Immigration Advocates on SB 4: We’re Resisting in Texas
Grassroots leaders and local officials wasted little time organizing a coordinated campaign to fight SB 4, a new Texas law that targets cities, towns and sheriffs that don’t cooperate with federal...
Grassroots leaders and local officials wasted little time organizing a coordinated campaign to fight SB 4, a new Texas law that targets cities, towns and sheriffs that don’t cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.
Only nine days after Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed the legislation, formally known as Senate Bill 4, into law, grassroots advocates announced a “Summer of Resistance” campaign May 16. The statute allows police officers, sheriff deputies and Texas state troopers to ask about a person’s immigration status – whether they are here legally – during a routine stop.
Read the full article here.
Richmond Fed Names McKinsey's Thomas Barkin as Its President
Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond confirmed Monday they had chosen Thomas Barkin, a senior executive at global consulting firm McKinsey & Co., as the institution’s next...
Directors at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond confirmed Monday they had chosen Thomas Barkin, a senior executive at global consulting firm McKinsey & Co., as the institution’s next president.
“We are fortunate to have found an extremely well-qualified individual to serve the Federal Reserve’s Fifth District and the American people,” Margaret Lewis, chair of the Richmond board of directors, said in a statement.
Read the full article here.
As Critics United, Stalled Battle Against Frisking Tactic Took Off
The New York Times - August 13, 2013, by J. David Goodman - As the Police Department performed a mounting number of stops on New York streets, voices of opposition, slow and scattershot,...
The New York Times - August 13, 2013, by J. David Goodman - As the Police Department performed a mounting number of stops on New York streets, voices of opposition, slow and scattershot, struggled to be heard.
Complaints, mostly from minority areas, never quite coalesced into a movement. Police officials and city leaders casually dismissed opponents, denying that the stops were race-based and pointing to the plummeting crime rate as justification for the tactics.
The stops continued to rise by the tens of thousands, as police officials pushed to drive crime levels even lower. And although the dialogue never changed, the slow unmaking of the stop-and-frisk strategy had quietly begun.
In a 16th-floor conference room in TriBeCa, roughly 40 different groups of researchers, lawyers and community activists gathered in June 2011 to plan a unified political attack on the policing practice to go along with the one being mounted in the federal courts.
The groups coalesced under one name, Communities United for Police Reform, fanning out into neighborhoods with heavy police activity and becoming a regular and loud presence at rallies on the steps of City Hall and outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan. The mantra: Change the Police Department.
Their efforts, backed by $2.2 million in grants from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, set the stage for a stunning repudiation of what has become the department’s signature street-level tactic, long defended by successive mayoral administrations.
In the City Council in late June and in a federal court on Monday, the Police Department suffered severe setbacks to its crime policy, and is now facing a court-ordered monitor,two police oversight bills and the possibility that its perceived legacy of a significant decline in crime may come with an asterisk.
“They redefined it successfully,” said Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, crediting advocates from the Communities United for Police Reform, which includes the civil liberties group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, that brought the federal suit, Floyd v. City of New York.
“By using data we’re required to produce,” Mr. Browne said, the advocates managed to reframe the debate over the stop-and-frisk policy as a numbers-oriented calculation of how often the police interactions resulted in arrests or summonses.
In a vast majority of the recorded stops, officers cited a reason other than fitting the description of a suspect as being the basis. And in nearly 90 percent of the cases, the person stopped was neither arrested nor given a summons.
“Stop-and-frisk isn’t stopping criminals,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “It is stopping innocent people.”
The battle over police stops in New York has many origins, but most see its beginnings in the killing of Amadou Diallo by a team of specialized police officers, who shot the man as he stood in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment building in 1999. That violent encounter — in the course of a stop on a darkened street — led to a report by Eliot Spitzer, then the state attorney general, titled “The New York City Police Department’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ Practices.”
“Obviously the killing of Diallo was a flash point,” said Andrew G. Celli Jr., who as the head of the civil rights bureau under Mr. Spitzer worked on the report. “But underneath it was a seething sense that people were living in a police state.”
