‘Look at me when I’m talking to you!’: Crying protesters confront Jeff Flake in Capitol elevator
‘Look at me when I’m talking to you!’: Crying protesters confront Jeff Flake in Capitol elevator
After Sen. Jeff Flake’s announcement that he would, in fact, vote to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the U.S....
After Sen. Jeff Flake’s announcement that he would, in fact, vote to confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court, the emotional debate over the confirmation spilled into the halls of Congress — on live television — as two women loudly and tearfully confronted the Arizona Republican in an elevator Friday, telling him that he was dismissing the pain of sexual-assault survivors.
“What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit in the Supreme Court,” one woman, who said she had been sexually assaulted, shouted during a live CNN broadcast as Flake was making his way to a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting. The Center for Popular Democracy, a left-leaning advocacy organization, later identified her as the group’s co-executive director, Ana Maria Archila.
“This is horrible,” she told Flake. “You have children in your family. Think about them.”
Read the article and watch the video here.
Jamie Dimon Steps in It
Jamie Dimon picked one hell of a week to lean in to Donald Trump. On Tuesday, the day after the Washington Post...
Jamie Dimon picked one hell of a week to lean in to Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, the day after the Washington Post revealed the president had shared highly classified information with Russian diplomats and a week after he fired James Comey, the veteran CEO of JPMorgan Chase told investors at the bank’s annual shareholder meeting that he wouldn’t step down from his perch on Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum, an advisory council of powerful American executives. “He is the president of the United States. I believe he is the pilot flying our airplane,” Dimon said. “I would try to help any president of the United States, because I’m a patriot.” Dimon surely wishes he’d said something different. Only hours later came the news that according to a memo by Comey, Trump had asked the FBI director to end his agency’s inquiry into former Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn—a revelation that has brought Trump’s presidency to its lowest, most tumultuous point yet.
Read the full article here.
Wall Street, listo para lucrar con el muro de Trump
Wall Street, listo para lucrar con el muro de Trump
Buena parte de la discusión sobre el muro fronterizo del presidente Donald Trump se ha enfocado en su costo e...
Buena parte de la discusión sobre el muro fronterizo del presidente Donald Trump se ha enfocado en su costo e impracticabilidad, así como en la retórica antiinmigrante y racista que encarna. Sin embargo, se le ha prestado poca atención a quién específicamente podría beneficiarse de la construcción.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
FEMA acknowledges poor preparation for 2017 hurricane season that devastated Puerto Rico
FEMA acknowledges poor preparation for 2017 hurricane season that devastated Puerto Rico
Julio López Varona, an organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy, told ThinkProgress on Friday morning via email...
Julio López Varona, an organizer at the Center for Popular Democracy, told ThinkProgress on Friday morning via email that FEMA’s acknowledgement of the “inadequacy of their response” was a “welcome change” but that for Puerto Ricans, the admission may be cold comfort.
118-Mile March to Confront White Supremacy Reclaims Farragut Square in D.C.
118-Mile March to Confront White Supremacy Reclaims Farragut Square in D.C.
On Wednesday afternoon, the 118-mile March to Confront White Supremacy culminated in Washington, D.C. near the Martin...
On Wednesday afternoon, the 118-mile March to Confront White Supremacy culminated in Washington, D.C. near the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial. Also referred to as the “Cville 2 DC March,” the nonviolent protest began in Charlottesville after one of the largest white supremacist events in recent U.S. history—staged in defense of a monument to Confederate General Robert E. Lee—left one dead and dozens injured.
Read the full article here.
State legislators clash over the rights of charter schools
State legislators clash over the rights of charter schools
To state Sen. Owen Hill, the issue is simple. "We [should] treat all public school students equally within a district...
To state Sen. Owen Hill, the issue is simple.
"We [should] treat all public school students equally within a district," the Colorado Springs Republican says.
Hill, chair of the Senate Education Committee as his second four-year term begins, says that's not happening right now because charter schools don't always get an equal share of mill levy increases approved by school district voters.
The money from those taxes isn't divvied up automatically based on pupil counts. Instead, it's distributed based on contracts that charters agree to when approved by a school district. Some districts might give charters a large share of those funds; some may not give them any.
Hill is co-sponsoring Senate Bill 61 — similar to a bill of his that failed last session — trying to change that system. The bill would require school districts to distribute mill levies on a per-pupil basis, starting in the 2017-18 school year, to charters and traditional public schools.
Some exceptions exist. If a mill levy was passed to fund something that a charter doesn't offer (like school buses), the charter won't get the money. If a charter school was authorized by a school district other than the one it was located within, then the authorizing district would only owe it the per-pupil amount for kids who reside in its boundaries. Charter schools authorized by the state's Charter School Institute would be compensated by the Department of Education based on a calculation of mill levies collected by "the charter school's accounting district."
