Sign up for updates
Donate today
Join our newsletter
JOBS

JOBS POLICIES, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES

The Jobs and Infrastructure domain tracks and reports on policies that deal with job creation and employment, unemployment insurance and job retraining, and policies that support investments in infrastructure. This domain tracks policies emanating from the White House, the US Congress, the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Transportation, and state policies that respond to policies at the Federal level. Our Principal Analyst is Vaibhav Kumar who can be reached at vaibhav@usresistnews.org.

Latest Jobs Posts

 

Jobs01 e1489352304814
Ohio To Purge Eligible Voters From Voting Rolls

Ohio To Purge Eligible Voters From Voting Rolls

Brief #43—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On June 11, 2018, the United States Supreme Court rendered a decision in the case Husted v. A. Phillip Randolph Institute. The case began in 2015 when U.S. Navy veteran Larry Harmon tried to vote in his home state of Ohio but was turned away. Harmon learned that even though he had resided in the same place for the last sixteen years his name had been removed from the voter rolls. The reason given was because he did not vote in 2009 and 2010. In Ohio, the state employs a program called the “Supplemental Process” which authorizes the procedures used to remove eligible voters (because of death or moving to another jurisdiction) from the state’s voter rolls. A voter in Ohio who does not vote in two consecutive federal elections is then sent a notice to his address where he is asked to return a self – addressed and pre – addressed card confirming that he/she has not moved and still resides at that address. If the card is not returned, the voter can only be removed after four years have elapsed provided that they do not engage in any voting activity in that district during those subsequent four years. Ohio resident Larry Harmon claims he did not receive any sort of notice after he did not vote in 2009 and 2010. He then found himself ineligible to vote when he tried to vote in 2015 because Ohio had removed him from the voting rolls. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) brought a case to stop Ohio’s voter purge process but lost at the federal district court level but then won on appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court who then decided in a 5 – 4 vote that Ohio’s Supplemental Process procedures were permissible and did not violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
The opinion of the court is misguided on a technical and public policy level. The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 in Section 20507(b)(2) specifically prohibits the removal of the name of a person eligible to vote because of a person’s failure to vote, except in limited circumstances. But here, the Supplemental Process employed by Ohio does exactly what the NVRA was enacted to prevent – it removes voters for simply not voting. Justice Alito, who authored the majority opinion, is not convincing in supporting Ohio’s voter purge program because his analysis merely examines if the Ohio Supplemental Process followed the procedures in the NVRA to set up a state program to purge voters. While it does follow the procedures, he misses the point that Justice Breyer makes in the dissenting opinion, which is that the procedures are flawed and do not represent a “reasonable effort” by Ohio to examine other options as to whether a voter has moved or has died. In his own words, Justice Alito said that his analysis is to only examine if Ohio’s law “violates federal law” (the NVRA) and nothing more. Had Justice Alito taken the time to look closer he should have seen that voters are being removed from Ohio’s voter rolls for not voting, something that has been prohibited since 1993 with the NVRA.

And on a public policy level, the decision is a step back in the efforts to include all eligible voters from voting if they choose to do so. Justice Sotomayor made two interesting points in her dissent. She noted that in African American neighborhoods in Cincinnati, Ohio 10% of eligible voters were purged while only 4% of eligible voters in white suburban neighborhoods were purged. And she also pointed out that numerous other states have been able to keep their voter rolls updated without resorting to a scheme that identifies eligible voters by their failure to vote in consecutive elections. Her argument that low – income and minority voters may be targeted for removal from voting lists certainly has merit. Her argument recognizing the effect of Ohio’s law on minority communities on a human level is deserving of further examination instead of relying solely on Justice Alito’s approach as to whether flawed procedures were followed or not. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

Photo by Elliott Stallion

Trump Administration Flip Flops on Tariffs’ Imposition

Trump Administration Flip Flops on Tariffs’ Imposition

Brief #16—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In a stunning, but not surprising reversal of policy, the Trump administration last week decided to impose proposed tariffs it had previously put on hold on China, the EU, Canada, and Mexico.