The report shined a light on an area of policing that remained largely cloaked during the administration of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a time when data about police stops were not public, and advocates sparred more often with the department over individual actions by officers than over broad policy.
Once it became clear that the department collected detailed data on stops — from the UF-250 forms filled out by officers for each interaction — a push began for more access. The Council passed a law in 2001 requiring the department to release data on stops, including by race.
“I don’t think anybody understood at the time how important that legislation was,” said Ms. Lieberman, of the civil liberties union. “But this is a classic example of how a fight over transparency supports a campaign for reform.”
The first release of data, for stops in 2002, showed that a little more than 50 percent of the stops were of blacks and about 31 percent were of Hispanics, roughly the same as during the period studied in the Spitzer report.
To the department, those numbers made sense, because they roughly matched the racial breakdown of suspects identified by witnesses or victims of crimes. It is an argument still made forcefully by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, as it was by Mr. Giuliani when he was mayor.
Yet after taking office, Mr. Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, seemed willing to move past the issue. The city settled a lawsuit, brought shortly after the Diallo killing by the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the unit responsible for the shooting was dissolved. Under terms of the settlement, it modified the UF-250 form and created a written policy against racial profiling.
At the same time, the number of stops quietly rose each year.
The police shooting of Sean Bell, in 2006, set the stage for a new confrontation with advocates, who began asking again about data on stops. The New York Civil Liberties Union found that the department had not released it to the Council in years.
When the new stop data were finally released in 2007, the numbers were startling: 508,540 stops in 2006, up from 97,296 four years earlier. Civil rights lawyers filed the Floyd suit the next year. (The suit takes its name from David Floyd, a Bronx man who said he had been stopped more than once by the police and who served as lead plaintiff in the class action.)
Advocates from different groups — including, among others, the Legal Aid Society, Make the Road New York, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Center on Race, Crime and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice — began meeting informally.
But it was not until the first large meeting in June 2011 at 75 Varick Street, and the creation of the single coalition, that momentum began to gather, said Joo-Hyun Kang, the coalition’s director. “We’re talking about a year and a half, which is not a long time period to pass what I’d call landmark legislation,” she said, referring to a pair of oversight bills passed by the Council. (The bills were vetoed by Mr. Bloomberg; an override vote is planned for this month.)
For Mr. Celli, the former state civil rights lawyer, the Police Department missed several opportunities to change itself in ways that might have avoided a public backlash.
“They should have embraced the I.G. and sought to frame exactly what the person’s powers would be,” he said, referring to one of the bills creating an inspector general for the police. The other, a more direct response to the stop-and-frisk policy, would expand the ability of New Yorkers to sue the department over bias-based profiling.
The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, was more critical of the police, finding the department to be “deliberately indifferent to the discriminatory application of stop and frisk.”
Nonetheless, by last year, the department began to change, significantly dropping the number of stops. Commissioner Kelly denied that political pressure or the court case led to the decline, saying it had been the result of redeployment and better training.
Whatever the explanation, after record highs in the first quarter of 2012, the number of stops plummeted to near record lows by early 2013.
Jeffrey A. Fagan, a Columbia University law professor who testified against the city in the Floyd case, said the Police Department did not open itself up for self-criticism on the issue of stops.
“They became defiant about sticking to the story,” he said. “And they dismissed any questioning as being grumpy old civil rights advocates.”
Source
Here's Why The Movement For Black Lives' Demands Came At The Perfect Time
Here's Why The Movement For Black Lives' Demands Came At The Perfect Time
Last week, the DNC took over Philadelphia, television sets, and social media platforms around the country. Viewers tweeted quotes and zingers from prominent elected officials, and celebrity actors...
Last week, the DNC took over Philadelphia, television sets, and social media platforms around the country. Viewers tweeted quotes and zingers from prominent elected officials, and celebrity actors alike. For the most part, it was a vibrant convention with many celebratory acknowledgements for Hillary Clinton becoming the first woman major-party presidential nominee. But here's why The Movement For Black Lives demands, released on Monday, actually came at the perfect time. There's still a long road ahead for full equality, and every political party should continue to be challenged – even during the "glass ceiling"-shattering historic moments.
