SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Walmart workers striking in California in 2013. (Photo: Aurelio Barrera/flickr/cc)
In warehouses and in retail, wage stealing by bosses, forcing people to work off the clock, and compelling them to wait in half hour long lines without pay for exit security checks are shockingly commonplace practice. Though all are pretty much illegal, and according to economist Dr. Richard Wolff, the amount corporate employers steal from the wages of workers year is roughly three times the monetary value of all the nation's armed robberies, state and federal prosecutors rarely bother to investigate or indict.
When was the last time you heard a prosecutor running for office pledging to crack down on wage thievery? The answer is never. But President Obama's campaign did sell him to the American people as the agent of change. In front of union audiences candidate Obama even promised to "put on some comfortable shoes" and walk the occasional picket line. When is this likely to happen? The answer again, is never.
The reality is that with no help from federal or state prosecutors, and in a legal atmosphere which makes union organizing more difficult than any time in the last seven decades, workers are forced to seek individual relief in the courts. An Amazon.com worker filed in federal court against his bosses, who forced employees to stand in line without pay for a daily security check before being allowed to leave the job. Workers asked to be paid for the time. Amazon said no. They asked their bosses to buy another scanning machine and hire more security staff to speed up the process. Amazon said no. And again, this is a common practice across a large section of retail and warehouse employers.
It took a couple years, but a federal judge ruled in favor of Amazon's workers, and an appeals court also ordered Amazon to pay them. Amazon's platoon of lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.
And who did the Obama administration side with? The administration that would not help workers secure their rights with new laws, and would not prosecute employers for wage theft filed not one brief in favor of Amazon.com's right to NOT pay its workers, but two --- one from the Justice Department, and another from the Department of Labor, the cabinet bureaucracy supposedly created to safeguard the rights of working people. Bosses are watching this case carefully, and corporate media are for the most part ignoring it just as carefully. If Amazon.com, the retail and warehousing industry, and the Obama administration get their way on this case, employers will be free to define the work processes so as to avoid paying employees for suiting up with protective gear, cleaning and maintaining machinery when the machinery is not running, and declaring that a wide variety of actual work tasks essential to their businesses are not "work" and should not be paid at all.
President Obama and the first lady regularly do personal appearances and speechifying at Wal-Mart and Amazon using a hundred or so diverse looking workers as their backdrop. They routinely praise these companies for their efficiency and "innovation," even though the real names for that innovation and that efficiency are ecocide, genocide, robbing public treasuries and impoverishing their workers.
If it suited the president to stand up for poor and working families in the campaign just past, many more Democrat voters might have turned out. He could have spent a week jumping out of Aire Force One to barnstorm the country with speeches and appearances talking up raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, or even indexing it to the cost of living, like civilized countries do. That's how advances are made. But the president spent the last two weeks of the campaign in rooms full of five and six figure donors.
Current polls show that even many Republicans are in favor of raising the minimum wage, and a deal IS possible. Negotiating-wise THIS campaign was, and even now this season remains the time to raise the ante, to keep the issue in the forefront. When will this happen? The answer, of course is never.
Unemployment seems to be falling right now, but so, say economists like David Wolff and Doug Henwood, is labor force participation, as hundreds of thousands each month give up the search for work altogether as hopeless. It's the new normal at the end of year six of the Obama era, standing up for poor and working people.... since never.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
In warehouses and in retail, wage stealing by bosses, forcing people to work off the clock, and compelling them to wait in half hour long lines without pay for exit security checks are shockingly commonplace practice. Though all are pretty much illegal, and according to economist Dr. Richard Wolff, the amount corporate employers steal from the wages of workers year is roughly three times the monetary value of all the nation's armed robberies, state and federal prosecutors rarely bother to investigate or indict.
When was the last time you heard a prosecutor running for office pledging to crack down on wage thievery? The answer is never. But President Obama's campaign did sell him to the American people as the agent of change. In front of union audiences candidate Obama even promised to "put on some comfortable shoes" and walk the occasional picket line. When is this likely to happen? The answer again, is never.
