Showing posts with label corporatocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporatocracy. Show all posts

SCOTUS Deals Devastating Blow to Class Actions

In yet another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis that employers are allowed to force employees to sign contracts that restrict their right to sue collectively in federal court and instead force them into one-on-one arbitration with the company.

It is a devastating blow to workers and class actions for endemic workplace abuses.

The decision [pdf] was authored by Neil Gorsuch, of course. Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored the dissent.


This erosion of workers' ability to organize into class action lawsuits against exploitative and/or harmful employers, combined with conservatives' decades of union-busting, is a horrendous blow to the collective power of workers.

Absolutely gutting.

This is a perfect and terrible example of why I nearly spun myself into dust during the last election trying to ensure Donald Trump was defeated, and why the only words I have at the moment are (again) these:


Elections matter. The differences between the Democrats and the Republican matter. HERE IS WHY.

Open Wide...

"It’s like we're existing, but not existing."

[Content Note: Class warfare; corporate greed.]

This is an excellent piece of reporting by Ed Pilkington at the Guardian: What Happened When Walmart Left.

Mostly avoiding the cringe-inducing turns of phrase intended as color — but effectively serving to caricaturize residents — in pieces about poor, rural life in America, the article details what happened in McDowell County, West Virginia, when a Walmart supercenter arrived and then abruptly left a decade later.

The devastation the departure — for reasons of "financial performance as well as strategic alignment with long-term plans," according to a spokeswoman for Walmart, a corporation that made $485.9 billion in total revenue the year they closed the store — is vast and has affected people's lives in ways that those of us who live in different sorts of communities may not have considered, underlining the importance of listening to people tell their own stories, as well as the importance of journalists and news outlets who allow them the space to do so.

It's not just jobs that Walmart, which had become the area's biggest employer, took with it when it left: It took convenient shopping, affordable fresh food, spillover business for local restaurants (where shoppers ate) and a hotel (where employees lived), the social component of the giant retailer serving as a hub that connected the community, the "waste" ("close to 200,000 lb of meat, dairy, pies, and bread") that the retailer gave to the local food pantry, and the tax revenue it paid into the community:

The town of Kimball in which the supercenter is located used to receive $145,000 a year in taxes from Walmart, and when that went it had to cut back its workforce and put all remaining staff on a four-day week.

The county government also lost $68,000 in taxes, most of which went to schools, and all its staff were given a 10% pay cut. "All Walmart was interested in was how many millions of dollars they made, they weren't interested in helping the community," says McDowell County commissioner Gordon Lambert. "When they didn't make the profit they wanted, they left."
The closest Walmart is now over an hour away, with very little option for both former employees and shoppers who became dependent on their local store, entirely by Walmart's design.

And, although the word automation is never used in the article, that is certainly one of the considerations the voraciously greedy retailer is making in its calculations as it decides on hundreds of similar closings across the country.
When you combine the county's economic malaise with Walmart's increasingly ferocious battle against Amazon for dominance over online retailing, you can see why outsized physical presences could seem surplus to requirements. "There has been a wave of closings across the US, most acutely in small towns and rural communities that have had heavy population loss," said Michael Hicks, an economics professor at Ball State University who is an authority on Walmart's local impact.

On 15 January 2016, those winds of change swept across the country with a fury. Walmart announced that it was closing 269 stores worldwide, 154 of them in the US. Of those, 14 were supercenters, the gargantuan "big boxes" that have become the familiar face of the company since the first opened in Missouri in 1988.
Walmart's model was to position itself as the provider of everything that people needed, under one roof. Get your tractor tires, your baby's diapers, your new running shoes, and your chicken for dinner all in one place!

It was a model at which they were extremely successful, driving countless independent businesses and smaller retail chains out of business, and replacing lots of jobs with livable wages and benefits with exploitative jobs that lacked both. They insinuated themselves into communities they ruined, with lots of big promises that came at steep costs.

And now, after obliging people in many communities to become highly dependent on them as an economic, cultural, and social center of the community, they are pulling up sticks with zero compunction.

It's hard to find the words to convey the profundity of my odium for the Walton family, or the depth of my sorrow for the people they've so cavalierly fucked over, first by their roughshod arrival and then by their inglorious retreat.

