
Meanwhile, with the midterm elections just four months away, the Democratic National Committee's rapid response director, Kendall Witmer, declared that "Donald Trump's failed economic agenda has driven working families into a corner as Americans worry about how to find a job and keep up with sky-high prices. The reality for working families is undeniable: Trump has wrecked the economy, leaving millions wondering how they will make ends meet with no relief in sight."
"But Trump doesn't give a shit—he's only focused on building his vanity projects and using the power of the presidency to get even richer," added Witmer, just two days after the president's annual financial disclosures revealed that he pocketed an unprecedented $2.2 billion—over half of it from his family’s cryptocurrency grift—during his first year back in the Oval Office.
Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) took to social media over "another disappointing jobs report" and also called out GOP priorities, from erecting a giant arch in Trump's honor to putting his name on various items, including passports and the $250 bill.
As Lieu concluded, "November is coming."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abortion Bans Not Only Harm Patients, But Cost US Economy $140 Billion: Analysis
States that deny people's bodily autonomy limit "their ability to pursue the education and career options that are right for them, and to build financial stability," said the Institute for Women's Policy Research president.
Jun 16, 2026
Reproductive rights advocates and experts have long highlighted the dangers of abortion bans to people's health, but amid a wave of new state-level restrictions in the wake of Roe v. Wade's reversal, some have also recently emphasized the economic impact, as detailed in an analysis published Tuesday by the Institute for Women's Policy Research.
"IWPR's latest estimates show that states with the most restrictive abortion policies could cost the national economy nearly $68 billion annually in lost earnings, up from $64 billion in last year's estimate," according to the analysis. "Historically, legal abortion access has increased women's labor force participation and earnings. IWPR's analyses suggest that abortion restrictions continue to erode those gains nationwide, reducing women's labor force participation and earnings potential while weakening state and national economies in the process."
"Those losses—amounting to billions of dollars—could otherwise support what families actually need: affordable healthcare, caregiving, higher wages, business growth, and new jobs that strengthen local communities and state economies," the report notes. "This $68 billion estimate reflects only the impact of the most severe restrictions, including total bans and six-week gestational bans, that were in effect in 16 states in 2025."
The publication points out that "many other states may not have banned abortion outright, but still impose barriers that make abortion care harder to access, like waiting periods, mandated counseling, or targeted regulations on abortion providers that delay or deny care altogether. When accounting for all state-level restrictions on abortion access, combined with the federal funding prohibitions and the absence of federal protections, the annual average economic cost now exceeds $140 billion nationwide."
The overall figure is nearly $7 billion more than IWPR's estimate from last year. Putting that figure into context, the report explains that $7 billion "could fund Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits for about 1 million American families with children for an entire year. This is a striking figure considering the so-called 'One Big Beautiful Bill's' cuts to the program, which are projected to reduce or eliminate benefits for many low-income households."
Removing barriers to reproductive care on a national scale "could mean nearly 325,000 more women participating in the labor force each year, with the largest increases concentrated in states with some of the most restrictive abortion policies," IWPR estimated. For example, in Alabama, Kentucky, and Louisiana, their labor force participation could be over 1.3% higher, while in Mississippi, it could be up 1.5%.
If more women joined the workforce thanks to policies allowing reproductive freedom, IWPR projected that "national gross domestic product (GDP) could rise by 0.5%, and the economic gains would be largest in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina, and West Virginia, which rank poorly on both abortion protections and per capita GDP. These states could potentially see their GDP grow by nearly 1% annually."
Like previous analyses, the publication also acknowledges that "Black and Latina women are more likely to experience the consequences of restrictive abortion policies and confront additional economic and structural barriers to accessing care that their White counterparts do not—even as abortion restrictions harm all women and the economy more broadly."
IWPR president and CEO Jamila K. Taylor stressed in a Tuesday statement that "this is fundamentally about human rights and economic justice."
"We know that legal access to abortion care increases women's autonomy to be able to participate in the labor force, which supports the stability of our entire economy," Taylor said. "When states deny people their bodily autonomy, they're also limiting their ability to pursue the education and career options that are right for them and to build financial stability for their family and community. Abortion restrictions don't just harm those who may become pregnant—they harm everyone."
President Donald Trump delivered mixed messages during the last campaign cycle: bragging about being the one to appoint the justices who helped reverse Roe with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision, but also suggesting that he wasn't in favor of a nationwide ban on abortion and that the issue doesn't really matter to Americans.
Since returning to the White House, the Republican and his allies in Congress have taken steps to reduce access to reproductive healthcare, and although the right-wing Supreme Court last month declined to restrict access to mifepristone, at least for now, Trump's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently reviewing the medication, which is commonly used in abortion and miscarriage care.