The administration decided to implement 25% tariffs on 50 billion USD of Chinese goods, despite Treasury Secretary Mnuchin indicating last week that the “trade war” would be put on hold. The tariffs are meant to address “China’s discriminatory and burdensome trade practices.“  The targeted goods contain “industry significant technology” and are related to the “Made in China 2025 program” – a strategy approved by the Chinese State Council designed to transform China into a “high tech powerhouse” in industries like robotics, Artificial Intelligence, information technology, sensors and energy.

The US government maintains this program is designed not to help China join the ranks of many advanced economies but rather to outright dominate them. Allegations against “Made in China 2025” claim Beijing is seeking to replace foreign technology, gain self sufficiency, and become a manufacturing powerhouse that dominates global high-tech industries. Foreign companies that do business in China chains could be affected. For example, foreign high tech companies are at risk of getting pushed of mainland China’s markets as the Chinese government will provide preferential consideration to its own companies. The US also maintains such policies violate WTO anti-technology substitution rules  and gives Chinese companies an unfair advantage as they are subsidized by the the Chinese government. By June 15, the US is stated to list goods targeted by the tariffs and by June 30, the US will announce investment restrictions and capital controls so China can’t buy up technology significant industries. China, on the other hand, has announced retaliatory trade measures, ultimately bringing both countries to an impasse in the midst of ongoing negotiations. Chinese response to the sanctions have been mixed. Initially, China threatened to retaliate by tariffs on 50 billion USD of imports on soybeans, small aircraft, electric vehicles and orange juice. Soon after, in an effort to curb potential government, China offered to purchased 70 billion USD of US products. The Trump administration still remains steadfast on tariffs.

In a slightly more puzzling announcement, the Trump administration said that the US will also follow through on proposed tariffs on the EU, Canada and Mexico – 25% tariff on steel and the 10% on aluminum. The US cited “national security concerns” as the impetuous for implementation. The announcement was met with harsh criticisms from G7 countries saying that the tariffs “undermine open trade and confidence in the global economy.” Prime minister Justin Trudeau of Canada strongly rebuked the announcement  describing tariffs as “totally unacceptable” and as an “affront to the long standing security partnership and to the Canadians who have fought alongside with their American brother in arms.” Naturally, the EU, Canada and Mexico announced retaliatory measures including: “dollar for dollar” tariffs on US goods and a joint complaint to the WTO. The EU Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker described the unilateral tariffs as “unacceptable” and the that “whatever the US does the EU could do the same.”

Analysis
Although the Trump administration has a confusing, possibly incoherent policy when it comes to trade, many experts would agree that Trump has correctly identified unfair trade policies of the Chinese. China has violated many rules and regulations of the WTO, artificially devalued the Renminbi to make their exports cheaper in the past, has little respect for intellectual property rights (consider the numerous Chinese knockoffs), care even less of labor laws and conditions, conducts robust business-related cyber espionage activities, and finally it is very concerning to many countries that the communist party has actively encouraged Chinese companies with strong ties to the government to buy foreign companies in sensitive industries. It’s only natural other countries would worry about “Made in China 2025” due to China’s poor track record of engagement.

However, starting an uninhibited trade war is not the answer. Trade wars would most likely hurt millions of Americans (many of whom voted for Donald Trump) just as much as it would hurt the Chinese, if not more so. Trade wars have an inflationary reaction and increase prices across many different industries. Historically, every time the US has engaged in a trade war, it has hurt job growth rather than help it. In 2002 President George Bush imposed steel tariffs which he immediately  reversed after the WTO declared the tariffs in violation of its rules and in  1980s President Ronald Regan imposed tariffs on Japanese products which initially hurt American consumers. However, perhaps the most notable example occurred during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Shortly after the depression began, Congress bowed to the nationalist rhetoric and passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which placed a tax on American imports in hopes of saving American factories. The logical response by European countries was to place counter tariffs, quid pro quo, on American products. Global trade decreased by over 25% due to the tariffs. Ultimately, this only further exacerbated the Great Depression.