Many supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green Party candidate Jill Stein (or those simply anti-establishment) exercised their right to protest at the DNC, but even still, the underlying message last week was clear: Unite to stop Donald Trump. The Republican presidential nominee poses a real threat to already-marginalized communities in America should he be elected President – but he's not the only threat. For black lives particularly, police violence, and economic freedom are some of the lingering systemic issues that have long oppressed black communities. And it's a deep-rooted problem that continues to need attention – especially as candidates in the general election are eagerly vying for the trust of American citizens from now until November.
The Movement For Black Lives is a collective of more than 50 organizations that represent Black people across the United States, including Black Lives Matter. The collective released a comprehensive platform of demands that aim to combat the systemic marginalization of black communities:
“Black humanity and dignity requires Black political will and power. Despite constant exploitation and perpetual oppression, Black people have bravely and brilliantly been the driving force pushing the U.S. towards the ideals it articulates but has never achieved. In recent years we have taken to the streets, launched massive campaigns, and impacted elections, but our elected leaders have failed to address the legitimate demands of our Movement. We can no longer wait.”
The process to create the demands took one year – beginning last year when 2,000 people gathered in Cleveland to discuss ideas for the movement, the site read. In a breakdown of one the platform demands for political power, the collective called for an end to super PACs, and "unchecked corporate donations" that influence political elections, along with ensuring voting rights, and an increase in funding for HBCUs.
What's especially interesting about the platform, is that some of the demands, like, reparations, are often viewed unfavorably and do not make the conversation in major-party platform settings like the DNC. But some polls suggest that significant percentages of black Americans support reparations – therefore making it an important conversation, at the very least, for all political candidates.
In an interview with The New York Times, Marbre Stahly-Butts, a leader in the Movement for Black Lives Policy Table, explained why the demands "go beyond individual candidates."
"On both sides of aisle, the candidates have really failed to address the demands and the concerns of our people," she said.
And as police violence continues to disproportionately affect Black lives, among other systemic issues, it continues to be important to push for justice, during and after the general election.
By KIMBERLEY RICHARDS
Source
Three Labels Control 80% Of The U.S. Music Industry. What Responsibility Comes With That Power?
Three Labels Control 80% Of The U.S. Music Industry. What Responsibility Comes With That Power?
In recent months, the music media has responded to the political climate by zooming in on artist behavior: Have or haven’t they condemned Trump? Where do they stand? What do they suggest we do to...
In recent months, the music media has responded to the political climate by zooming in on artist behavior: Have or haven’t they condemned Trump? Where do they stand? What do they suggest we do to resist? Publications including The FADER have increasingly looked to celebrities to provide a moral compass, to demonstrate what large-scale compassion looks like, and to show their peers what they’re doing wrong.
Read the full article here.
The big 2016 minimum wage push just got a powerful new ally
A little over a year out from the presidential election, we already know the states where the fiercest battles will likely be fought. But another electoral map is shaping up too: The states where...
A little over a year out from the presidential election, we already know the states where the fiercest battles will likely be fought. But another electoral map is shaping up too: The states where voters will decide where to raise their minimum wage.
And soon, those pay-boosting ballot measures might have some serious money behind them. A large California union is seed funding an organization aimed at accelerating such campaigns around the country, seizing on growing public support for raising the minimum wage to heights that just one cycle ago would have seemed like total fantasy.
It’s called the Fairness Project, officially launching Thursday, and it’s already focusing on three jurisdictions: California, Maine and the District of Columbia, with potentially more to come as funding becomes available. And the group's main backer, the Service Employees International Union’s 80,000-person strong United Healthcare Workers local in California, says it’s talking with a handful more.
“This is the best value in American politics,” says SEIU-UHW president Dave Regan, who last year laid out a strategy to raise wages through ballot initiatives in the 24 states that allow them. “If you can amass $25 million, you can put a question in front of half the country that simply can’t be moved through legislatures because of big money in politics.”