The reality is that with no help from federal or state prosecutors, and in a legal atmosphere which makes union organizing more difficult than any time in the last seven decades, workers are forced to seek individual relief in the courts. An Amazon.com worker filed in federal court against his bosses, who forced employees to stand in line without pay for a daily security check before being allowed to leave the job. Workers asked to be paid for the time. Amazon said no. They asked their bosses to buy another scanning machine and hire more security staff to speed up the process. Amazon said no. And again, this is a common practice across a large section of retail and warehouse employers.
It took a couple years, but a federal judge ruled in favor of Amazon's workers, and an appeals court also ordered Amazon to pay them. Amazon's platoon of lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.
And who did the Obama administration side with? The administration that would not help workers secure their rights with new laws, and would not prosecute employers for wage theft filed not one brief in favor of Amazon.com's right to NOT pay its workers, but two --- one from the Justice Department, and another from the Department of Labor, the cabinet bureaucracy supposedly created to safeguard the rights of working people. Bosses are watching this case carefully, and corporate media are for the most part ignoring it just as carefully. If Amazon.com, the retail and warehousing industry, and the Obama administration get their way on this case, employers will be free to define the work processes so as to avoid paying employees for suiting up with protective gear, cleaning and maintaining machinery when the machinery is not running, and declaring that a wide variety of actual work tasks essential to their businesses are not "work" and should not be paid at all.
President Obama and the first lady regularly do personal appearances and speechifying at Wal-Mart and Amazon using a hundred or so diverse looking workers as their backdrop. They routinely praise these companies for their efficiency and "innovation," even though the real names for that innovation and that efficiency are ecocide, genocide, robbing public treasuries and impoverishing their workers.
If it suited the president to stand up for poor and working families in the campaign just past, many more Democrat voters might have turned out. He could have spent a week jumping out of Aire Force One to barnstorm the country with speeches and appearances talking up raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, or even indexing it to the cost of living, like civilized countries do. That's how advances are made. But the president spent the last two weeks of the campaign in rooms full of five and six figure donors.
Current polls show that even many Republicans are in favor of raising the minimum wage, and a deal IS possible. Negotiating-wise THIS campaign was, and even now this season remains the time to raise the ante, to keep the issue in the forefront. When will this happen? The answer, of course is never.
Unemployment seems to be falling right now, but so, say economists like David Wolff and Doug Henwood, is labor force participation, as hundreds of thousands each month give up the search for work altogether as hopeless. It's the new normal at the end of year six of the Obama era, standing up for poor and working people.... since never.
In warehouses and in retail, wage stealing by bosses, forcing people to work off the clock, and compelling them to wait in half hour long lines without pay for exit security checks are shockingly commonplace practice. Though all are pretty much illegal, and according to economist Dr. Richard Wolff, the amount corporate employers steal from the wages of workers year is roughly three times the monetary value of all the nation's armed robberies, state and federal prosecutors rarely bother to investigate or indict.
When was the last time you heard a prosecutor running for office pledging to crack down on wage thievery? The answer is never. But President Obama's campaign did sell him to the American people as the agent of change. In front of union audiences candidate Obama even promised to "put on some comfortable shoes" and walk the occasional picket line. When is this likely to happen? The answer again, is never.
The reality is that with no help from federal or state prosecutors, and in a legal atmosphere which makes union organizing more difficult than any time in the last seven decades, workers are forced to seek individual relief in the courts. An Amazon.com worker filed in federal court against his bosses, who forced employees to stand in line without pay for a daily security check before being allowed to leave the job. Workers asked to be paid for the time. Amazon said no. They asked their bosses to buy another scanning machine and hire more security staff to speed up the process. Amazon said no. And again, this is a common practice across a large section of retail and warehouse employers.
It took a couple years, but a federal judge ruled in favor of Amazon's workers, and an appeals court also ordered Amazon to pay them. Amazon's platoon of lawyers appealed to the Supreme Court, which has agreed to hear the case.
And who did the Obama administration side with? The administration that would not help workers secure their rights with new laws, and would not prosecute employers for wage theft filed not one brief in favor of Amazon.com's right to NOT pay its workers, but two --- one from the Justice Department, and another from the Department of Labor, the cabinet bureaucracy supposedly created to safeguard the rights of working people. Bosses are watching this case carefully, and corporate media are for the most part ignoring it just as carefully. If Amazon.com, the retail and warehousing industry, and the Obama administration get their way on this case, employers will be free to define the work processes so as to avoid paying employees for suiting up with protective gear, cleaning and maintaining machinery when the machinery is not running, and declaring that a wide variety of actual work tasks essential to their businesses are not "work" and should not be paid at all.