After World War II, the WTO was created to ensure the 1930s protectionist era, tit-for-tat tariffs would not occur again. Unfortunately, just as President Herbert Hoover’s administration ignored the advice of economists about the harmful effects of tariffs in the 1930s, the Trump administration appears to be following a similar path. The very people Trump is seeking to protect are the very people who will be hurt the most by a trade war.

The Trump administration’s logic as it pertains to China is at least somewhat understandable. However, their logic pertaining to Mexico, EU and Canada is completely illogical. Mexico, EU and Canada are America’s allies. These countries do not commit the trade abuses China does. It makes little sense to punish your friends who play by the rules. The trade deficit between the EU, Canada, and Mexico with the US is largely a product of market forces and America’s propensity for consumerism rather than unfair trade policies as it is more so in regards to China.

Instead of building walls, the US should be building bridges. It would be better policy if the Trump administration strengthens ties with allies like EU, Canada and Mexico and build trading coalitions with these and other countries. Instead of starting a trade war with China, the US should build coalitions with the international community (especially the EU, Canada and Mexico) to put maximum pressure on China to follow WTO rules, respect intellectual property laws and to force China to reign in its economic-cyber espionage and predatory trade activities. There is power in numbers. If the Trump administration consulted on trade policy with allies, it would go a lot further than just indiscriminately evoking tariffs on rivals and allies alike. This may leave China with an opportunity to drive a wedge between US and its allies against Trump’s tariffs. The Trump administration also should be focusing on supporting the development of new industries and infrastructure investment legislation to provide new job opportunities for economic disenfranchised citizens in economically depressed states.

Resistance Resources

Photo by rawpixel

The Justice Department’s New Abhorrent “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Policy

The Justice Department’s New Abhorrent “Zero Tolerance” Immigration Policy

Brief # 42—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
On April 6, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions informed the world, on behalf of the Trump administration, that the government will be adhering to a “Zero Tolerance Policy” with respect to illegal border entry. The policy requires criminal prosecution for every person caught entering the United States without proper inspection. It is a federal misdemeanor to illegally enter the United States; which, evidently, the Trump administration has “zero tolerance” for. The most relevant externality is that minors are being separated from their parents whom are undergoing federal prosecution, and placed into the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). As the parents remain in custody awaiting an immigration hearing, the children are placed in the sponsorship of relatives, juvenile detention centers, or foster care awaiting an Immigration Court to determine their status. After much criticism and anticipation, on June 5, 2018, the Office of the U.N. High Commission for Human Rights informed the Administration that such policy “is an unlawful interference in family life, and a serious violation of the rights of the child.”

Analysis
The Zero Tolerance Policy is very simple, and very “effective.” If you enter the United States’ border illegally between port entries you will be federally prosecuted. Adults are sent to the custody of the U.S. Marshals Service awaiting an immigration court judge to arbitrarily determine their privilege to remain in the country. With an infamously backlogged immigration processing system, such determinations can take months to years. Now, what happens when parents are apprehended with their child(ren)? Attorney General Sessions provided a simple answer: “If you’re smuggling a child, then we’re going to prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you, probably, as required by law. If you don’t want your child separated, then don’t bring them across the border illegally.”

If you ask President Trump, his self-proclaimed power and influence has been arm-barred, naturally, by the Democrats. “We have to break up families” claimed President Trump, “[t]he Democrats gave us that law. It’s a horrible thing, we have to break up families. That Democrats gave us that law and they don’t want to do anything about it.” However, this is fake news; no federal legislation or court ruling requires families to be separated.

