Campaign News

There is a battle under way for our democracy. The choice that lies in front of us: Will we be a country that guarantees every eligible citizen the right to vote and participate? Or will we allow states and politicians to twist voting rules and ignore constitutional rights in order to limit access to democracy?

That is the choice in front of us, and it is not an abstract choice.

Read the full article here.

The New York Times - June 23, 2013, Editorial - The revelation in 2011 that the New York City Police Department was spying on law-abiding Muslims rightly attracted scrutiny from the Justice Department, which announced last year that it intended to review the program. The disclosure also raised troubling questions about whether the city was violating a federal court order that bars it from retaining information gleaned from investigations of political activity unless there are reasonable indications of potential wrongdoing. The purpose of that order was to discourage unjustified surveillance and prevent police from peering into people’s private affairs and building dossiers on them without legitimate cause.

Now comes a new federal lawsuit filed on behalf of Muslim citizens and organizations saying they have been subjected to illegal surveillance that has disrupted Muslim houses of worship, made it difficult for congregants and their spiritual leaders to worship freely, and inhibited Muslims from openly associating with lawful Muslim charities and civic groups and exercising First Amendment rights.

One striking case in the complaint involves Masjid At-Taqwa, a mosque in Brooklyn, where the Police Department is alleged to have installed a surveillance camera, clearly marked with the department’s insignia and pointed at the mosque door. This seems curious because the mosque’s longtime leader, Imam Siraj Wahhaj, was said in the complaint to be a clergy liaison for the N.Y.P.D. Community Affairs Bureau and a member of the Majlis Ash-Shura, also known as the Islamic Leadership Council of Metropolitan New York.

The camera, which the complaint says was moved across the street but remains in use, raised fears among congregants that they were being targeted for deportation. Many refrained from attending communal prayer; some left the congregation. Concerned that their religious pronouncements might be misquoted by informants, the mosque’s spiritual leaders began recording sermons so that they would be able to defend themselves. They have said they avoided meeting with congregants individually because they feared the congregants might be informants.

Meanwhile, according to the complaint, a police informant who visited this and other mosques tried to lure congregants into inflammatory conversations that would then have been reported to the police. According to court documents, the informant tried the same strategy with a Muslim charity that distributed food to the needy. The group, which apparently did nothing illegal, lost credibility in the community once people learned that it had been a target of police scrutiny.

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly has responded to such complaints by insisting that the department’s surveillance program is perfectly legal and implying that critics are undermining public safety. This is the same response he offers when challenged on the stop-and-frisk program. This arrogant approach tries to discredit legitimate criticism while justifying further overreach by a department with a history of abusive behavior. It is up to the courts to determine whether the Muslim surveillance program and the stop-and-frisk program are constitutional. What already seems clear is that these surveillance policies create suspicion and mistrust, which does not help the Police Department or anyone else.

Source

"We hope that John Williams's tenure as president will not be characterized by the same disregard for the public as his appointment was." -- Fed Up, a coalition of progressive non-profits focused on reshaping the central bank.

Read the full article here.

Six national retailers will cease to use on-call scheduling methods for employees nationwide following a multistate investigation, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced in a press release Tuesday.

Aeropostale, Carter’s, David’s Tea, Disney, PacSun, and Zumiez were approached by attorney generals in eight states and the District of Columbia regarding the scheduling practice, which requires employees to contact the employer to know if they are to work a scheduled shift. Companies using this scheduling method often ask employees to call only one to two hours before a shift would begin, creating an unpredictable work schedule, according to a written statement from Schneiderman’s office.

The inquiry, which was sent to 15 retailers in April 2016, said the nature of on-call scheduling negatively impacts workers. Employees at these retailers may have difficulty making arrangements for childcare and elder-care and pursuing higher education, according to the letter. The letter also states employees subjected to on-call scheduling “in general experience higher incidences of adverse health effects, overall stress, and strain on family life” than workers who know their schedule in advance.

“People should not have to keep the day open, arrange for child care, and give up other opportunities without being compensated for their time,” Schneiderman said in a written statement.

Nearly 50,000 employees of the six retailers nationwide will be affected by the agreement.

“We are especially glad that employers like Disney and Carter’s, whose brands promote putting families first, will stop using on-call shifts that are notorious for wreaking havoc on families’ balance and puts undue stress on children,” Carrie Gleason, director of the Fair Workweek Initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy, said in a written statement.

Of the 15 retailers that received the inquiry letter regarding on-call shift scheduling, nine said they did not use on-call scheduling or had recently ceased doing so.

Employers in New York State are required to pay any employee who is either called into work or requests to work same-day to be scheduled “for at least four hours, or the amount of hours in a regularly scheduled shift, whichever is less, at the basic minimum hourly wage.”

Schneiderman sent a similar letter of inquiry in 2015 requesting retailers to end on-call scheduling. Of those, Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, J. Crew, Urban Outfitters, Pier 1 Imports, and L Brands – the parent company of Bath & Body Works and Victoria’s Secret – were among the companies who agreed to end on-call scheduling.

By Jenna Macri 

Source