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

[Content Note: Threat of violence] Damn: "Officials closed all Los Angeles Unified School District campuses Tuesday morning after receiving a 'credible threat' of violence involving backpacks and packages left at campuses. Authorities said they plan a search operation of all of the LAUSD's more than 900 schools. The nation's second-largest school district has more than 700,000 students. 'I think it's important to take this precaution based on what has happened recently and what has happened in the past,' LAUSD Superintendent Ramon Cortines said. ...Officials said the threat came in electronic form and was made to numerous but unspecified campuses. As a result, they made the decision to close all campuses for the day. The Los Angeles Police Department and FBI were assisting with the threat investigation, Los Angeles School Police Chief Steve Zipperman said. 'The threat is still being analyzed,' he said. 'We have chosen to close our schools today until we can be sure our campuses are safe.'"

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has promised a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, if she is elected: "Speaking in Brooklyn, New York, Clinton outlined a progressive immigration agenda, vowing to waive application fees associated with naturalization, while repeating calls to expand on President Obama's executive actions and push to create 'a path to full and equal citizenship' for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the US. 'If you work hard, if you love this country and want nothing more to build a good future for you and your children, we should give you a way to come forward and become a citizen,' she said."

[CN: Police brutality; racism] The jury in the trial of the first officer being tried in the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore is on its second day of deliberations. I am sick with worry; please please please do the right thing.

[CN: Slavery; abuse; exploitation] Fucking hell, this investigation by the AP is incredible and so upsetting: "From Whole Foods to Red Lobster: Stores, restaurants sell shrimp peeled by slaves, AP finds." I'm not even going to excerpt it; just go read the whole thing.

[CN: Violence; misogyny; racism] A white man angry about his credit card being declined by a hotel drove his pickup truck into the hotel lobby, causing extensive damage and nearly hitting two women working at the front desk, who dove out of the way just in time to avoid injury. The manager "told investigators that 'Parsley stated it wasn't his first bad experience with a hotel manager who was also Indian,' according to the incident report. It said Parsley then told the staff that he was going to 'run his truck over them and the property.'" So, white man nearly kills two women because of racism. Just another day in America.

[CN: War on agency] "Attorneys from the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court last week urging it to turn away a case designed to re-criminalize abortion nationwide. ...'Since this Court first recognized constitutional protection for abortion before the point of viability, two generations of Americans have come of age, depending on constitutional protection for their dignity in making reproductive decisions,' the brief notes." If you're a person who can become pregnant, you cannot take your right of bodily autonomy or agency for granted. Just another day in America.

[CN: Corporatocracy] "If you're a business looking for new ways to squeeze money out of your consumers without having to worry about whether doing so is illegal, than you had a very good day in the Supreme Court on Monday. In its first divided decision of the current Supreme Court term, the Court held in DIRECTV v. Imburgia that the satellite television company DIRECTV could effectively immunize itself from many suits claiming that they charged illegal fees, despite the fact that this decision cuts against language in DIRECTV's own contract." The Supreme Court gives more power to corporations to exploit and abuse consumers. Just another day in America.

Tattoo artist Dad updates Mom's tattoo to "fully represent" their transgender son. "Steve created a new portrait of Ace that better captured his son's identity. The pink dress was turned into a blue T-shirt and shorts while the purple flower was transformed into a slingshot. ...Once the new portrait was complete, Steve and Lindsay surprised Ace with the fresh ink. The teen, who came out to his family about a year ago, was over the moon. 'It made me really happy. I didn't realize how much she believed me. It finally fits,' Ace told Global News." Blub. Just another day in America. ♥

Welp: "Climate change is causing a large number of bad things to happen to the planet and this new study, cited on weather.com, says the loss of the weight of the polar ice caps will relieve some of the pressure on the rocks below and allow the rock to rebound towards the surface. And, according to the researchers, this will make the world more round and will allow for the planet's rotation to accelerate, and could even make a difference in the length of our days. Don't be planning new outings to take advantage of the extra time in the day, however. Researchers say it will only be thousandths of a second, and they don't predict the faster spin will have any damaging effects on the planet."

Heads-up (no pun intended) if you use Wen hair products: "Wen is currently embroiled in a class-action lawsuit brought by more than 200 people who claim they lost their hair after using Wen's product. ...The group of mostly women, who hail from multiple states, filed the lawsuit in March after they said they suffered 'severe injuries' to their head and scalp. Some of the women were representing their children, who are minors." Yikes!

Awww: "Dick Van Dyke Celebrates 90th Birthday With 'Mary Poppins' Flash Mob." Adorbz!

Cool: "Dog DNA study reveals the incredible journey of [human]'s best friend."