Reproductive rights advocates have sounded the alarm over the FDA review. In response to reporting on it earlier this month, Planned Parenthood CEO Alexis McGill Johnson called it "a politically motivated farce."
"Mifepristone is safe and effective. We know it, the FDA knows it, and the more than 7.5 million people who've used mifepristone for abortion and miscarriage care over the past 25 years know it too," Johnson said. "But the Trump administration is bulldozing the overwhelming body of medical research and evidence to try to make it harder for everyone, everywhere to get an abortion. It's time for every American to take this threat seriously."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Workers Are Paying the Price for Federal and State Refusal to Raise the Minimum Wage
Workers nationwide deserve wages that keep pace with the real cost of living.
Jun 07, 2026
For years, Congress and elected officials across the country have sidestepped one of the clearest economic problems facing working families: The minimum wage no longer keeps pace with the real cost of living.
Today, even full-time work at the federal minimum wage doesn’t pay enough to rent a market-rate two-bedroom apartment anywhere in the country. And too often, politicians have intervened to keep it that way.
For example, I live in Oklahoma, where the state minimum wage has been tied to the federal rate of $7.25 an hour since 2009. As a result, a full-time minimum-wage worker here earns about $15,000 a year before taxes—below the poverty line for an individual and wholly inadequate to survive.
This problem did not happen by accident.
An economy works best when working people can afford to participate in it.
In Oklahoma, some state lawmakers introduced bills to raise the minimum wage year after year—only to see those proposals die without a hearing or a vote. In 2014, the legislature went even further, passing a law that prevented cities and towns from raising local wages, even if local voters and community leaders supported the change.
That meant Oklahomans who wanted to see workers earn a fair wage were left with one remaining option: taking the issue directly to the people.
Again and again, voters in red, blue, and purple states alike have passed measures to raise their minimum wages. In the last decade or so, voters have approved minimum-wage increases in about a dozen states, including Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Washington, plus DC.
In early 2024, Oklahomans turned to the state’s initiative petition process as well. Over 150,00 voters signed a petition to place State Question 832 on the ballot. If approved, SQ 832 will gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over several years and then index future increases to the Consumer Price Index after 2030.
Yet even as Oklahomans moved toward a vote, politics intervened. Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt delayed the election for SQ 832 nearly two years. The wait is about to come to an end on June 16—when voters will finally get their say.
In the meantime, the delay and political games have forced working families in Oklahoma to wait as costs continue to rise. While wages for our lowest-wage workers have been frozen for 17 years, housing, groceries, and utility bills have all become more expensive.
Today, a minimum-wage earner in Oklahoma would need to work about 93 hours a week—more than two full-time jobs—just to afford a modest one-bedroom apartment at fair market rent.
No one should have to work that much simply to survive. That fact is proof that the current economy is failing many of the people who keep our communities running.
Workers most affected by legislative inaction are the very people we rely on every day: home health aides caring for seniors, childcare workers helping parents stay employed, restaurant staff serving meals, retail workers keeping stores open, and hotel staff assisting travelers. Many of these essential workers still struggle to afford basic necessities.
Our working families have spent years shouldering the cost of federal and state inaction. They are paying the costs through financial stress, unstable housing, delayed healthcare, and less time with their families because they are constantly working to stay afloat.
Many other states have already raised the minimum wage above the federal level, recognizing a simple truth: An economy works best when working people can afford to participate in it.
SQ 832 gives Oklahoma voters the chance to move the state forward after years of legislative inaction. On June 16, Oklahoma voters can take an important step themselves.
But this issue should not rest solely on state ballot measures. Workers nationwide deserve wages that keep pace with the real cost of living—a goal that ultimately requires action from Congress, too.
Because hard work should mean stability, not poverty.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Celebrate World Court Ruling Enshrining Right to Strike
The ICJ’s landmark advisory opinion comes as legal restrictions on the right to strike are increasing around the world.
May 31, 2026
The right to strike is under attack throughout the world, including in the United States. Labor strikes are currently forbidden or restricted in the majority of countries.
Now, in a landmark 43-page advisory opinion issued May 21, the International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) has determined that the right to strike is protected under the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Convention No. 87 on Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise.
“At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one’s labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law,” AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said in a statement.
The ILO is the United Nations agency that sets global labor standards. It has 187 member states and has adopted 191 conventions since its founding in 1919. The ILO considers Convention No. 87 to be one of its 11 fundamental conventions.