Since commencement, an estimated 700 children have been taken from their parents, deemed unaccompanied minors, and thus placed in the custody of the ORR awaiting sponsorship. In 2017, roughly 1,500 unaccompanied minors placed into sponsorship through the ORR have remained completely unaccounted for. Their parents wouldn’t be able to find them; the court could not find them; the system could not save them. This is not fake news. But, according to Chief of Staff John Kelly, there is no need to worry because “[t]he children will be taken care of – put into foster care or whatever.” Oh, nothing eases the life-long psychological trauma to infants like the comfort of a “whatever.”

A core pillar of American jurisprudence with respect to minors is that rulings shall be in the best interest of the child. It is extremely difficult to comprehend – especially with an absence of justification from the government and the Trump administration – how inflicting such unnecessary psychological trauma on children is in their best interest.

The narrative would be different if unaccompanied minors were placed into the custody of an agency not violating their most basic human rights. Unfortunately, that is just not the case. After the U.N. requested the Trump administration to immediately stop the policy of separating families, Ravina Shamdasani, spokeswoman for the U.N. Human Rights Office, commented that: “The use of immigration detention and family separation as a deterrent runs counter to human rights standards and principles.”

Our current situation provokes the ever so common response: So, what now? To begin, we can find comfort in knowing that the outer boundaries of executive power are being identified and regulated due to the hubris of the Trump administration. Then follows social action. It is indisputable that enforcement of sound immigration policy is important and necessary. But, there is a vast different between individuals illegally crossing the border alone, and those seeking refuge or asylum for themselves and their minor children.

Should there be a contextual balance, where parents apprehended with their minor children are held together in administrative custody whereas adults without children are placed in criminal custody and federally prosecuted? Another option, although riddled with routes for legal challenge, would be lawsuits arguing that the policy of separating families is a constitutional violation which would hopefully result in a court-ordered injunction.

If all else fails, we can fall back on the system and continue voting! If we cannot welcome those in need via our current laws, we can change them. Persistence is key; let’s make it common practice to utilize the opportunities of our brilliant governmental structure.

Resistance Resources:

  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – Non-profit with a mission to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person.
  • UnitedWeDream  The Largest immigrant youth-led network in the United States.
  • FamiliesBelongTogether A Grassroots organization demanding an end to the harmful family separation policy.


This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst J.R. Phillip: justin@usresistnews.org

Image by Elias Castillo

Supreme Court Sidesteps Around Gay Wedding Cake in Ruling

Supreme Court Sidesteps Around Gay Wedding Cake in Ruling

Brief # 42—Civil Rights

Policy Summary
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to create a wedding cake to celebrate their wedding. The baker, Jack Phillips, refused citing his religious beliefs, which include opposition to same – sex marriages. Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission claiming they were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti – Discrimination Act. A lawsuit ensued and the case was found in favor of Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins. The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals which upheld the verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. Masterpiece Cakeshop and baker Jack Phillips appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that Mr. Phillips was being compelled to create expression that was in violation of his Free Speech and Free Exercise of religion rights under the First Amendment.

On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a 7 – 2 opinion in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips. The Court ruled that the Commission’s hostility toward baker Jack Phillips “was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion” and therefore reversed the order of the Colorado Court of Appeals based on his religious rights under the Free Exercise clause. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis
In one of the most highly anticipated cases during this Supreme Court term, the Court issued an opinion that was neither the immediate landmark nor earth shattering opinion that each side had wanted. The case was unique because it pitted the First Amendment’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion on one side against the freedom from discrimination on the other. Both rights and protections are cherished rights in the United States and should not be limited as much as possible.

The one grave concern that many had about the case was that if the baker could use his religion to serve only people who were not offensive to his faith then it would open the door for other people to do the same thing. Would a Christian or Jewish businessman be permitted to refuse service to a Muslim person because of religious beliefs? Or could religion be used to deny service to persons based on their race or nationality? Would people who are not normally religious or devout in their ordinary lives use religion to discriminate whenever it was convenient for them at the moment?