And finally! Baby Okapi!!! "Zoo Antwerpen's royal resident, Yenthe the Okapi, recently gave birth to a new princess. The new calf, Qira, was born November 15. She weighed in at 24 kg (53 lbs) and was 85 cm (2.7 ft) tall. Antwerp Zoo has a special connection to this beautiful animal. The Zoo is coordinator of the European breeding programme for the Okapi, and the prolific stripes of this endangered species are used in the Zoo's logo."

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

Pay attention to this one: "The Supreme Court Hears a Case Today That Could Give Corporations Even More Immunity from the Law: "If [a] company cheats you and you alone out of a few hundred dollars, you're probably out of luck. But if the same company illegally cheats thousands of people out of a few hundred dollars as part of the same scheme, class actions allow those thousands of people to join together in one grand lawsuit. Because their combined suit is now worth a lot of money, they are suddenly likely to be able to recruit excellent legal counsel to represent the class. Campbell-Ewald Company v. Gomez, a case the Supreme Court will hear on Wednesday, could deal a mortal blow to class action litigation, however. Indeed, if the defendant in Campbell-Ewald prevails, companies that engage in multi-million dollar lawbreaking could gain the power to shut down class action litigation altogether by paying out a tiny fraction of what they should owe." Fuck.

[Content Note: Racism; class warfare] This is an excellent report by ProPublica's Paul Kiel and Annie Waldman on "How Collection Suits Squeeze Black Neighborhoods."

[CN: Misogyny] Interesting: "The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has contacted several women directors in Hollywood in an effort to determine whether legal intervention is necessary to disrupt the industry's discriminatory hiring practices. In a letter sent to some 50 women filmmakers, the EEOC—which is responsible for protecting individuals from employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion and national origin through enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—requested interviews with them to 'learn more about the gender-related issues' women behind the camera face in both the film and television industries."

"Pope Francis has made a surprise public apology for recent scandals 'either in Rome or in the Vatican.' ...To thousands of people who had gathered for his weekly address, Pope Francis said: 'Before I begin the Catechism, in the name of the Church, I want to ask you for forgiveness for the scandals that have occurred recently either in Rome or in the Vatican. I ask you for forgiveness.' He also said: 'The word of Jesus is strong today, woe to the world because of scandals. Jesus is a realist. He says it is inevitable that there will be scandals. But woe to the man who causes scandals.' His words left Vatican observers scratching their heads in deciding exactly which scandals he meant." Okay. Wevs.

[CN: Anti-feminist tropes; transphobia] Alice Eve, last heard being a transphobic fuckhead, is the latest to jump on the "gender equality is great but feminists are man-haters" bandwagon: "I'm passionate about gender equality in the film industry. I think when anyone is asked if they're a feminist, it's natural that any woman is in defence of her sex. It can be dangerous when it becomes anti-male. I am not massively in support of attacking men, because I think we've moved so much into a place where we objectify them as well. For me, the struggle is really the pay gap—that's a reality that women in every profession are subjected to and that's not OK." Oh do shut up.

[CN: Misogynoir] This interview with Effie Brown is terrific: "What's your relationship with Damon now? 'Word on the street is I'm not his favorite person.'"

[CN: Racist slur] New Daily Show host Trevor Noah, who has been accused of joke stealing before, has been caught nicking a bit from Dave Chappelle. That bit is so famous! Why does he think he can get away with that?!

[CN: Bigotry] If you're interested in reading what Donald Trump had to tweet during the Democratic debate last night, here you go!

And finally! A photo series of wet dogs. That is a lot more adorable and moving that it sounds!

Open Wide...

The Good News and the Bad News

[Content Note: Class warfare; worker exploitation.]

The Good News is that President Obama has announced plans to make a significant change to the overtime exemption:

Here's a convenient way of getting more work out of your employees, without paying the required time-and-a-half pay for anything over 40 hours a week: Call them "managers." Currently, these so-called white collar workers are exempt from overtime if they make more than $455 a week or $23,660 per year, even if they perform routine tasks like stocking shelves at a convenience store. In fact, those small-time bosses don't even have to be paid anything more for the extra hours they put in to get the job done, not even minimum wage.

Monday night, President Obama announced that he wants to double that threshold, to $50,400 per year. The move would expand the number of people eligible for overtime from about 8 percent of the salaried workforce to about 40 percent, according to a recent analysis by the left-leaning, labor-friendly Economic Policy Institute.