The organization doesn’t have $25 million yet, just a couple million; Regan declined to specify exactly how much. SEIU headquarters, despite waging its own multi-million dollar “Fight for $15” campaign to raise wages around the country, has yet to pitch in (which may have something to do with the fact that Regan has had a testy relationship with SEIU’s president, Mary Kay Henry; SEIU declined to comment).
But Regan says he hopes that as union locals do their budgets for the 2016 campaigns, they’ll contribute, partly as a way to resuscitate the labor movement’s image. “Most of the discourse around unions is negative,” Regan says. "So the Fairness Project is saying, 'Look, we can win for tens of millions of people, just if we’re committed to doing this.'"
They’ve picked a soft target. According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, minimum wage measures have been tried 20 times in 16 states since 1996, and all but two succeeded. The earlier victories came in waves, starting with the “living wage” movement in the 1990s. The campaigns even work in conservative states: in 2004, John Kerry lost Florida, but a minimum wage hike passed with 70 percent of the vote.
Even though those measures may not have made it through state legislatures, in combination, they do seem to add momentum for minimum wage hikes on the federal level — Congress responded with legislation in 1997 after a spate of ballot initiatives, and again in 2007 and 2008. Sometimes, just the credible threat of a ballot initiative can spur state houses to action where previously they had no interest, although the final result may end up watered down.
Most recently, in 2014, minimum wage measures passed in Arkansas, Alaska, Nebraska, and South Dakota. This latest wave is even more ambitious than the first and second, says Brian Kettenring, co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy — and it benefits from the narrative around inequality that arose during an economic recovery that delivered very little wage growth.
"In some ways the most powerful, because it’s the most visionary in terms of the Fight for $15,” Kettenring says. “What the project hits on that really makes sense is engaging inequality through the ballot initiative.”
Still, there’s no guarantee of success, and credible initiative campaigns do take money. They also have a lot of common needs, like polling, voter targeting, Website design, and message strategy. That’s where Ryan Johnson, the Fairness Project’s executive director, says the group can help.
“There are a lot of very expensive things with ballot initiatives,” Johnson says. “Things that work with presidential campaigns — could we take the lead in investing in those directly and at scale? It saves people a couple grand here, and couple grand there.”
It’s a model that’s worked for other causes, as well, such as marriage equality and medical marijuana. The ballot initiative process has long been used by both conservative and liberal groups, with varying degrees of scale, sometimes with the side effect of driving turnout for Democratic or Republican candidates.
The support will help campaigns that usually lack major corporate financing, and have to sustain themselves with volunteers and small dollar donations. Amy Halsted, of the Maine Peoples’ Alliance, says the organization received unprecedented financial support for its push to raise the state’s minimum wage to $12 by 2020 — it has raised about $150,000.
But it could use help with big-ticket items that are more efficiently provided by a central coordinating body, like consulting and tech support. And besides, a national campaign has a galvanizing effect in itself.
“One of the things we’re excited about is their ability to sustain that energy that exists nationally, and try to create an echo chamber,” she says. "The ability to connect all the movements I think is powerful and exciting, and makes our hundreds of volunteers feel connected to a big national campaign.”
The Fairness Project may not even be the only game in town when it comes to national support for minimum wage campaigns. Seattle billionaire Nick Hanauer, who helped bankroll the successful $15 an hour campaign there, isn’t contributing — he thinks the group has got the wrong message. “The majority of workers want the economy to grow,” he wrote in an e-mail, arguing that high wages are good for business. “Growth sells. Complaining about fairness does not.” (Regan says their initial focus groups responded well to the fairness message.)
But Hanauer may be supporting other campaigns independently — including a ballot initiative in his home state of Washington. “We hope to influence the messaging on a lot of the campaigns that will unfold in ’15 and ’16,” he says.
Ballots will likely becrowded with other measures, too — with more and more state legislatures controlled by Republicans, liberal groups are trying to put gun control and marijuana legalization questions before voters directly.