President Obama and the first lady regularly do personal appearances and speechifying at Wal-Mart and Amazon using a hundred or so diverse looking workers as their backdrop. They routinely praise these companies for their efficiency and "innovation," even though the real names for that innovation and that efficiency are ecocide, genocide, robbing public treasuries and impoverishing their workers.
If it suited the president to stand up for poor and working families in the campaign just past, many more Democrat voters might have turned out. He could have spent a week jumping out of Aire Force One to barnstorm the country with speeches and appearances talking up raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, or even indexing it to the cost of living, like civilized countries do. That's how advances are made. But the president spent the last two weeks of the campaign in rooms full of five and six figure donors.
Current polls show that even many Republicans are in favor of raising the minimum wage, and a deal IS possible. Negotiating-wise THIS campaign was, and even now this season remains the time to raise the ante, to keep the issue in the forefront. When will this happen? The answer, of course is never.
Unemployment seems to be falling right now, but so, say economists like David Wolff and Doug Henwood, is labor force participation, as hundreds of thousands each month give up the search for work altogether as hopeless. It's the new normal at the end of year six of the Obama era, standing up for poor and working people.... since never.
"The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' latest effort to block additional American arms sales to Israel failed again late Wednesday at the hands of every Republican senator and some Democrats.
But a majority of the Senate Democratic caucus voted in favor of Sanders-led resolutions that aimed to halt the Trump administration's sale of 1,000-pound bombs, Joint Direct Attack Munition guidance kits, and tens of thousands of assault rifles to the Israeli government.
The first resolution, S.J.Res.41, failed by a vote of 27-70, and the second, S.J.Res.34, failed by a vote of 24-73, with the effort to block the sale of assault rifles to the Israeli government garnering slightly more support than the bid to prevent the sale of bombs.
The following senators voted to block the assault rifle sale: Sanders, Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).
And the following senators voted to block the sale of additional bombs: Sanders, Alsobrooks, Baldwin, Blunt Rochester, Duckworth, Durbin, Heinrich, Hirono, Kaine, Kim, King, Klobuchar, Luján, Markey, Merkley, Murphy, Murray, Schatz, Shaheen, Smith, Van Hollen, Warnock, Warren, and Welch.
Three Democratic senators—Ruben Gallego and Mark Kelly of Arizona and Elissa Slotkin of Michigan—did not vote on either resolution.
"Every senator who voted to continue sending weapons today voted against the will of their constituents."
In a statement responding to the vote, Sanders said growing Democratic support for halting arms sales to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an indication that "the tide is turning" in the face of Israel's "horrific, immoral, and illegal war against the Palestinian people."
"The American people do not want to spend billions to starve children in Gaza," the senator said. "The Democrats are moving forward on this issue, and I look forward to Republican support in the near future."
Wednesday's votes revealed a significant increase in support for halting U.S. military support for the Israeli government compared to earlier this year, when only 14 Democratic senators backed similar Sanders-led resolutions.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who did not vote on the Sanders resolutions in April, said Wednesday that "this legislative tool is not perfect, but frankly it is time to say enough to the suffering of innocent young children and families."
"As a longtime friend and supporter of Israel, I am voting yes to send a message: The Netanyahu government cannot continue with this strategy," said Murray. "Netanyahu has prolonged this war at every turn to stay in power. We are witnessing a man-made famine in Gaza—children and families should not be dying from starvation or disease when literal tons of aid and supplies are just sitting across the border."
The Senate votes came days after the official death toll in Gaza surpassed 60,000 and a new poll showed that U.S. public support for Israel's assault on the Palestinian enclave reached a new low, with just 32% of respondents expressing approval. The Gallup survey found that support among Democratic voters has cratered, with just 8% voicing approval of the Israeli assault.