"That's good for workers who want fair pay, and it's good for business owners who are already paying their employees what they deserve -- since those who are doing right by their employees are undercut by competitors who aren't," Obama wrote in a Huffington Post op-ed announcing the decision.
Lots of my friends, across a number of industries, have experienced this phenomenon. I experienced it, too, back when I was working in Corporate America. And for many people who go from hourly wages with overtime to a salaried wage with no overtime, because you're declared a "manager," it ends up being a steep cut in pay. An employer might raise your base salary, but if they're requiring you to work all kinds of hours for which they suddenly stop paying you, it's often a reduction in your income, with no reduction in workload.

There are federal guidelines that define that constitutes a "manager," but many employers don't follow those guidelines, hoping their employees either don't know their position has been illegally redefined or values their job too much to cause trouble. Or, you know, isn't getting paid enough to even hire an attorney.

It's a major area of worker exploitation in the US, and while raising the exemption threshold is not a comprehensive solution, especially when workers' rights are not rigorously enforced, it's a necessary and excellent step.

And it's a step Obama can take on his own:
Obama, who has implemented a number of his most consequential workplace policies through executive order, doesn't need congressional approval to implement the new overtime rule. However, it will have to go through a public comment period, and employers will have lots to say.
Which brings us to the Bad News: Employers are already pushing back hard.
Rather than just paying managers more for the extra time, a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation warned that employers would likely hire more part timers to do that work, and cut base pay and benefits to keep people's compensation the same overall. Meanwhile, companies might have to cut down on the number of managerial jobs they offer, making it more difficult for employees to climb the professional ranks and leading to more inequality in the workforce, not less. Nonetheless, even if they're able to avoid paying more for labor -- and there's evidence to suggest they won't be able to avoid it completely -- employers fret that the change would still cost them hundreds of millions of dollars to make the adjustment.

Now, if businesses think the Department of Labor didn't do enough to consider the economic impact of the new rule, they could try to block it in the courts -- or at least delay it, in hopes of running out the clock until a more sympathetic administration arrives in the White House. Alternatively, some experts think businesses might end up pushing to amend the Fair Labor Standards Act itself to block the new rule.
Emphases mine.

What employers are threatening—hire more part-time workers to cut the number of employees with benefits; diminish the number of positions to prevent promotions that yield higher salaries—are things that employers have already been doing for years. Which is part of the reason why this proposal isn't a comprehensive solution: What we need are tighter labor regulations that prevent precisely this sort of profit-maximizing (and often nakedly spiteful) worker exploitation and artificial salary depression and all the "speedup" practices, like not filling jobs when people leave and simply redistributing their work among remaining staff, who aren't compensated for the additional duties.

The frank truth is that many, many US employers have shown they simply won't act in the best, or even in the most basically fair, interests of their employees unless they are forced by regulation to do so. So that's what needs to happen.

The market simply doesn't solve the problem, when the problem is exploited workers.

Open Wide...

Money Talks Votes

[Content Note: Class warfare.]

Something you probably know about me by now is that voting is about the closest thing there is to a sacrament in my secular little world. Even when my vote doesn't matter to the outcome of an election, for one reason or another, my vote matters to me.

That's why I get angry about gerrymandering, about disenfranchisement, about the decimation of the Voting Rights Act, about financial influence in politics, about Citizens fucking United.

That's why I get angry when I read shit like this:

Never have so many candidates entered a White House contest boosted by such huge sums.

...Some party operatives say that 2016 could be the first race in the modern era in which a candidate does not need to win Iowa or New Hampshire to prevail. Strong showings in those early states historically translated into much-needed financial momentum. But this time, wealthy patrons might keep their favorite picks aloft through independent spending.

...The 2016 primary contest could resemble the fracas in 2012, when super PAC benefactors kept alive the bids of former House speaker Newt Gingrich and former U.S. senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, forcing Mitt Romney into an extended fight for the nomination.

Adelson and his family poured $15 million into a super PAC backing Gingrich, then an unthinkably large amount. This time, with more big spenders in the mix, such sums could be commonplace, the former House speaker said.

"What seems like really big money is less than a yacht," Gingrich said in an interview. Wealthy donors could decide that "this year, instead of buying a new yacht, I'm going to spend $70 million on a candidate," he said.
One person with more money than zie could ever spend in a lifetime now has the ability to meaningfully affect the nation's presidential election.

That isn't a democracy. Not a functional, meaningful one.

What that is, despite conservative caterwauling about "wealth redistribution" in response to any attempt to robustly fund an effective social safety net, is class warfare.

Class warfare is not, as we are meant to believe, taxing people who have way more than they need so that people who don't even have the basics to survive can have a little more.

Class warfare is obliterating a democracy by rendering irrelevant the votes of any and all human beings who aren't grotesquely wealthy, and calling it "free speech."