Facing that popular onslaught, the business community is weighing its options.
In some places, like Maine, the opposition might not be that fierce. Although business groups grumbled when the $12 statewide ballot initiative was introduced, the state’s biggest city — Portland — already passed a law that would raise the wage at least that high by 2018. On top of that, they’refighting a city vote on a local $15 minimum.
“$12 is not out of the question here, as long as it's statewide,” said Toby McGrath, who’s running the campaign against the $15 measure for the Portland Chamber of Commerce.
California, however, will see a more pitched battle. Business groups managed to stall a $13 minimum wage hike proposal in the legislature. Tom Scott, California’s state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, says there's still a lot of time yet to build an employer response to the ballot measure that labor backers say just got enough signatures to qualify.
“There’s going to be a huge coalition opposition a minimum wage increase,” he says. “This is a very long process. And the one thing about ballot initiatives — depending on how it’s worded, if it’s a yes or a no, in California, if I can in 15 seconds create confusion or questions, people will typically vote no.”
But if young people vote in large numbers, Scott worries they could be hard to beat. “I would just be fearful of the voter turnout,” he says, "and the demographics of who’s turning out.”
After publication, SEIU headquarters reached out to add the following statement:
SEIU works directly with our local unions in states to evaluate ballot initiatives on a state by state basis and determine which ones will advance better jobs and better wages for working people.
Source: Washington Post
How Flake came to secure Kavanaugh delay
At a crucial moment during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rancorous debate on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) realized he had to act and ducked out of the...
At a crucial moment during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s rancorous debate on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) realized he had to act and ducked out of the hearing room.
Read the full article here.
Latinos make up majority of fatal falls at construction sites in NY
Al Jazeera America – October 24, 2013, by Dexter Mullins and Roxana Saberi -
Latino and immigrant workers are at a disproportionate risk of dying from construction-site accidents in New...
Al Jazeera America – October 24, 2013, by Dexter Mullins and Roxana Saberi -
Latino and immigrant workers are at a disproportionate risk of dying from construction-site accidents in New York, according to a new report conducted by the Center for Popular Democracy.
The report, “Fatal Inequality: Workplace Safety Eludes Construction Workers of Color in New York State,” is based on investigations from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) from 2003 to 2011 that analyze fatalities from falls at construction sites.
According to the findings, 60 percent of the 136 fall-related fatalities in New York state were Latinos or immigrants. In New York City, the number was 74 percent. Queens and Brooklyn were the two most dangerous boroughs to work in during the years studied. In Queens 88 percent of those who died were Latinos or immigrants, and in Brooklyn 87 percent of those who fell were Latinos or immigrants.
Latinos comprise only about 35 percent of all construction workers in New York City.
“Latino workers are the most vulnerable workers in the nation, and we’ve been talking about this for a number of years,” Hector Sanchez of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement told Al Jazeera. “This report is a reminder of what is happening and why Latino workers are the ones who suffer the most from deaths and injuries in the workplace. It’s important to understand what the consequences of this are and why they are happening.”
The vast majority, 86 percent, of the Latino or immigrant workers’ deaths were at sites run by nonunion employers, where workers often are reluctant to report safety violations out of fear of retaliation from contractors. The report also says that Latinos are more likely to work at nonunion sites, which have more safety violations.
A New York state law requires contractors and construction company owners to provide all necessary equipment to keep workers on site safe or be held fully liable if lack of safety measures result in the injury or death of a worker. According to the report, construction and insurance companies are trying to have the law amended so that workplace safety would be the responsibility of the workers.
OSHA, which is tasked with inspecting work sites, has 113 inspectors in New York state. According to the report, if OSHA were to inspect every construction site in the state, it would take the workers 107 years to visit each site once. At 85 percent of sites where a worker fell and died, OSHA found there was a “serious, gravity 10″ violation of workplace safety standards.
The Center for Popular Democracy is pushing for construction companies to do more to improve worker safety and has also called on OSHA to hire and train more inspectors and stiffen penalties for safety violations.