"The vast majority of Democratic voters say Israel is committing genocide, and have repeatedly demanded that their party's elected officials in Congress stop helping President Trump deliver more and more weapons to Israel with our tax dollars," Margaret DeReus, executive director of the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project, said Wednesday. "Tonight proved that an increasing number of Democrats in the Senate–more than half of the Democratic caucus–are hearing that demand."
Beth Miller, political director of Jewish Voice for Peace Action, called the vote "unprecedented" and said it "shows that the dam is breaking in U.S. politics."
"Our job is to increase the pressure on every member of Congress to stop all weapons and military funding," said Miller. "For 22 months, the U.S. has enabled, funded, and armed the Israeli government's slaughter and starvation in Gaza, and still the majority of senators just voted to continue sending weapons to a military live-streaming its crimes against humanity."
"The overwhelming majority of Americans want to stop the flow of deadly weapons to the Israeli military and end U.S. complicity in its horrific genocide against Palestinians," Miller added. "Every senator who voted to continue sending weapons today voted against the will of their constituents."
The Republican coalition targeted California and New York, both home to doctors who have been targeted by legal cases for allegedly providing abortion pills to patients in states with strict bans.
While a recently filed lawsuit in Texas jeopardizes the future of telehealth abortions, some Republican state attorneys general don't want the GOP-controlled Congress to wait for the results of that case, and this week urged leaders on Capitol Hill to consider passing federal legislation that would restrict doctors from shipping pills to patients to end their pregnancies.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority ended nationwide abortion rights with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization three years ago, anti-choice state lawmakers have ramped up efforts to restrict reproductive freedom. At the same time, some Democratic officials have enacted "shield laws" to protect in-state providers and traveling patients.
Led by Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, 16 state AGs on Tuesday wrote to top congressional leaders from both parties, calling on them to "assess the constitutional authority it may have to preempt shield laws."
Griffin also sent cease-and-desist letters to two entities shipping abortion medication within the United States and two website companies that provide services to LifeOnEasyPills.org. Reporting on the AG's press conference, South Carolina Daily Gazette noted that "if the entities don't cease advertising abortion pills in Arkansas, Griffin said his office may bring a lawsuit against them for violating the state's deceptive trade practices law."
While Griffin also "said he believes what he is asking lawmakers to do is different from a federal abortion ban that the closely divided Congress has seemed hesitant to tackle," according to the Daily Gazette, advocates for reproductive rights disagreed.
Responding to the letter to Congress on social media, the advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All shared a petition opposing a national abortion ban. It says that Republican President Donald Trump "has proven time and time again that he is out of touch with the 8 in 10 Americans who support protecting abortion rights."
"On the campaign trail he spewed whatever lies he could to get him reelected. Now he'll use the Project 2025 playbook to further restrict our right to access abortion, contraception, fertility treatments, and more," the petition warns. "We must stop him."
Yesterday, 16 Republican attorneys general sent a letter to congressional leadership urging them to override state telemedicine abortion shield laws.Sign the petition below to stand up to Republican lawmakers!act.reproductivefreedomforall.org/a/no-nationa...
[image or embed]
— Reproductive Freedom for All (@reproductivefreedomforall.org) July 30, 2025 at 3:48 PM
In addition to Griffin, the Tuesday letter is signed by the attorneys general of Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The GOP coalition targeted two states, arguing that "when New York or California refuses to respect a criminal prosecution or a civil judgment against an individual who is accused of violating the abortion laws of another state, they are refusing to give full faith and credit to that state's judicial proceedings."
Last December, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced a first-of-its-kind lawsuit against a provider in New York. He sued Dr. Margaret Daley Carpenter, co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine (ACT), for providing two drugs used in medication abortions—mifepristone and misoprostol—to a 20-year-old resident of Collin County.
In February, on the same day that Texas State District Judge Bryan Gantt ordered Carpenter to pay over $100,000 in fines and fees, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill sought to extradite the ACT doctor. Her state classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as dangerous controlled substances.
While Republican Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed the extradition warrant sought by Murrill and the district attorney, New York is one of nearly two dozen states with shield laws for reproductive healthcare, and its Democratic governor, Kathy Hochul, said that "I will not be signing an extradition order that came from the governor of Louisiana—not now, not ever."