In 2023, the ILO asked the ICJ to settle an internal dispute about whether Convention No. 87 gives workers the right to strike, which is not specifically addressed in the convention. Although advisory opinions of the ICJ are not legally binding, many courts accept them as authoritative legal decisions.
The ICJ ruled in its 10-4 opinion that a strike “is one of the main activities engaged in and tools used by workers and their organizations to promote their interests and improve conditions of labour, thereby ensuring the effective exercise of the freedom of association protected under Convention No. 87.”
The Court found “that protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided for in Convention No. 87.”
In reaching that conclusion, the Court considered provisions in two 1996 Covenants that contain relevant rules of international law regarding the right to strike. Both refer to Convention No. 87.
Article 8, paragraph 1 (d) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) expressly protects the right to strike, if it is exercised in conformity with domestic laws.
Article 22, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides for the right to freedom of association. The ICJ noted that for more than 25 years, the Human Rights Committee — which monitors the implementation of the ICCPR — has considered the right to strike to be encompassed in the protection of freedom of association.
Due to the high degree of overlap between the states parties to the ICESCR and ICCPR, and Convention No. 87, the ICJ determined there was a common understanding among them on the right to strike. The Court thus concluded “that an interpretation taking into account the relevant rules of international law contained in the ICESCR and the ICCPR indicates that the protection of the right to strike is encompassed in the protection of the freedom of association provided by Convention No. 87.”
No Right to Organize Without the Right to Strike
“For generations, working people have understood a simple truth: The freedom to join a union means nothing if you cannot withhold your labor when bosses refuse to listen. Now, the world’s highest court has affirmed that truth,” said Jeffrey Vogt, director of the International Lawyers Assisting Workers (ILAW) Network, which issued the call for the ILO referral of this case to the ICJ.
The ICJ decision “affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: there is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike,” Shuler said in her statement. “When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed. The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality.”
“This is an important day for the International Labor Organization [ILO], and for its continued relevance in the world of work. However, the significance of this opinion extends well beyond the institutional context in Geneva,” the ILAW Network wrote in a statement.
The ICJ advisory opinion came “at a moment of acute pressure on the international labour rights system,” ILAW stated. “Across the world, the right to strike is under sustained attack — through restrictive legislation, expansive judicial interpretation of essential services, the criminalisation of trade union activity, and the use of dismissals, injunctions, and damages claims to deter collective action.”
Legal restrictions on the right to strike are increasing. In 2022, strikes were outlawed or stringently restricted in 129 of the 148 countries tallied by the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), one of the six organizations with consultative status at the ILO Governing Body.
The ITUC, which represents 191 million workers in 169 countries and territories, is dedicated to trade union democracy and independence. It has regional organizations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. The ICJ decision “is important not only for workers and trade unions, but also for governments and responsible businesses,” ITUC stressed.
This decision “will serve as a powerful interpretive tool before national constitutional and labour courts, before regional human rights bodies, and before the ILO’s own supervisory bodies,” ILAW noted. “It strengthens the hand of every worker and union challenging strike bans, broad essential-services designations, criminal sanctions against strikers, prohibitions on solidarity and political strikes, and the dismissal and blacklisting of workers who exercise this right.”
Ruling Will Affect Tens of Millions of Workers
In October, 18 countries and five international organizations, including the ILO, presented oral testimony before the ICJ, and other nations filed written contributions. The majority of participants supported the right to strike, which is guaranteed in most European countries.
Harold Koh, who represented the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) before the ICJ, told the judges that the case would “affect the real rights of tens of millions of working people around the world.” If the Court ruled that the Convention didn’t protect the right to strike, Koh warned, “National employer groups would contest the right to strike country by country, focusing first on nations with compliant courts, weak civil societies and ineffective media.”
Jeffrey Vogt worked with the legal team of the ITUC on the briefs and oral arguments presented to the ICJ. Vogt’s co-authored book, The Right to Strike in International Law, provided a legal roadmap for the case.
Vogt told Truthout that “the written view of the US (under the Biden administration) was to support the right to strike, albeit on narrower grounds than what we had argued. When the Trump administration came in, they withdrew the Biden era brief but fortunately did not appear for oral arguments and take a contrary view.”
“The decision deals with the right to strike in the abstract — does the convention protect it — but does not go into the modalities,” Vogt added. The Court wrote that its “conclusion that the right to strike is protected by Convention No. 87 does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
“That was a conscious decision,” Vogt noted. “We did not want the court to attempt to define the scope, especially since we believe that is the proper role of the ILO supervisory system.” Vogt said that “the ICJ gave ‘great weight’ to the views of the supervisory system, which is helpful.” And although “the ILO has supported secondary strikes,” in which workers strike in solidarity with other workers at a different employer, the ICJ decision didn’t opine on that specific issue.