To Hill, the bill aims to correct an unfair situation. Currently, he says, "[Parents have] got this situation where they go to one school on one side of the street and that school receives $10,000 for that child, or if they go to the school on the other side of the street, the school board will basically say, 'Well, all you get is $2,500 if your child goes there.' So now we're picking winners and losers among our kids."
But Hill's view isn't shared by all legislators or education workers.
What Hill leaves out, they say, is that charters aren't equal in any other way — they don't follow the same rules or meet the same standards. So why, they say, should they be treated the same only when it comes to funding?
When Colorado legalized charters in 1993, it was hoped they would foster innovation, serve different needs and give options to families in struggling areas.
Many specialize. In Colorado Springs, for instance, two new charters were recently authorized: Landmark Community School, a sober high school, and the Colorado Military Academy, a military-style K-12.
Charters may not get all the district funds they desire, but they receive no less than 95 percent of state per-pupil funding, often get a portion of district funding, and can apply for a variety of federal and private funds.
Back in 2014, for instance, Philanthropy News Digest reported, "Denver-based DSST Public Schools [a system of charter schools] has announced a $7 million pledge from cable television entrepreneur John C. Malone and the Malone Family Foundation." The Walton Family Foundation announced last year that it would give $1 billion over the next five years to expand charters and school choice.
Charters are not forced to abide by all laws and standards that apply to traditional public schools. According to the Colorado Department of Education, charter schools are automatically granted waivers to 17 state laws. Among them are "local board duties concerning competitive bidding" and "local board powers — accepting gifts, donations and grants." Unlike traditional schools, charters are not required to hire licensed teachers nor must they follow many employment rules that apply to firing and paying teachers.
What's more, charters can ask the State Board of Education to waive other laws. Charters are eligible to have all but three sections of laws waived. What that means, says Sen. Mike Merrifield, D-Colorado Springs and a former high school music teacher, is that charters get a pass on many expensive requirements, but are free to raise money in ways that are difficult or impossible for traditional public schools.
"I would be more inclined to be supportive [of Senate Bill 61] if [charters] would adhere to all the same requirements that local public schools do," Merrifield says.
Another critic: the state's largest teachers' union, the Colorado Education Association. CEA President Kerrie Dallman has a litany of complaints about SB61. Chief among them: "We have a chronically underfunded system, and what Owen Hill's bill does is pull money out of classrooms in order to direct it to these charter schools. What we ought to be doing is talk about growing the pie."
The charter system in general also has its detractors. A statewide poll of 500 registered voters in January 2016 found that "voters overwhelmingly favor charter school reform proposals."
The GBA Strategies poll, performed for In the Public Interest and the Center for Popular Democracy, found, for instance, that 88 percent wanted to "require state officials to conduct regular audits of charter schools' finances to detect fraud, waste or abuse of public funds"; 76 percent wanted to "require charter schools to publicly disclose they are exempt from some state or school district laws including the law requiring public school teachers to be licensed to teach"; and 74 percent wanted to "require companies and organizations that manage charter schools to disclose outside funding including gifts, grants, and donations." The margin of error was plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.
Last summer, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the Movement for Black Lives (which includes Black Lives Matter organizers) both came out against charter schools. The groups expressed concerns ranging from the privatization of the public school system to segregation based on perceived abilities, to lack of transparency and accountability. That's notable, because charters, remember, were originally seen as a better way to educate underserved communities.
Cheyenne Mountain School District 12 Superintendent Walt Cooper says his district has long had a great relationship with its charter, The Vanguard School, which is actually located just outside D-12's boundaries. D-12 authorized it agreeing that Vanguard would get a per-pupil portion of D-12's mill levies — but only for Vanguard students living within D-12's boundaries. Cooper says the agreement was fair, and it actually wouldn't change should SB61 pass (a key change from last year's version of the bill). But he opposed Hill's first bill, and he's not keen on SB61 either.
Cooper says he's a fan of local control, adding, "A one-size-fits-all approach does not work."
What's more, he says, there are differences between charters and traditional schools — and that's fine. But, he says, "Let's either all play by exactly the same rules ... or recognize [charters] for the fact that they are different and let's not try to make them the same."
Hill has a counter to the "charters are different" argument. School districts can apply for waivers to state laws too, he says.
That's true. Districts can apply for waivers for "innovation schools" with specific, approved plans. But they don't get automatic waivers, and aren't eligible for as many waivers as charters. Plus, Cooper says, the state board seems less inclined to grant waivers for traditional schools.
