Tell Coke to resolve the hunger strike of its Columbian workers by ceasing its attempts to downsize their jobs and bust their unions.
Author Archives: Josh Eidelson
Wal-Mart Watch: The Center for American Progress exposes Wal-Mart’s campaign to pressure employees into donating money to a political fund to make it easier for Wal-Mart to exploit them:
Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) traveled to Wal-Mart headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., to offer advice on getting started: Increase your profile and open your wallet. As a result, “Made In America” is a thing of the past and anti-labor policies are the wave of Wal-Mart’s future, with money paving the way to Washington…Last year, the company’s political action committee was the number one corporate donor in the country, with over $1 million in contributions. Its PAC is the second largest in Washington and the committee’s donations are decidedly one-sided. According to the WSJ, “Unlike most corporations, which contribute to both parties in rough proportion to Congress’s partisan split,” about 85% of Wal-Mart’s money goes to conservatives. Wal-Mart Senior Vice President Jay Allen recently became a “Pioneer,” or a contributor who has raised at least $100,000 for the Bush campaign.
Wal-Mart employees, who are not unionized, say they have felt pressured to give to the PAC. The WSJ reports, “At an August 2000 meeting attended by thousands of Wal-Mart managers, buckets were passed around for donations, as well as forms authorizing automatic paycheck deductions for the PAC.” Voluntary is in the eye of the beholder, though: “For some employees, the pressure to contribute became a point of contention. ‘With my district manager sitting 3 inches over my shoulder, you think I didn’t sign up?'” said Jon Lehman, a former Wal-Mart manager.
Another reason why Wal-Mart workers need a union.
Kenneth Davis reflects on the religious liberty advocated by the founders and Newdow’s case against the pledge:
But more important than the founders’s private faith was the concept that they all embraced passionately: the freedom to practice religion, as well as not to. They had risked their lives to free America from a country with an official religion and a king who claimed a divine right. They believed that government’s purpose was to protect people’s earthly rights, not their heavenly fates. As for Jefferson, he wrote that it made no difference to him whether his neighbor affirmed one God or 20, since, he added, “It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
It was this concept ? that the government should neither enforce, encourage or otherwise intrude on religion ? that found its way into the godless Constitution in the form of the First Amendment. Even the presidential oath of office, which is laid out in the Constitution, does not mention the deity. George Washington ad libbed the “So help me God” at his inaugural ceremony. Every president since has added this personal oath. They choose to say it; the Constitution does not compel it.
The Supreme Court may embrace Dr. Newdow’s passionate plea, side with “under God” or split 4-4 and leave the lower court ruling alone, and it won’t pick our pockets or break our legs. But the sight of one man standing up to challenge God and country is something that Madison, Jefferson and Franklin would cheer, and every American can celebrate.
To inflict physical harm upon a woman is a crime against her and should be.
To inflict physical harm upon a woman such that you cause her to have a miscarriage, causing potentially devastating further suffering to her and denying her the chance to carry the fetus to term, represents that much greater a crime against her, and should be recognized as such.
To inflict physical harm upon a woman such that you cause her to have a miscarriage is not, however, a crime against the fetus, because the fetus is not a legally-protected person under American law. As I argued before, granting legal protections to a fetus inside of a woman’s body cannot but deny full legal protections to the woman in whose body the fetus is gestating. If the crimminal who assaults a pregnant woman is charged with abridging the rights to bodily integrity of a woman and an unborn child, then the rights to bodily integrity of the child mean that the rights to bodily autonomy substantively have no weight.
Everyone who supports the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” passed today by the Senate and last week by the House knows what this is about, and to argue otherwise is an insult to voters’ intelligence:
“It’s not about abortion,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and an advocate for the bill in his previous years in the House. “It is about criminals who attack pregnant women.”
Very telling is the Republican response to an ammendment to protect the rights of women who suffer domestic violence:
Senators also rejected another Democratic amendment, one that would have required companies to provide unpaid leave for victims of domestic or sexual violence, a policy that Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, said was a better way to reduce crimes against women.
“Despite the rhetoric, they are not truly willing to do something about domestic violence,” Ms. Murray said.
This isn’t about protecting women from violence – this is about consigning women to be wombs who don’t have rights gestating people who do.

College students: Send Bush a note refusing to pay his debt and the MoveOn Voter Fund makes a dollar from anonymous donations.
Joe Sacco considers old flings and new love and new in electoral politics.
Philly Public School Food Service Workers and Noon Time Aids in Local 634, where I worked this summer, have ratified a great new contract after a year of negotiations:
The members of the Union made the most progress in the area of health care coverage.The school district’s contribution to the fund–which provides prescription drug coverage, vision, and dental care–will be increased by almost 100%. This increase will allow the Union’s Health and Welfare Fund to greatly improve the vision coverage for all workers, and improve the drug and dental coverage for the food service workers. This coverage was expand from single coverage only to include family coverage effective July 1st .
“We are extremely pleased with the outcome of these negotiations” stated Local 634 Trustee Sam Cook. “Our members and leaders worked very hard to win these improvements and force the school district to recognize the important contribution our members make here,” he concluded after the meeting.
“I have worked in these kitchens feeding our children for many years and for the first time I feel like the district has agreed that we deserve a decent wage and benefit package,” added Senior Food Service Worker Emily Pridgen.
“Our membership is proud of the work they do in the schools and can now walk into the schools feeling appreciated,” added Angela Cerrone, a noon time aide.
Congratulations to everyone involved – may Local 634 go from strength to strength.