Justice Kennedy, who authored the majority opinion, went to great lengths to show that religious activities will not always permit discriminatory behavior. He stated that in a different scenario and under Court precedents “[T]he baker…might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” This is key because it shows that in a different situation, such as those mentioned above, the Court will likely not allow religion to be used to freely discriminate against others.

With this opinion, Justice Kennedy has been able to find that balance that upholds First Amendment freedom of religion rights (the opinion criticizes the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for hostile language towards the baker in their investigation of him and his religious beliefs) while also stating in the text that religion cannot be used to harm others. He states that gay persons and couples cannot be treated as “social outcasts and/or inferior in dignity and worth” and that the law “will protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.” This case may not have been the win that the LGBQT was looking for but Justice Kennedy’s opinion puts in place the rationale and arguments that can protect their community going forward and prevent future incidents of this kind. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org.

Image by: April Pethybridge

President Trump Angers Federal Workforce With Three Newly Issued Executive Orders

President Trump Angers Federal Workforce With Three Newly Issued Executive Orders

Brief # 41—Civil Rights

Summary

On May 25, 2018, President Donald J. Trump issued three executive orders concerning employees in the federal sector. Executive Order (EO) 13836 deals with new and efficient procedures for collective bargaining between federal sector employees and their respective executive departments and agencies. Executive Order 13837 seeks to make more efficient use of a federal employees’ taxpayer funded time spent on federal sector union activities during business hours. And, Executive Order 13839 seeks to reduce the time required to terminate a federal employee from his or her position. On May 30, 2018, the American Federation of Government Employees, a national labor organization, sued President Trump to prevent EO 13837 from going into effect. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis

Simply put, the President’s three executive orders are hostile to the rights of federal employees. Even with the words “efficient” and “accountability” used in the titles of the executive orders, a closer analysis reveals that each order weakens long standing rights and protections that the federal workforce have enjoyed for decades.

EO 13836 contains a loophole that would permit agencies to unilaterally implement a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) if the federal sector union is deemed to be negotiating in bad faith. The worst-case scenario here is that agencies will simply accuse the union of bad faith negotiations when it is not true “and implement the agency’s version of the CBA without giving the union a say on what they like and what they don’t like in the agreement.”

EO 13837 is also troubling because it seeks to place a time limit on how long a federal employee can help fellow co – workers resolve workplace disputes such as harassment. The original statute granting federal employees official time to resolve workplace grievances initially stated that the time allotted be “reasonable.” Yet President Trump’s order reduces that time to no more than 25% of official work time to these activities. This time limit does not take into concern more complex issues that need more time to be dealt with and does not address what will happen if a problem is not resolved within that limited time frame.

Finally, EO 13839 reduces the time to terminate a federal worker, in some cases down from 120 days to 30 days, and seeks to encourage firings instead of suspensions for “poor” performing workers. In his State of the Union Speech, President Trump stated, “Cabinet secretaries should have the ability to reward good workers.” J. David Cox of the American Federation of Government Employees called the order a “direct assault on the legal rights and protections” afforded to all government employees. He also warned that eliminating the protections in order to quickly terminate federal workers could easily result in removing federal workers because of their contrary political viewpoint. Hopefully, the American Federation of Government Employees lawsuit and the public uproar will help to reverse the steps President Trump has taken with these executive orders. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Engagement Resources:

American Federation of Government Employees – labor union representing federal government employees.
National Treasury Employees Union – the nation’s largest independent union of federal employees fighting for issues that affect the working lives of federal employees.