He recounts D-12's recent waiver application for its kindergarten program. Cooper says he worked with Vanguard, whose application for the same waiver was approved immediately, to produce his own application. But Cooper's proposal wasn't rubber-stamped. It took three months, three tries and appearing before the state board to get his application approved, with a three-year sunset.
"Basically, we copied their [Vanguard's] homework, and they got an A and we got a D," he says. "We were asking for exactly the same thing."
By J. Adrian Stanley
Source
Republicans Are Scrambling To Save An Arizona House Seat In GOP Territory
Republicans Are Scrambling To Save An Arizona House Seat In GOP Territory
Tipirneni's biggest individual national booster may be Ady Barkan, an ALS-stricken activist who leads the progressive...
Tipirneni's biggest individual national booster may be Ady Barkan, an ALS-stricken activist who leads the progressive Center for Popular Democracy Action. Barkan, who played a lead role in Capitol Hill protests against the GOP tax cuts, traveled to the district to campaign for Tipirneni ― and press Lesko about her stances on cutting major social insurance programs.
Read the full article here.
Immigration Advocates Concerned Whether President Obama's Plans Will Help Families
New York Daily News - November 15, 2014, by Celeste Katz - Local advocacy groups — eager for details on President Obama...
New York Daily News - November 15, 2014, by Celeste Katz - Local advocacy groups — eager for details on President Obama’s plan to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation — are concerned many families may still be vulnerable.
At issue is the possibility Obama may limit work permits for parents of children who are in the U.S. legally to those who have been in the country 10 years.
“It’s very important that the President acts to include that segment of folks that have been here more than five years but less than 10 years,” said Steven Choi, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
Some advocates were careful to be gentle in their criticisms.
Lucia Gomez of La Fuente said, “The general consensus is everyone is extremely excited,” but added her members hope Obama goes “full force” with protections.
“We hope the Obama administration announces policies that will keep families together and allow for as many people as possible to live with dignity,” said Ana Maria Archila of the Center for Popular Democracy.
Source
In $15's Wake, Fair Scheduling Gains Momentum
Worker movements have had tremendous success in blue cities and states in securing higher minimum wages and access to...
Worker movements have had tremendous success in blue cities and states in securing higher minimum wages and access to paid sick leave. Now those wins are blazing a trail for another critical policy for low-wage workers: the right to a fair workweek. After enacting a $15 minimum wage and paid sick leave in recent years, two cities are now leading the way on granting workers the right to a sane and predictable schedule.
Last week, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his support for legislation currently pending in the city council that would give Gotham’s fast-food workers the right to more predictable work hours. On Monday, the Seattle City Council passed a comprehensive fair workweek law that advocates hope can serve as a model for other cities.
These policy developments come at a time when many workers say that service-sector employers’ scheduling practices make it impossible for them to live their lives. On-call scheduling—in which workers can be told to report to work with little advance notice—make it hard for employees to schedule parenting, school, doctor visits, and much else. Scheduling software aimed solely at efficiency can lengthen or eliminate their shifts at the last minute. On top of that, the prevalent practice of “clopening”—where a worker has a closing shift followed just a few hours later by an opening shift—often leaves workers with little time to rest. Meanwhile, workers are on the hook for the costs of uncertainty, like a last-minute taxi ride to work or unexpected child-care costs.
In one nationwide survey, four out of five early-career adult workers said that their weekly hours fluctuated by an average of 87 percent compared with their usual hours; 45 percent of hourly workers who are parents said they have no input on their schedules.
Fair-scheduling advocates say it's time for employees to have more say in scheduling practices—and for employers to finally pay their workers for the costs that their flexible schedule imposes on employees (like those taxi rides and child care). They are also demanding that companies stop hiring more and more workers to maximize flexibility while cutting hours for existing workers.
In 2014, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in the country to mandate fair-scheduling practices with its unprecedented “Retail Workers Bill of Rights.”
In 2014, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction in the country to mandate fair-scheduling practices with its unprecedented “Retail Workers Bill of Rights.” The new Seattle law will build on that by requiring that employers give workers two weeks advance notice on shift schedules—any changes made to schedules after that requires additional compensation for the worker, including half-time pay for any hours an employer cuts or cancels. Workers will have the right to request flexible scheduling without fear of retaliation.
Workers will also have protections against “clopening.” The proposed law would be the first in the country to require an employee’s consent for shifts that allow less than ten hours of rest, and to mandate that “clopening” workers get paid time and a half. Additionally, employers would be required to offer available hours to part-time workers before hiring additional workers. Companies that have been found to consistently under-schedule workers and make last-minute shift changes would be subject to fines.
“These are critical steps forward. If you don’t get that many hours, earning $15 only goes so far.”