Source
100 groups call for Climate Investment Funds to sunset
100 groups call for Climate Investment Funds to sunset
Ahead of this week's meeting of the trust funds of the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, 100 groups have called for the CIFs to finally sunset, now that the Green Climate Fund is clearly...
Ahead of this week's meeting of the trust funds of the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds, 100 groups have called for the CIFs to finally sunset, now that the Green Climate Fund is clearly operational. Two-thirds of the groups are from developing countries.
Here's the letter.
June 14, 2016
Dear Trust Fund Committee Members of the Strategic Climate Fund and Clean Technology Fund:
Now that it has approved projects and is beginning to disburse money, the Green Climate Fund is clearly operational. It is thus also unambiguously clear that it is time for the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds to sunset.
Since their inception, the CIFs were meant to be interim funds. In 2008, the sunset clauses of the Strategic Climate Fund and the Clean Technology Fund said, “…the SCF will take necessary steps to conclude its operations once a new [UNFCCC] financial architecture is effective…” and “the CTF will take necessary steps to conclude its operations once a new [UNFCCC] financial architecture is effective.”[1] That new financial architecture – the Green Climate Fund – is now indisputably effective. The CIFs’ raison d'etre has expired; attempts to reinterpret the obvious must cease.
Unlike the multilateral development bank-driven CIFs, the GCF was set up according to the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. With a governance structure evenly split between developed and developing countries, the GCF is founded on a “country-driven approach” accountable to the institutions and people in developing countries, and has placed a premium on direct access to funds by developing country entities. The GCF promotes a gender-sensitive approach to its funding – the first climate fund to do so from the outset of its activities.
While lessons learned from the CIFs should be applied to the GCF, efforts to spin the CIFs as complementary to the GCF are disingenuous. Resources directed toward the CIFs are resources that should instead be directed to the GCF. Any effort to raise new sources of finance for the CIFs should cease immediately, and there should be no new investments.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
11.11.11-Coalition of the Flemish North-South Movement, Belgium
ActionAid International
Aksi for Gender, Social and Ecological Justice, Indonesia
All Nepal Peasants Federation, Nepal
All Nepal Women’s Association, Nepal
Alliance Sud, Switzerland
Alyansa Tigil Mina (Alliance Against Mining), Philippines
Aniban ng Manggagawa sa Agrikultura, Philippines
Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development, Thailand
Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development, Regional
ATTAC Japan
BankTrack, Netherlands
Beyond Beijing Committee, Nepal
Both ENDS, Netherlands
Bretton Woods Project, United Kingdom
Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino, Philippines
Campaign for Climate Justice, Nepal
Carbon Market Watch, Belgium
Center for Biological Diversity, United States
Center for Environment, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Center for Popular Democracy, United States
Center for Socio-Economic Research and Development, Nepal
Centre for 21st century Issues (C21st), Nigeria
Centre for Social Impact Studies, Ghana
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Développement, Cameroon
Centro Humboldt, Nicaragua
Centro Salvadoreño de Tecnologia Apropiada/Friends of the Earth El Salvador
Christian Aid, United Kingdom
Civic Concern Nepal
Climate Action Network Europe, Regional
Climate Change & Development NGO Alliance, Azerbaijan
Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC), Mexico
CNCD-11.11.11, Belgium
Consumers Protection Association, Lesotho
Digo Bikas Institute, Nepal
Ecological Christian Organisation, Uganda
Ecological Society of the Philippines
Environics Trust, India
Farmers Forum South Asia, Regional
Finance & Trade Watch, Austria
Food & Water Watch, United States
Foundation HELP, Tanzania
Freedom from Debt Coalition, Philippines
Friends of the Earth - England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth United States
Gender Action, United States
Global Catholic Climate Movement Pilipinas, Philippines
Green Development Advocates, Cameroon
Haburas Foundation/ Friends of the Earth Timor Leste
Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America
Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, India
Human Rights Alliance Nepal
Indian Social Action Forum, India
Indigenous Environmental Network, United States/International
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, United States
Institute for Policy Studies, Climate Policy Program, United States
Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA), Regional
International.Lawyers.Org, Switzerland
Jagaran Nepal
Jamaa Resource Initiatives, Kenya
Jeunes Volontaires pour l'Environnement, Niger
Kitanglad Integrated NGOs, Inc., Philippines
Korea Federation for Environmental Movements, South Korea
KRuHA – Peoples Coalition on Water, Indonesia
Labour, Health and Human Rights Development Centre, Nigeria
LDC Watch, International
Leads Nigeria
Les Amis de la Terre France
Migrant Forum in Asia, Regional
National Coastal Women's Movement, India
National Hawkers Federation, India
National Women Peasants Association, Nepal
Nepal Youth Peasants Association, Nepal
Nigerian Conservation Foundation, Nigeria
NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark
PALAG Mindanao, Philippines
Panay Rural Development Center, Inc., Philippines
Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, Philippines
Philippine Network for Rural Development and Democratization, Philippines
Policy Analysis and Research Institute of Lesotho
Population, Health, Environment Ethiopia Consortium, Ethiopia
Practical Action, United Kingdom
Reacción Climática, Bolivia
River Basin Friends, India
Rural Reconstruction Nepal
Sahabat Alam Malaysia/Friends of the Earth Malaysia
Sanlakas Philippines
Solidaritas Perempuan, Indonesia
South Asia Alliance for Poverty Eradication, Regional
South Asia Food Sovereignty Network, Regional
South Asia Peasants Coalition, Regional
Southern Oregon Climate Action Now, United States
Students for a Just and Stable Future, United States
SustainUS, United States
Third World Network, Malaysia
Trade Union Policy Institute of Nepal
VOICE Bangladesh
WomanHealth Philippines
Women Welfare Society, Nepal
Worldview-The Gambia
By Karen Orenstein
Source
Zara Latest ‘Cool’ Retailer in Hot Water for Alleged Discrimination
Spanish fashion chain Zara is among several “hip” retailers making headlines recently for alleged discrimination against employees.
Ian Miller, a former attorney for the mega-...
Spanish fashion chain Zara is among several “hip” retailers making headlines recently for alleged discrimination against employees.
Ian Miller, a former attorney for the mega-retailer, claims he was harassed and discriminated against for being Jewish and gay. In his $40 million lawsuit against the company, which is owned by Inditex SA, Miller alleges that he was excluded from meetings, given smaller raises than other employees and subjected to discriminatory remarks.
In addition, the Center for Popular Democracy released a survey of New York–based Zara employees, titled “Stitched with Prejudice: Zara USA’s Corporate Culture of Favoritism.” The report found that black employees are more dissatisfied with their hours than white employees, are reviewed more harshly by management and are least likely to be promoted.
When it comes to people who shop at Zara, black customers are seven times more likely to be targeted as potential thieves than white customers, the report found.
A spokesperson for Inditex refuted the claims in the Center for Popular Democracy report in a statement to FOXBusiness.com.
“It fails to follow an acceptable methodology for the conduct of a credible objective survey on workplace practices, and instead appears to have taken an approach to achieve a pre-determined result which was to discredit Zara. Zara USA believes that the claims made in the report are completely inconsistent with the company’s true culture and the experiences of the over 1,100 Zara employees in New York City and over 3,500 in all the US,” said the spokesperson.
Perhaps even more high profile is a discrimination case involving Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF), which made its way to the Supreme Court. The preppy retailer known for its presence in American malls was sued by Samantha Elauf, a young Muslim woman who wore a headscarf to a job interview at the company seven years ago.
“Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie before its hiring decision that she wore her head scarf, or ‘hijab,’ for religious reasons,” the ruling stated.
The Supreme Court recently overturned that decision.
A spokesperson for Abercrombie & Fitch told FOXBusiness.com in a statement that although the Tenth Circuit decision was overturned by the Supreme Court, it was not determined that the company discriminated against Elauf.