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

Axing NASA’s Carbon Monitoring System

Brief # 31—-Environmental Policy

Summary

Houston, NASA appears to be having a problem. In 2012, now-president, Donald Trump famously tweeted that, “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese” and alleged that the phenomenon of climate change was a conspiracy to undermine American manufacturing. It is unclear whether or not President Trump still stands by this particular accusation but his administration did recently decide to try to dismantle a climate change program within NASA. The program, formally known as the “Carbon Monitoring System” has been tasked with scientifically monitoring the earth’s temperature and recently found that 2017 was the second-hottest year on record. The program’s annual budget of $10 million is relatively small compared to the many other multibillion dollar projects going on inside of NASA, so it would appear that maintaining costs are not the problem. Phil Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center–a climate change think tank–argued that the program is a target of the Trump administration due to its affiliation with the Paris Climate Change Agreement and the information it has reported about greenhouse gases. Duffy added that the administration’s move was a “blow to climate science.” The decision came just a day after NASA announced that “humans are causing massive changes in location of water around the world”.

Analysis

Despite the Trump Administration’s decision to axe the Carbon Monitoring system, a U.S. House of Representatives panel moved to restore something like it in a bipartisan vote. The House appropriations panel unanimously approved to fund and create a “climate monitoring system,” a NASA program with an annual budget of $10 million per year. And the program’s objective would be essentially identical to that of the Carbon Monitoring system. More still, former Republican congressman Jim Bridenstine, who is now a NASA administrator recently announced that he accepts mainstream climate science, a subject which he had denied the veracity of throughout his tenure in congress. He is one of the Trump administration’s few appointees to publicly acknowledge the legitimacy of climate science. In the midst of this however, a former NASA employee has spoken out about the changing culture of “fear and anxiety” at NASA, alleging that concerns about the survival of the institution are affecting their public communications about climate science.

Engagement Resources

The League of Conservation Voters, a nonprofit organization working to make climate change addressed in all levels of politics, created a climate science scorecard that provides information about how lawmakers regard various environmental issues.

Columbia Law School at Columbia University has created the Climate Deregulation Tracker, which allows the public to monitor what decisions are being made by the executive branch with regard to climate change.

This Brief was submitted by U.S. RESIST NEWS Analyst Zoe Stricker:

zoe@usresistnews.org

 

Amazon.Com Sells Facial “Rekognition” Software to Law Enforcement

Re: Policy Brief No. 39

Policy Summary: In 2016, Amazon.com first announced a new facial recognition software item called “Rekognition” and subsequently gave the product to law enforcement in Washington County, Oregon and Orlando, Florida to test. The software program is designed, through the use of public cameras, to scan a crowd of people in photos and videos and instantly match the person to any database of photos (such as police department mugshot libraries). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, through a Freedom of Information Act request, determined that Amazon.com was actively marketing the software item to other law enforcement agencies. On May 22, 2018, forty-one organizations co – authored a letter sent to Mr. Jeff Bezos, founder and chief executive officer of Amazon.com, Inc. The letter addressed the organizations concerns over Amazon.com’s marketing and potential sale of a facial recognition software  to government consumers. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: The announcement by the ACLU of what they had found out from the documents they acquired through their Freedom of Information Act request regarding the use of the “Rekognition” software raised serious privacy concerns all across the country. Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice, called the sale of the software to law enforcement agencies “[A] recipe for authoritarianism and disaster.”

Facial recognition software is not new. The common practice of law enforcement agencies had been to use facial recognition software to compare separate photos, such as a photo from a crime scene against mugshot photos from a police department database, and see if there was a match. This new technology will allow law enforcement agencies to go one step further – it can now be used with real – time videos to make an instant match against a database of photos. A person may be walking down a street, at a concert, ball game or other mass event and the software can instantly recognize and match the person against a database of photos, such as DMV license/identification card pictures. The letter addressed to Mr. Jeff Bezos does not argue against the technology itself but raises concerns that this type of software is being marketed and targeted to law enforcement agencies. Due to the potential for abuse against minorities, immigrants, protesters and other groups that may not agree with the government at the moment, it is clear that this kind of technology needs to be regulated and deployed only under clear rules that safeguard the rights and liberties of American citizens. Since there is no legal framework yet that applies to this technology, the best approach may be to try and limit its sales to law enforcement agencies before too many agencies acquire it. One can only hope that Mr. Bezos and Amazon.com will adopt this approach. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Take Action:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blogpost commenting on dangers of the item being sold by Amazon.com.