The Right to Strike in the US
“The right to withhold one’s labor, inherent in the right to strike, belongs to all workers, but it has been restricted,” Jeanne Mirer, a labor lawyer in private practice working with the International Commission for Labor Rights, told Truthout. “Many unions have agreed never to strike while a collective bargaining agreement is in effect.”
Most private sector workers in the US have the right to strike under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Employees, including international and undocumented workers, cannot be fired or disciplined for participating in a lawful strike.
“Those exempted from the NLRA, such as agricultural and domestic workers, are not restricted in the right to strike but have no protections against discharge if they strike and do not have the power to prevent such retaliation,” Mirer added.
Some states have their own laws granting protection to domestic workers and 14 states guarantee farmworkers collective bargaining rights.
Railroad and airline workers are not covered by the NLRA, but they come under the Railway Labor Act, which has several limitations on the right to strike.
In recent years, Congress and the courts have narrowed the definition of “protected concerted activity” under the NLRA. Union membership is dropping. Nevertheless, strike actions in the US increased by almost 50 percent in 2022, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
In 2023, the US Supreme Court weakened the legal protections for striking in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, making it easier for employers to sue unions in state courts. Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, writing, “The right to strike is fundamental to American labor law.” She noted:
Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their masters. They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the [National Labor Relations Act] even if economic injury results.
The NLRA’s protections for private sector workers don’t extend to public sector employees. “Public employees in the United States have been restricted in many ways from striking,” Mirer said.
Federal workers are legally prohibited from striking. Thirty-six states prohibit public sector workers from striking. Three other states that haven’t addressed the issue would likely outlaw public sector strikes as well. In the 12 states where strikes are not per se unlawful, various preconditions must be met before workers can engage in strikes.
The World Federation of Trade Unions, which played a decisive role in the creation of Convention No. 87 in 1948, applauded the ICJ’s decision:
[I]t is clear that the existence of a class-oriented and militant trade union movement is the essential, decisive, and irreplaceable factor to ensure that the right to strike, as well as conventions, collective bargaining, labor laws, and workers’ achievements, are not merely empty words on paper but are implemented in practice. The WFTU reiterates its call for struggle in every country, sector, and workplace to safeguard the sacred right to strike in practice.
“It is up to workers and their organizations to build on the ICJ decision to ensure the right to strike can be an effective tool to build worker power,” Mirer said.
This article was originally published at Truthout
Keep ReadingShow Less
Bolivia Lawmakers Overturn Limits on ‘Martial Law’ as Mass Uprising Demands Ouster of President
"They call us all bandits and thugs," said protesters, who have been met with a police crackdown. "We are democracy."
May 25, 2026
Bolivian President Rodrigo Paz, who is facing calls for his resignation as Indigenous and labor organizers lead protests across the country, could declare a "state of exception"—described by local reporters as "essentially martial law"—as soon as Monday night after the country's Senate overwhelmingly voted to overturn a law regulating the government's ability to crack down on protests.
According to Bolivian reports, the Chamber of Senators on Sunday overturned Law 1341, which since 2020 had imposed strict time limits on emergency measures, ensured certain violable rights could not be suspended under a state of exception, required legislative oversight, and made the president criminally liable for exceeding the law's perimeters.
"Abrogating Law 1341 does not remove the state of exception from Bolivia’s legal architecture," according to The Rio Times. "It removes the apparatus that prevented that constitutional clause from being exercised at the executive’s sole discretion."
Joseph Bouchard, who has reported for Drop Site News and The Intercept from Latin America, said far-right groups linked to the 2019 coup in Bolivia have demanded "a return to martial law, to use lethal force against opposition with impunity, and crack down on opposition as much as possible."
"Many of these groups are openly fascist and white supremacist," said Bouchard.
The law was overturned about three weeks into nationwide protests against Paz, who took office about six months ago. Protesters allied with former President Evo Morales have expressed anger over the administration's decision to end a fuel subsidy that was essential for working people amid an economic crisis. The demonstrators—comprised of a broad coalition which includes Indigenous groups, labor unions, and farmworkers—have demanded higher wages and an end to privatization and the broader neoliberal project under Paz.
The protests have been met with a crackdown by police, in La Paz and at the sites of dozens of road blockades around the country.
Last week, the country's public prosecutor issued arrest warrants for at least two organizers, including Mario Argollo, executive secretary of the top Bolivian labor union, Central Obrera Boliviana (COB).