Class warfare is believing that money is "free speech," but one's constitutional right to cast a vote that means something is not.

Open Wide...

Of Course

The now Republican-controlled Senate, with help from nine Democrats, has passed the Keystone XL oil pipeline bill, despite the fact that President Obama has pledged to veto it:

Senators voted 62-36 on the bill to bypass the Obama administration's review of Keystone, five short of the number needed to overturn a potential rejection by the president. All Republicans present voted for the bill as did nine Democrats.

Approving Keystone has been the top priority of Republicans in the new Congress after they won control of the Senate in November.

Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Keystone would be good for the middle class and "pump billions" of dollars into the economy.
Which is not quite accurate. Keystone would pump billions (?) of dollars into the pockets of TransCanada Corp., and would create fewer than 40 permanent jobs, according to a State Department report.

Way to get things done, Republicans. As usual.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Class warfare.]

"Suddenly, we privatized politics."—Trevor Potter, an election lawyer who helped draft the McCain-Feingold law, quoted in Jim Rutenberg's "How Billionaire Oligarchs Are Becoming Their Own Political Parties."

With the advent of Citizens United, any players with the wherewithal, and there are surprisingly many of them, can start what are in essence their own political parties, built around pet causes or industries and backing politicians uniquely answerable to them. No longer do they have to buy into the system. Instead, they buy their own pieces of it outright, to use as they see fit.
When the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which granted corporations, unions, and nonprofits the latitude to donate freely to political campaigns and thus effectively bankroll federal elections, I grimly mused: "It is not hyperbole to say this decision is paving the way for America to become a fully-fledged corporatocracy, which, depending on your perspective, is a sibling to fascism or a version of it. ...This decision further diminishes any voice that isn't backed with a fuckload of money. Someday, we may look back on this day and realize it was the day our democracy died."

Welp.

Open Wide...

To Xfinity and Beyond, or Whatever

Hey, remember when we used to have laws against monopolies?

Comcast announced on Thursday an agreement to acquire Time Warner Cable for more than $45 billion in stock, a deal that would combine the biggest and second-biggest cable television operators in the country.

For Comcast, which completed its acquisition of NBC Universal, the television and movie powerhouse, from General Electric less than a year ago, the latest deal would be its second big act to radically reshape the media landscape in the United States.

...In a bid to appease antitrust regulators, Comcast is expected say it is willing to divest three million of Time Warner Cable's roughly 11 million pay television subscribers.

It was not immediately clear if Comcast would propose certain markets to divest, but shedding those subscribers should keep Comcast with less than 30 percent national market share for pay television, a level the company believes will satisfy antitrust regulators.
Ha ha sure. It's only a third of the market. No biggie! REGULATION SCHMEGULATION, is what I say!

Open Wide...

Legions of Lazy Strawpeople

So, as I mentioned yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the Affordable Care Act could, over the next decade, reduce the number of full-time workers by as many as 2.5 million. This has been wildly misrepresented by conservatives as proof that "Obamacare is a job killer." Which is not accurate.

The point of the CBO's report, as noted by the New York Times editors, is that, "thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums, many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have. In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits."

By any reasonable calculation, this is a good thing—especially given the high unemployment rate. Detaching healthcare access from full-time employment makes more room for more employees, and also encourages entrepreneurship.

But ha ha reasonable doesn't find a place in much of our national discourse anymore.

In today's Chicago Tribune, there is this incredible passage, even following a similar clarification about what the CBO report actually said:

But, and here's where the impact is likely pernicious, some will quit or work less precisely because they'll now qualify for Medicaid or for subsidies under the law. In effect, they'll have a government incentive to be less productive. ...Government subsidies that persuade people to be less productive are not healthy for the nation.
First of all, most of the people who make enough money and/or have enough accumulated wealth that they can continue to support themselves and any dependents making half of their current salary, or on no salary at all, aren't going to qualify for Medicaid if they cut back or stop working. This idea that people on the cusp of Medicaid qualification are going to quit working so they make little enough money to earn subsidized healthcare is patently absurd! They still need to make enough money to survive—despite narratives about generous hand-outs from The Government.

Secondly, we need to be honest about the fact that, while there are many jobs at which people are overworked as a result of profit-prioritizing chronic understaffing, there are also lots of jobs at which people are obliged to spend at least 40 hours a week, even though the job itself doesn't require 40 hours of work. Or: May require 60 hours one week, and only 20 the next.