On Monday, Paxton took legal action against Taylor Brucka, the clerk in Ulster County, New York, for refusing to make Carpenter pay the $100,000 penalty. Bruck told The Guardian that "it's really unprecedented for a clerk to be in this position" and "I'm just proud to live in a state that has something like the shield law here to protect our healthcare providers from out-of-state proceedings like this."
Meanwhile, another case involving a California doctor emerged in Texas earlier this month: A man filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Dr. Rémy Coeytaux for allegedly mailing to Galveston County medication that his girlfriend used to end her pregnancy. His lawyer is Jonathan Mitchell, an "anti-abortion legal terrorist" who previously served as the state's solicitor general and was the chief architect of its law that entices anti-choice vigilantes with $10,000 bounties to enforce a six-week ban.
Mary Ziegler, an abortion historian and law professor at the University of California, Davis, recently told Mother Jones that "the whole game for Jonathan Mitchell is to get into federal court... both because he wants to shut down doctors in shield law states, like everyone in the anti-abortion movement, and because he wants a federal court to weigh in on the Comstock Act," a dormant 1873 law that criminalized the shipping of "obscene" materials, including abortifacients.
"Despite their repeated claims they wanted to protect Social Security, the Trump administration said the quiet part out loud," said one critic in response to the billionaire treasury secretary's candid comments.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday admitted that a provision in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a mechanism for privatizing Social Security—something President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he won't do.
Speaking at a policy event hosted by the far-right news site Breitbart, Bessent touted the so-called "Trump accounts" available to all U.S. citizen children starting next July under the OBBBA signed by the president earlier this month.
"In a way, it is a backdoor way for privatizing Social Security," the billionaire former hedge fund manager said of the accounts. "Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out—that to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that's a game-changer."
Responding to Bessent's admission, Tim Hogan—the Democratic National Committee senior adviser for messaging, mobilization, and strategy—said that the treasury secretary "just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security."
"It wasn't enough to kick millions of people off their healthcare and take food away from hungry kids," Hogan added. "Trump is now coming after American seniors with a 'backdoor' scam to take away the benefits they earned. Democrats won't stand by as Trump screws over working families in order to give more handouts to billionaires."
House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement: "Today, the treasury secretary said the quiet part out loud: Republicans' ultimate goal is to privatize Social Security, and there isn't a backdoor they won't try to make Wall Street's dream a reality. For everyone else though, it's yet another warning sign that they cannot be trusted to safeguard the program millions rely on and have paid into over a lifetime of work."
Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, mocked Trump's promises to preserve the key program upon which more than 70 million Americans rely—and called him out for eviscerating the Social Security Administration (SSA).
"So much for Donald Trump's campaign promise to protect Social Security," Altman said in a statement. "First, he gave Elon Musk the power to gut SSA. Now, Trump's treasury secretary has said the quiet part out loud. He is bragging about the administration's goal to privatize Social Security."
"First, they are undermining public confidence in Social Security by making false claims about fraud (which is virtually nonexistent) and wrecking the system's service to the public," Altman continued. "Then, once they have broken Social Security, they will say that Wall Street needs to come in and save it."
"That is a terrible idea," she added. "Unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can't outlive. It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street's hands off our Social Security!"
Alliance for Retired Americans executive director Richard Fiesta said that "Bessent let the cat out of the bag: This administration is coming for Social Security."
"We're not surprised—but we are alarmed because this administration has already taken multiple steps to weaken and dismantle Social Security," Fiesta added, highlighting the weakening of the SSA, false fraud claims, and "the massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations" under the OBBBA that experts say will hasten the Social Security Trust Fund's insolvency.
The progressive watchdog Accountable.US called Bessent's remarks "a shocking confession."
"Despite their repeated claims they wanted to protect Social Security, the Trump administration said the quiet part out loud: The Big Ugly Betrayal is a backdoor way to privatize Social Security," Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk said in a statement.
"Once again the administration is risking the financial security of millions of Americans in order to protect a system rigged in the favor of big corporations and billionaires," Carrk added.
In another blow to Social Security recipients, the Trump administration is set to implement a new policy next month that is expected to further increase wait times for basic services. As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, starting in mid-August, SSA will no longer allow seniors to use their phones for routine tasks they've been able to perform for decades.