On Monday, TeleSUR reported that COB refused to engage in talks with Paz's government until the charges against Argollo are dropped.
Bouchard reported that if Paz's government implements a state of exception, "the measures would mean security forces could arrest anyone, for any reason, and use extraordinary measures against all opposition."
The overturning of Law 1341 struck down limits on "the use of lethal force by the security forces," he said.
Only three senators aligned with Vice President Edmand Lara voted against repealing the law.
According to The Rio Times, Lara "has been politically distancing himself from Paz almost since inauguration."
"No measure can stand above human life," said Lara, expressing "profound concern and indignation" over the Senate vote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Labor Unions Worldwide Applaud ICJ Ruling Affirming Workers' Right to Strike
One Somali labor federation said the ruling "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
May 22, 2026
Labor leaders around the world cheered Thursday's landmark World Court ruling affirming that the right to strike is protected under international law.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled 10-4 in an advisory opinion—meaning it's not legally binding—that “the right to strike of workers and their organizations is protected” under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize Convention of 1948, also known as International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 87.
However, the tribunal also declared that its finding "does not entail any determination on the precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right."
The case originated with a 2023 request by the ILO Governing Body amid disagreement among the agency's three constituencies—governments, workers, and employers—over the right to strike.
"For decades, this issue has generated one of the deepest disputes within the ILO's tripartite structure... creating a deadlock over the interpretation of international labor standards," explained Kenyan labor law expert Ayaga Max Liambilah.
"Workers and trade unions argued that the right to organize becomes ineffective without the ability to strike, viewing strikes as essential tools for collective bargaining and protection of workers' interests," he said. "Employers' organizations, particularly the International Organization of Employers (IOE), maintained that Convention 87 does not expressly include a right to strike and that reading it into the convention creates obligations never explicitly negotiated by states."
International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) representative Paapa Danquah told the court during proceedings that “strike action has been our vital tool... to improve labor conditions and to defend our human dignities."
IOE secretary general Roberto Suárez Santos countered that Convention 87 does not explicitly address the right to strike. After the court's decision, he underscored that the tribunal did not rule on the "precise content, scope, or conditions for the exercise of that right.”
Unions and workers around the world welcomed the ICJ decision.
“We thank the World Court for this advisory opinion," said ITUC secretary general Luc Triangle, whose organization represents more than 200 million workers in over 160 countries. "The court has confirmed that international law supports the long-standing understanding shared not only by unions, but across large parts of the ILO system for decades."
“This is an important moment for legal certainty, for social justice, and for the credibility of the international labor standards system," he added.
Sonny Matula, president of Federation of Free Workers—a Filipino labor organization—"joyfully and warmly" welcomed the ruling.
"In the Philippines, this is not a foreign concept," he said. "Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution expressly recognizes the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, and peaceful concerted activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law."
"The strike is labor's last voice when dialogue has failed," Matula added. "Without the right to strike, we can say that freedom of association is like a silent campaign, unheard."
Christy Hoffman, general secretary of the Union Network International (UNI) Global Union, said in a statement that “as any trade unionist will tell you, there is no right to organize without the right to strike!"
"The two are inseparable foundations of any functional and fair industrial relations system," Hoffman asserted. "Congratulations to the many advocates who argued the point so brilliantly before the ICJ, and to the ITUC for its steadfast commitment to this case."
The Federation of Somali Trade Unions (FESTU) issued a statement applauding the ICJ ruling, which it said "represents a major victory for workers, trade unions, and social justice across the world."
"It reaffirms with legal certainty that the right to strike is inseparable from freedom of association and constitutes a fundamental pillar of democratic labor relations, collective bargaining, and the protection of workers’ dignity, rights, and interests," FESTU continued.
"The court’s opinion has reinforced the legitimacy of the ILO supervisory mechanisms and restored clarity on a matter that for years had been the subject of intense international debate and institutional disagreement," the federation added. "This is a defining moment in the history of the global trade union movement and a major achievement for multilateralism, social justice, and international law."
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO—the largest US labor federation—said that "this decision affirms decades of judicial precedent and what workers around the world know: There is no right to organize and bargain collectively without the right to strike."
"When workers are barred from taking collective action on the job, they cannot defend their rights and demand the workplace conditions and contracts they are owed," she continued. "The freedom to join a union becomes an empty formality."
"At a moment when workers’ organizations face sustained attacks around the world, this opinion reaffirms that the freedom to withhold one's labor is not a privilege granted by the powerful, but a fundamental human right grounded in international law," Shuler added. "The AFL-CIO commends the International Trade Union Confederation and its legal team for their efforts in this result."
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