It really would not be the worst thing in the world if people were allowed to work the number of hours they need to work to fulfill their job requirements.

I mean, not that we all don't love the incredibly stupid game of Staring Intently at Minesweeper on a Monitor Like We're Seriously Working on a Difficult Problem (or whatever variation one's job may require), but we have some truly asinine conceptions about productivity that make hand-wringing about people working fewer hours pretty pointless. For a lot of people, "working fewer hours" might realistically translate into "spending fewer hours being visible at the office," not actually being less productive.

There's a very weird work culture in lots of US workplaces where the thought of letting employees work as much as they need to get their jobs done, and then letting them use the rest of their time outside the office to have the best quality of life possible, is somehow letting workers "take advantage." So, instead, we designate a fixed work week, and then whinge about "productivity" at the mere suggestion that people might have the freedom to work fewer hours and own more of their time.

Open Wide...

Big Money

Earlier today in comments, I answered a question about how to raise the minimum wage without inflating the cost of goods and services, and that passing those higher costs onto workers:

There needs to be a way to raise the wage without passing that cost on to those same workers.

There is: Prioritizing people over profits and flattening wages so that executives don't make hundreds of times as much as average workers in the same company.

Certainly there are cases, especially in very small businesses, where it's not feasible to significantly raise wages without raises prices on goods or services, but there are a lot of businesses where it would be totally feasible to raise wages and keep the price of goods or services stable, if only corporate executives and/or shareholders were willing to give a little.

ETA. And it's a sharp commentary on our national priorities that this isn't even considered a solution that's worthy of public discussion, so thoroughly certain are we all that it's never going to happen.
Apropos of this idea: Fortune 50 CEO pay vs. our salaries.

If a CEO making 6,258 times the salary of a typical worker in hir company claims there's no way to raise wages without raising prices, they're lying. It's sheer avarice.

Open Wide...

Appeals Court Strikes Down Net Neutrality

Oh shit:

On Tuesday, a Washington appeals court ruled that the FCC's net neutrality rules are invalid in an 81-page document that included talk about cat videos on YouTube. To cut to the chase, the court says the FCC simply doesn't have the authority to force Internet Service Providers to act like mere dumb pipes, passing data through their tubes with a blind eye and sans preferential treatment.

Unlike phone companies, broadband providers aren't classified as "common carriers"—and therein lies the root of the appeal court's decision. From the ruling [pdf]:
"Because the Commission has failed to establish that the anti-discrimination and anti-blocking rules do not impose per se common carrier obligations, we vacate those portions of the Open Internet Order."
The decision holds tremendous portent for the future of the Internet.

Net neutrality advocates fear that without rules in place, big companies like Netflix, Disney, and ESPN could gain advantage over competitors by paying ISPs to provide preferential treatment to their company's data. For example, YouTube might pay extra so that its videos load faster than Hulu's on the ISP's network.

We've already seen shades of What Could Happen in AT&T's Sponsored Data and Comcast's decision to have the Xfinity TV streaming app for the Xbox 360 not count against Comcast subscribers' data caps.

"We're disappointed that the court came to this conclusion," Craig Aaron, president and CEO of digital rights group Free Press, said in a statement. "Its ruling means that Internet users will be pitted against the biggest phone and cable companies—and in the absence of any oversight, these companies can now block and discriminate against their customers' communications at will."
The issue isn't over. The FCC is already promising to "consider all available options, including those for appeal, to ensure that these networks on which the Internet depends continue to provide a free and open platform for innovation and expression, and operate in the interest of all Americans," and interested groups like the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation will certainly pursue challenges to this ruling. But this isn't good news.

It's also further evidence that the US court system is disinterested in mitigating privilege, and very interested indeed in servicing corporate interests above all.

Net Neutrality is an access issue. Who has access to information, and what kinds of information. One of the most dangerous potential outcomes of subverting net neutrality is that media with the broadest potential audience—i.e. kyriarchy-upholding garbage, which makes money hand over fist—will be the most cheaply accessible, while specialized media—i.e. kyriarchy-challenging material, which struggles to turn a profit—will be the most expensive, since media producers invested in social justice don't tend to get rich from their work.

Because Big Media doesn't have enough of an advantage already. Cripes.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

Zero: The effective tax rate of just over 10% of the companies on the S&P 500.