“We will determine our next steps in the litigation, which the Supreme Court remanded for further consideration. A&F remains focused on ensuring the company has an open-minded and tolerant workplace environment for all current and future store associates. We have made significant enhancements to our store associate policies, including the replacement of the 'look policy' with a new dress code that allows associates to be more individualistic; changed our hiring practices to not consider attractiveness; and changed store associates' titles from 'Model' to 'Brand Representative' to align with their new customer focus. This case relates to events occurring in 2008. A&F has a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion, and consistent with the law, has granted numerous religious accommodations when requested, including hijabs,” the spokesperson said.
Nasty Gal, a self-described “global online destination for fashion-forward, free-thinking girls,” is being sued for illegally firing Aimee Concepcion and several other employees either before taking or during maternity/paternity leave.
The lawyer for the former employee that filed the suit, who will represent three other female ex-employees in arbitration hearings, said “they were the only pregnant females who provided notice of maternity leave before being terminated, and …their jobs were taken over by other employees.”
"The accusations made in the lawsuits are false, defamatory and taken completely out of context,” a Nasty Gal spokesperson told FOXBusiness.com. “The layoffs in question were part of a larger restructuring of departments we completed over nine months ago. The lawsuits are frivolous and without merit."
When it comes to the likelihood of this case succeeding in court, it is worth looking to similar prior verdicts for perspective.
“Shortly before they filed the Nasty Gal lawsuit, a $7.7 million verdict in favor of a pregnant (at the pertinent time) Price is Right model was affirmed by a California appellate court,” said Jeff Trexler, associate director at Fordham’s Fashion Law Institute.
On the flip side, “If Nasty Gal can show that it actually provided the requisite notices, offered reasonable accommodation to her (Concepcion’s) pregnancy, wasn't motivated to fire her because of her pregnancy, and did not treat pregnant women differently from other employees in similar positions, there's a substantial possibility that the company will prevail,” said Trexler.
Retail stores have also received flack in recent months for selling discriminatory merchandise. Urban Outfitters (URBN) was condemned by organizations including the Human Rights Campaign and the Anti-Defamation League for a gray- and white-striped tapestry imprinted with a pink triangle that was sold at a store in Boulder, Colorado. The groups said the item projected Holocaust imagery, specifically of the uniforms gay men were forced to wear in Nazi concentration camps. Calls for comment to Urban Outfitters were not returned by the time of publication.
Despite the extent of public outcry over the merchandise, Urban Outfitters is technically allowed to sell whatever it wants.
“Designs evocative of Nazi imagery may be offensive, but they're no more illegal than the Confederate flag; ultimately, the decision to stop selling designs with either image comes down to ethical and reputation management concerns,” said Trexler.
In recent weeks, several retailers including Wal-Mart (WMT), Sears (SHLD) and Amazon (AMZN) announced they would stop selling Confederate battle flag merchandise following the mass shooting in June at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina.
No stranger to controversy, Zara was also accused of selling discriminatory merchandise. A 2014 white-and-blue striped shirt, which featured a six-pointed star, came under fire for its resemblance to uniforms worn by Jewish prisoners at Nazi concentration camp. The “sheriff shirt” was pulled from the retailer’s site after it issued an apology.
So, is outcry over discrimination becoming more common in the retail industry, or is it simply that intense media scrutiny is making it seem like it is?
“Allegations of discrimination are nothing new in fashion, as with any business, but what's particularly noteworthy now is their potential to have a substantial negative impact on a brand,” said Trexler. “One could say that the way people characterize discrimination is shifting from incident to identity, and in this fashion reflects a broader cultural trend that has emerged alongside advances in communications technology.”
When asked if changes in the law are making discrimination lawsuits easier to file, Trexler said that enforcement has shifted “in ways that arguably encourage people to take legal action.”
Most notably, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has worked to make pregnancy discrimination an enforcement priority, and a Supreme Court decision also raised awareness on the issue.
“Acts that might have gone unchallenged in years past now might be more likely to spark a lawsuit,” said Trexler.
Source: Fox Business
6 days ago
6 days ago