On the opposite coast, the New York City legislation focuses on the 65,000 workers in the city’s fast-food industry. As such, it follows the pattern set by Fight for 15 organizers, who first convinced Governor Andrew Cuomo to convene a wage board for fast food last year, later to be followed by a general increase in the state minimum wage. “We are in a battle to restore dignity and decent living to retail and service workers in industries where that really has been badly eroded in recent years,” New York City Councilmember Brad Lander told the Prospect in an interview. “These are critical steps forward. If you don’t get that many hours, earning $15 only goes so far.”
As in the Seattle legislation, New York fast-food employers would be required to give workers two weeks advance notice on expected shifts, mandate additional compensation for last-minute changes to a worker’s schedule, and provide protections for workers who are “clopening.” However, as of now, the proposed policy gives employers a week of wiggle room after setting the schedule to make changes before locking it in.
The policy initiative is in the beginning stages, Lander stresses, and the city council may push for any number of changes, including broadening the law to include the entire service industry. As of now, the policy is aimed at the same group of fast-food employers that Cuomo’s wage board dealt with—chains with 30 or more locations nationwide. It’s those bigger chains that already utilize sophisticated scheduling software to minimize labor costs. They can use that same software, Lander says, to ensure that workers have a predictable and secure workweek.
To date, fair-scheduling laws have lagged behind wage hikes and paid sick-day ordinances in city halls and statehouses.
To date, fair-scheduling laws have lagged behind wage hikes and paid sick-day ordinances in city halls and statehouses. At the federal level, in 2014, Representative Rosa DeLauro and Senator Elizabeth Warren introduced the Schedules that Work Act, which protects hourly workers from scheduling abuses—though with Republican control of Congress, the bill hasn’t gone anywhere.
But fair workweek policies now appear primed to become the next front in the low-wage worker movement.
But fair workweek policies now appear primed to become the next front in the low-wage worker movement. In response to pressure from SEIU’s Local 32BJ, a powerful force along the Eastern seaboard, policy-makers in Connecticut, Washington, D.C., and Jersey City may soon pass new rules that mandate 30-hour workweeks for service workers, like security guards and janitors, in large commercial and residential buildings. In November, voters in San Jose will decide on a ballot measure that would require companies with 35 or more workers to offer additional hours to part-timers before taking on new employees.
Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis are also considering fair-scheduling measures for retail and fast-food chains, though both efforts have run into heavy resistance from the business lobby. Workers and organizers are also pushing for a fair-scheduling law in Emeryville, a small city between Berkeley and Oakland that is a major retail-shopping destination for the east Bay Area.
“The momentum with the Fight for 15 has opened up this new space where policy-makers are starting to listen to the real needs that the country’s workforce has been talking about for a long time,” says Carrie Gleason, director of the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fair Workweek Initiative, which is assisting with local fair-scheduling efforts. “This isn’t a new issue,” Gleason adds. But “the accelerated pace in which these types of work-hour policies have taken off is a demonstration of the moment we’re in.”
By Justin Miller
Source
Breaking Down the Walls: Brooklyn #BHeard on Immigration, A Community Town Hall
Breaking Down the Walls: Brooklyn #BHeard on Immigration, A Community Town Hall
On October 22nd at 7PM, ...
On October 22nd at 7PM, BRIC TV hosted Breaking Down the Walls: Brooklyn#BHeard on Immigration, a live-broadcast, town hall-style discussion that aimed to examine the state of immigration and the policies (or lack there-of) that affect New Yorkers.
The face of immigrant Brooklyn is diverse and each story is complex, but a common thread among so many immigrants is the wish for security, tolerance, and a legal path to continue contributing and living here. From the child who only knows NYC as her home, to the first generation parent responsible for supporting his family in his home country abroad, to the aging worker with limited prospects for retirement—immigration is a human rights issue which can no longer be avoided.
In the upcoming Presidential elections, hope and fate are once again in the hands of those running for the nation’s highest office. What happens on a national and global level will affect immigrants here in the Big Apple. The reverse is also true, and that’s why we need to discuss what we’re doing here in one of the nation's most diverse cities…what work lies ahead…and how Brooklyn can #BHeard on Immigration.
PANELISTS:
Carlos Menchaca (City Council Member, Chair of the Committee on Immigration)Linda Sarsour (Arab American Association)Adrian Carasquillo (National Political Reporter Buzzfeed News)Alina Das (NYU Law Professor, Director of NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic)Shena Elrington (Director of Immigrant Rights & Racial Justice, the Center of Popular Democracy)Ravi Ragbir (Director of The New Sanctuary Coalition of NYC)
MODERATOR:
Brian Vines (BRIC TV)
Everyone wants the opportunity to #BHeard. Come to BRIC House on 10/22 at 7pm for our latest town-hall style discussion. The topic this time: immigration.
BRIC TV
Source: Storify
3 days ago
3 days ago