Electronic Frontier Foundation – non – profit group webpage on mass surveillance technology issues.

Electronic Privacy Information Center – non – profit group webpage on domestic surveillance issues.

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

.

Congress Tries to Combat Sexual Harassment

Re: Policy Brief No. 38

Policy Summary: In February 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced and passed H.R. 4924 which is known as the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Reform Act. That bill seeks to “revise administration and judicial dispute resolution procedures…for claims by employees alleging that employing offices have violated their…rights and protections, including protections against sexual harassment” by Members of Congress. On May 24, 2018, the U.S. Senate introduced and passed by voice vote S.2952 which is a companion bill to H.R. 4924. The Senate bill seeks to revise the same administrative and judicial dispute resolution procedures for sexual harassment claims by the legislative workforce as they may arise against a Member of Congress. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: Due to the high – profile number of sexual harassment incidents against Members of Congress the last year, the two bills in the House and the Senate was seen as long overdue. Despite the good intentions to address these types of incidents in Congress, many groups still have concerns whether the proposed reforms will lead to substantial change. In advance of the floor vote in the Senate, five non – profit groups jointly authored a letter detailing their perceived shortcomings of the bill. The highlight of the letter dealt with the personal reimbursement obligation by a Member of Congress. The House bill passed in February authorized a Member of Congress to personally reimburse the U.S. Treasury if any settlement monies are paid as a result of an act of harassment or retaliation by the Congressperson. However, the non – profit groups found that the Senate bill found ways to limit and undermine the reimbursement obligation. Additionally, the Senate bill added other requirements to future investigations which were seen as uneccessary – barring legal advice from an attorney after a claim against a Member of Congress is filed, requiring Congressional committees to review sexual harassment claims instead of unbiased independent investigators and allowing Members of Congress who have been accused to not be identified in the final report. The Senate bill does not seem to make the process of pursuing a sexual harassment claim against a Member of Congress as transparent and as streamlined as it could be. Hopefully, the concerns in the Senate bill can be reconciled with the stronger House bill before it is finalized and sent to the White House for the President’s signature. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Take Action:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – group’s comment on Senate bill (S.2952).

National Women’s Law Center – non – profit group’s infopage on sexual harassment in the workplace and comments on the Senate bill.

National Organization of Women (NOW) – non – profit group advocating women’s rights and their comment on the Senate bill.

 

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

.

Supreme Court Deals Blow to Workers Rights

Re: Policy Brief No. 37

Policy Summary: On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a decision in the case Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. That case had been consolidated with two other cases but had a similar set of core facts. In the three cases, each company required its employees to waive their right to join in a potential class action lawsuit against the company and mandated that they pursue individually any legal claims that may arise in arbitration proceedings. Employees of the three companies brought a lawsuit against their employers to preserve their right to pursue collective legal action against their employers. The Supreme Court, in an opinion that focused extensively on statutory and contract interpretation rules, decided 5 – 4 in favor of Epic Systems Corporation and the two other employers. LEARN MORE