There are 57 separate companies listed on the index that paid a zero percent rate from the past year. Those companies include both household names like Verizon and News Corp. and lesser-known corporate giants like the data storage manufacturer Seagate (market value $15.9 billion) and Public Storage (market value $29.5 billion). Many of the companies USA Today identified in its analysis as paying negative rates make the list because they lost money, but several were profitable. Previous analyses have shown that the typical corporation pays a lower effective tax rate than most middle-class families, and a far lower one than the statutory corporate tax rate against which business interests disingenuously rail.

Getting to a zero percent tax rate despite turning a profit requires creative accounting, but not lawbreaking. The corporate tax code allows companies to avoid tax liability even in years when they turn a profit. Some of the profitable companies on the newspaper's list, such as General Motors, achieved a zero percent rate by banking tax credits from previous years when business was bad. But the more common gambit involves moving revenues from parent companies to offshore subsidiaries based in tax haven countries in the Caribbean, Europe, and elsewhere.
Neat!

Open Wide...

Just F#@k

[Content Note: Sexual harassment; worker exploitation.]

Venessa Wong at Bloomberg Businessweek: Unpaid Intern Is Ruled Not an 'Employee,' Not Protected From Sexual Harassment.

The intern alleging harassment, Lihuan Wang, filed a suit against [Phoenix Satellite Television U.S.] in January. According to the complaint, in early 2010, two weeks after Wang started working at the Chinese-language media company's New York office, her supervisor and bureau chief, Liu Zhengzhu, invited her and several co-workers to lunch. Wang claims Liu asked her to stay after the meal to discuss her work performance and then asked her to accompany him to his hotel so he could drop off a few things. In the hotel room, she alleges, Liu [sexually harassed and assaulted Wang].

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found that because Wang was an unpaid intern, not an employee, she could not bring a claim under the New York City Human Rights Law. This discrepancy's not new: Unpaid interns aren't covered by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and while local laws can protect them, New York's state and city laws do not.

According to the court's decision, the New York City Council has had several opportunities to amend the law to protect unpaid interns but has declined to do so.
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that NYC has a vast workforce of unpaid interns, hoping to jump-start careers, many of whom are working for some of the most entitled, privileged, unaccountable men in the world, who consider exploiting their female interns a perk of their positions.

Fix this shit, NYC. Jesus Jones.

Open Wide...

Republicans Think People Aren't Entitled to Food

Yesterday, I noted that the farm bill had passed the House with no funding for food stamps. The expectation was that Republicans were wrenching the two apart in order to attack the food stamp program with deep cuts. And so it begins:

House approval of a scaled-back farm bill is setting up what could be an even bigger fight over food stamps and the role of domestic food aid in the United States.

... Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., has pushed the idea of a split bill for more than a year. A farmer, he has maintained that Congress should consider food stamps by themselves.

"By splitting the bill, we can give taxpayers an honest look at how Washington spends our money," he said.

If a bill to cut food stamps reaches the House floor, it could be the first major debate over the role of the program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in decades.

... Proposals to reduce the program have ranged from what was in the original farm bill, a 3 percent cut and changes in eligibility, to an overhaul of the program that would take a fraction of the federal money now spent and give it to the states to administer. Others have proposed putting an expiration date on the program, which is now permanent, so Congress would have to take a look at it every few years.

Republicans have already supported an amendment to the original farm bill that would have put broad new work requirements on food stamps.

...The GOP caucus is divided over how much to cut. Many Republicans praised the 3 percent cut to SNAP in the original House farm bill and the changes in eligibility. But others said it didn't go far enough and voted against the bill, leading to the legislation's defeat.
The GOP is divided, once again, over how cruel to be. Part of the caucus supports cruelty; another part of the caucus supports extreme cruelty.

If that sounds like hyperbole, well, I don't know what else to call a proposal that wants to institute work requirements for access to food in the middle of an economy with widespread unemployment. It's not like members of the Republican caucus don't know what's happening in this country; they sure know the unemployment numbers well enough when they want to blame them on the President. It is a deliberate strategy of nutritional denial to attach food access to work, while work is elusive.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THINKS PEOPLE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO FOOD.

They think people are not entitled to jobs. They think people are not entitled to healthcare. They think people are not entitled to homes. They think people are not entitled to education. They think people are not entitled to safety. They think people are not entitled to equality. They think people are not entitled to vote. They think people are not entitled to agency. They think people are not entitled to any of what the baseline security of being a citizen in a wealthy democracy should guarantee.

They think people are entitled to guns and bootstraps, and that's about it.