Wonkette walks us through Bush’s rollicking laughs at a recent RTCA Dinner:
He led by observing that Donald Rumsfeld’s favorite show is “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” and then suggesting that the “Fab Five” give Ashcroft a makeover. Soooo funny! If you’re not getting the joke, let me explain: See, in order for Ashcroft to be on “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” Ashcroft would have to be straight. No, wait, that’s not it. Oh, yes: The joke is this: When not out cornholing each other, gay people often have helpful fashion advice.
And then there was his “White House Album” slide show, which included pictures of himself looking for those darn WMDs. . . in the White House! Oh, I nearly peed. There were slides of him searching! Under a chair? No. In a closet? No. Ha ha. Do I need to explain again? OK: It’s funny because the WMDs are in Iraq, not in the White House, silly!
Except they aren’t. Wait. What was the joke again?

Nick Confessiore on the Clarke counter-attack gone awry:
As others have pointed out, they’ve been unable to refute any of the factual charges Clarke has made, and have been reduced to an all-out war against his credibility, attempting to depict him, variously, as a self-promoting opportunist, a partisan hack, or a hypocritical or inconsistent bureaucrat. I watched some of the testimony Clarke delivered to the 9/11 commission yesterday, and was impressed by Clarke’s tenacity and clarity in explaining and rebutting attacks on him, clearly spoon-fed from the White House, made by the GOP commissioners. (I was also impressed by his appearance on Larry King’s CNN show, during which King asked all the gotcha questions the Clarke’s opponents would have wanted, and Clarke managed to both answer them effectively and explain the political strategy of which King was being made a pawn without actually insulting King. It was quite a performance.)
Meanwhile Tom Daschle today made an uncharacteristic show of calling attention a strongly-held contention that’s different from the President:
“I have a simple request for the president today,” Mr. Daschle said on the Senate floor. “Please ask the people around you to stop the character attacks they are waging against Richard Clarke. Ask them to stop their attempts to conceal information and confuse facts. Ask them to stop the long effort that has made the 9/11 commission’s work more difficult than it should be.”
From his mouth to Bush’s ears.
Bryan Smith responds to the Poynter Institute:
Did I read this quote from Elisabeth Bumiller correctly?
Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times White House correspondent, on criticism that reporters were too easy on Bush on the eve of the Iraq war: “I think we were very deferential because … it’s live, it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.”
This is a joke, right? The White House correspondent from the New York Times didn’t ask a tough question because the atmosphere was too “frightening”? Has there been a more tacit and, yes, frightening, admission by a reporter — from the nation’s most important newspaper no less — that the national press is cowed by this administration? Is there any stronger inducement for its continued bullying?
Univesity of Connecticut postdocs sign a historic contract:
“This is something historical,” and a move that may encourage other postdocs to organize as well, Munirathinam Subramani, a postdoctoral fellow in the UConn Neuroscience Department and one of the principal organizers, told The Scientist.
The agreement includes a 26.7% spike in the minimum salary, from $27,000 to $34,200—equivalent to the minimum starting salary for postdoctoral fellows set by the National Institutes of Health. After 1 year, UConn postdocs making the new minimum will experience another 5.3% increase in wages, from $34,200 to $36,000. Postdocs who make more than the new minimum will receive 3% more wages this year and an additional 3.25% next year.
The agreement ensures that postdocs will receive 12 paid sick days and 30 additional vacation days, also paid. Approximately 60% of UConn postdocs currently make less than the new minimum salary, making this a “wonderful package,” said Subramani.
The agreement comes only months after postdocs first voted, by a slim margin, to join a union representing 1900 other UConn Health Center workers. Prior to joining the union, organizers said they had spent years negotiating with the university for acceptable standards for working conditions, including salaries, benefits, and vacation.
NewAlliance Bancshares profiteers be warned: Connecticut’s State Senate has passed legislation to stem future NewAlliance Bancshares-esque fiascos:
Wednesday’s bill, which will now go to the House, will require the state banking commissioner to approve conversion proposals before a corporator vote, rather than afterwards. The bill also mandates that at least 60 percent of corporators are “independent” from the bank, and that a majority of those independent corporators must approve the conversion. It would also set a minimum number of overall corporators at 25.
“It will strengthen the regulatory power of the banking commissioner,” Looney said. “The commissioner will now have input at a very early stage to shape the bank’s proposal.”