Analysis: As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissent, the Court’s decision is “egregiously wrong.” Galen Sherwin of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Women’s Rights Project said in a blog post about the court decision that “arbitration has been criticized as biased in favor of companies and employers, and lacking in the procedural protections afforded by the justice system.” By forcing employees to sign on to only one option to pursue their legal complaints and barring them from one not favorable to their employers, companies are stacking the deck so as to create the likelihood that most employee complaints will be decided in the employer’s favor. Employers favored arbitration over class actions because panelists deciding the case are often chosen by both parties (other lawyers and not always a judge or someone with legal training), the proceedings are held in strict secrecy and often legal precedents are not required to be followed. Employers could manipulate the process to choose who would hear their case, did not have to worry about the hearings being made public and did not have to worry about pesky legal precedents that did not favor them. These protections would be found in a court case but are not required in arbitration proceedings. Employees would have better protections when permitted to band together and confront their employers with their legal claims as a united group. In a class action suit, employees could find strength in numbers instead of confronting a company alone, could share the costs with other co – workers instead of shouldering the financial burden on their own and could be confident in established legal protections by having their claims heard in court (evidentiary rules, binding legal precedent and an unbiased judge and/or a jury of their peers). This case will now upend all of these hard won protections because it forces employees into an unfavorable arbitral process and allows companies to ban workers from what had historically been one of the most useful avenues to have workplace complaints redressed – the class action lawsuit. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Take Action:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – infopage critical of the Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis case.

Fair Arbitration Now – non – profit group seeking to lobby Congress to end forced arbitration.

Public Citizen – non – profit group infopage on the dangers of forced arbitration clauses.

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

.

Federal Court Rules Against Trump Efforts to Block Twitter Followers

Policy Brief No. 40

Policy Summary: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of their grievances.” In the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators’ Association the court categorized government property for purposes of which rules would control speech and expression activities and listed three categories: [1] traditional public forums, [2] limited, or designated, public forums, and [3] non – public forums. Justice White explained that when it comes to speech in a limited, or designated, public forum “a content – based prohibition must be narrowly drawn to effectuate a compelling state interest.” In July 2017, the Knight First Institute at Columbia University and seven other plaintiffs sued President Trump because they were blocked from the President’s Twitter account. On May 23, 2018, Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order characterizing President Trump’s Twitter account as “a limited, or designated, public forum” and that his banning of followers according to their viewpoint was “proscribed by the First Amendment.” LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Analysis: The decision from Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald is not only a wake up call to all government officials but also a shot at President Trump himself. First, all public officials are now on notice that their interactions with constituents on social media platforms are likely limited, or designated, public forums and cannot be manipulated in a way as to suppress critical opinions on government policies. Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites may have the technological tools to block or mute followers but using these options to bar opposing viewpoints and critical opinions from important and relevant discussions on social media will likely no longer be permitted. This will prevent public officials from having a slanted and incomplete view on how their policies are being received by the public.

And lastly, Judge Buchwald’s memorandum and order that categorized Trump’s Twitter account as a limited, or designated, public forum sends a message to President Trump that he cannot selectively pick, based on their substantive content, which users and followers will have their positions and viewpoints shown in his Twitter account. Every critical tweet and disapproving reply to his own tweets is an opportunity for this President and this country to hear the concerns and opinions of any citizen who chooses to engage with him on his Twitter account. By trying to block users and suppress their critical tweets to him, this President chose to try to quash legitimate criticisms of him and elevate other viewpoints that he viewed, in his eyes, as much more worthy. It was a simple case of trying to censor viewpoints that President Trump did not agree with. Hopefully Judge Buchwald’s order will put an end to these tactics undertaken by this President who cannot handle legitimate criticism. LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE, LEARN MORE

Resistance Resources:

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) – blogpost discussing government officials blocking users prior to the recent court decision against President Trump.

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University – institute defending freedom of speech and press in the digital age and a plaintiff in the lawsuit against President Trump and his Twitter account.

First Amendment Coalition – non – profit group defending free speech and the public’s right to know.

This brief was compiled by Rod Maggay. If you have comments or want to add the name of your organization to this brief, please contact Rod@USResistnews.org

x
x
Support fearless journalism! Your contribution, big or small, dismantles corruption and sparks meaningful change. As an independent outlet, we rely on readers like you to champion the cause of transparent and accountable governance. Every donation fuels our mission for insightful policy reporting, a cornerstone for informed citizenship. Help safeguard democracy from tyrants—donate today. Your generosity fosters hope for a just and equitable society.

Pin It on Pinterest