Unless those people are corporations, robber barons, military contractors, or members of the Republican Congressional Caucus. And then they are entitled to everything for which they could ever ask, no matter the cost to the rest of us.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

"Fifty years ago today, President Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law, right here in the White House. He said it was basic to our democracy. It's the idea that all of us are created equal. And as I said in my inaugural address this year, our journey to equality is not complete until our wives, our mothers, our daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts. The day that the bill was signed into law, women earned 59 cents for every dollar a man earned on average. Today, it's about 77 cents. So it was 59 and now it's 77 cents. It's even less, by the way, if you're an African American or a Latina. So I guess that's progress, but does anybody here think that's good enough? I assume everybody thinks we can do better."—President Obama, in remarks in the East Room earlier today on the 50th Anniversary of the Equal Pay Act.

1. It has taken 50 years to move the average pay gap 18 cents closer to parity. IT HAS TAKEN 50 YEARS TO MOVE 18 CENTS. Get it the fuck together, US employers.

2. Still with the "wives, daughters, mothers" construction. Okay.

3. "I assume everybody thinks we can do better." Um, I don't. Because if "everybody" thought that, then there wouldn't be people who pay women less than men. But I guess shaming the people who actually make the decision to exploit female workers doesn't go over very well when they're the ones who pay for your party to win (or not win) elections.

Open Wide...

Means of Exploitation

[Content Note: Outsourcing; exploitation.]

The Daily What: Computer Programmer Fired for Outsourcing His Job to China.

The lead developer of a U.S. critical infrastructure company was caught...outsourcing his assignments to a Chinese consulting firm for a fifth of his six-figure annual salary. An analysis of his work computer revealed that he spent much of his work day surfing websites like Facebook, Reddit and eBay, while receiving praise for work being done by the contractors overseas.
So, I'm guessing that my position on outsourcing—which, as it has been typically practiced by US-based corporations, exploits workers in developing countries, drives down wages for workers in the US, and cares naught for basic worker rights (nor, frequently, basic human rights)—is probably pretty evident, but, in case it's not, I'm not in favor of it!

What I find interesting about this story, though, is how it is justifiable for a corporation to outsource work to maximize profits, but somehow not justifiable for an employee of that corporation to outsource work to maximize income.

Corporations are people, but people aren't corporations.

Now, there may be additional relevant details here that drove the decision to fire this guy. Critical infrastructure is something that may require background checks on people working on it, etc. But his major transgression seems to be having worked to his advantage the very same system that corporations have been using against workers for decades.

Interesting, that.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

171%: How much corporate profits have increased under the "anti-business" administration of President Barack Obama.

Business executives like to portray the Obama administration as the "most anti-business" in history, creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation." However, the data tells a far different story. According to a Bloomberg News analysis, corporate profits have grown by 171 percent under Obama, the most in the post-war era.

...Unfortunately, this profit deluge has not been shared by workers, whose wages as a percentage of the economy have fallen to all-time lows. Workers also got dinged by the recent increase in the payroll tax, which was large enough to wipe out a minimum wage increase in some states.
One of the most effective ways Republicans serve their corporate lords is by constantly ensuring the conversation we're having isn't even about true things. They obstruct, and they distract. And they tell fairy stories about how terrible Democrats are to and for business, while workers toil away under the mounting strain of neglect.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

$8.5 billion: The amount of a settlement 10 banks will have to pay over alleged foreclosure abuses against as many as 4.4 million borrowers, in a deal brokered by the Federal Reserve and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The firms involved in Monday's agreement are Aurora, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, MetLife Bank, PNC, Sovereign, SunTrust, U.S. Bank, and Wells Fargo.

The deal covers borrowers whose homes were in foreclosure in 2009 and 2010, and is distinct from the $26 billion foreclosure settlement announced last year. That settlement was negotiated by state attorneys general, not federal banking regulators, and involved only five major banks: Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, JPMorgan, and Ally Financial, formerly GMAC.
I guess I don't need to say that $8.5 billion is chump change for these megabanks, especially collectively. That'll learn 'em.

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

$1.75 trillion: US corporate earnings in the third quarter, up 18.6% from a year ago.

Corporations are currently making more as a percentage of the economy than they ever have since such records were kept. But at the same time, wages as a percentage of the economy are at an all-time low...

Corporations made a record $824 billion in profits last year as well, while the stock market has had one of its best performances since 1900 while Obama has been in office.

Meanwhile, workers are getting the short end of the stick. As CNN Money explained, "a separate government reading shows that total wages have now fallen to a record low of 43.5% of GDP. Until 1975, wages almost always accounted for at least half of GDP, and had been as high as 49% as recently as early 2001."
I'm sure that enormous wealth will start trickling down any minute now...

Open Wide...