<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidoHRBBp0e2Tjp" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>Amazon threatened workers at its New York City warehouses of consequences if they attempted to unionise, in violation of US labour laws, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled on Monday.</p>

<p>Judge Benjamin Green noted that the Amazon executives illegally threatened the employees that they will miss out on regular hikes and other improved benefits if they voted to unionise or forced the company into union negotiations.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Under US labour laws, any firm or employer cannot coerce or prohibit employees from unionising.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Judge Green also ordered the Jeff Bezos-owned company to post signs across the warehouse that reminded employees that they had the lawful right to engage in bargaining with the company.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rise-of-unions-in-america-amazons-first-union-at-a-us-warehouse-468350"><strong>WATCH |&nbsp;Rise of Unions in America: Amazon's first Union at a US&nbsp;Warehouse</strong></a></p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/rise-of-unions-in-america-amazons-first-union-at-a-us-warehouse-468350/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>The decision was passed after Amazon was found guilty of removing a post from an internal message board. The message urged the workers to sign a petition that made Juneteenth a paid holiday.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Meanwhile, Amazon took solace in the fact that the judge dismissed other charges, including one where officials allegedly threatened to reduce wages to pay union dues.&nbsp;</p>

<p>"We're glad that the judge dismissed 19, nearly all of the allegations in this case and correctly called the 3 remaining ones 'not obvious or clear cut'," an Amazon spokesperson was quoted as saying by AFP.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Notably, in March last year, 2,600 Amazon employees at its JFK8 fulfillment centre in Staten Island voted overwhelmingly to join Amazon Labor Union (ALU).</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/were-not-robots-amazon-warehouse-workers-go-on-strike-in-uk-555938"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;'We're not robots': UK Amazon workers unhappy with minimal raise go on strike&nbsp;</strong></a></p>

<p>in May, Amazon attempted to overturn the unionisation process and submitted a filing to NLRB, suggesting that labour laws were violated to support the union drive.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, after 24 days of hearing, NLRB upheld the historic union victory. Meanwhile, Amazon continues to maintain that the&nbsp;election process was not fair, legitimate, or representative of the majority.&nbsp;</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-labor-board-backs-employees-in-amazon-union-vote-551754" target="_blank"><strong>Read more: US labour board backs employees in Amazon union vote</strong></a></p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


Amazon threatened workers at its New York City warehouses of consequences if they attempted to unionise, in violation of US labour laws, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled on Monday.

Amazon threatened workers at its New York City warehouses of consequences if they attempted to unionise, in violation of US labour laws, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled on Monday. Judge Benjamin Green noted that the Amazon executives illegally threatened the employees that they will miss out on regular hikes and other improved benefits if they voted to unionise or forced the company into union negotiations. Under US labour laws, any firm or employer cannot coerce or prohibit employees from unionising. Judge Green also ordered the Jeff Bezos-owned company to post signs across the warehouse that reminded employees that they had the lawful right to engage in bargaining with the company. WATCH | Rise of Unions in America: Amazon's first Union at a US Warehouse × The decision was passed after Amazon was found guilty of removing a post from an internal message board. The message urged the workers to sign a petition that made Juneteenth a paid holiday. Meanwhile, Amazon took solace in the fact that the judge dismissed other charges, including one where officials allegedly threatened to reduce wages to pay union dues. "We're glad that the judge dismissed 19, nearly all of the allegations in this case and correctly called the 3 remaining ones 'not obvious or clear cut'," an Amazon spokesperson was quoted as saying by AFP. Notably, in March last year, 2,600 Amazon employees at its JFK8 fulfillment centre in Staten Island voted overwhelmingly to join Amazon Labor Union (ALU). Read more: 'We're not robots': UK Amazon workers unhappy with minimal raise go on strike in May, Amazon attempted to overturn the unionisation process and submitted a filing to NLRB, suggesting that labour laws were violated to support the union drive. However, after 24 days of hearing, NLRB upheld the historic union victory. Meanwhile, Amazon continues to maintain that the election process was not fair, legitimate, or representative of the majority. Read more: US labour board backs employees in Amazon union vote (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Amazon threatened workers and broke labour union laws, rules US judge

<p>The workers at Amazon, the world’s largest retailer, have been pushing back with sporadic protests and strikes across the United States in order to improve working conditions and wages. This also comes amid allegations that the retail giant is conducting harsh crackdowns on unionisation efforts by employees, said a report by the Guardian.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Earlier this year, an Amazon employee Matt Litrell was distributing union fliers outside a warehouse in Campbellsville when the local police were allegedly called by one of the managers for accusing him of trespassing on company property.&nbsp;</p>

<p>However, the officers eventually left him as he was not on Amazon’s property. Litrell claims the incident amounted to an illegal-intimidation charge which he later filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), said a media report.&nbsp;</p>

<p>ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazon-fires-employee-for-taking-too-many-loo-breaks-408334">Amazon fires employee for taking too many loo breaks</a></p>

<p>Similarly, two workers in East Point, Georgia were fired from Amazon which they claim was in retaliation for their filing a petition and delivering it to the management. The petition in question sought higher pay and an increase in the minimum wage at the warehouse and had reportedly garnered over 300 signatures. Brandon Calloway and his co-worker were terminated two days later and they have since filed a complaint for unfair labour practice with the NLRB over the firings.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This comes as workers have alleged that the company is conducting crackdowns on unionisation efforts while they have retaliated with protests and strikes. The conditions of Amazon workers and their unionisation movement have garnered attention worldwide however the movement has suffered quite a few setbacks including a recently lost vote at a warehouse outside New York.&nbsp;</p>

<p>ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazon-workers-who-won-a-union-their-way-open-labour-leaders-eyes-469109">Amazon workers who won a union their way open labour leaders’ eyes</a></p>

<p>Citing similar incidents across the US, the report by Guardian says that many employees have walked off, held strikes and filed several lawsuits against the retail giant demanding higher wages and improved working conditions.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“I watched them change some processes that made things harder for us, but it made things faster for them, and I watched more and more of my co-workers getting injured,” said an Amazon employee, Sara Fee. This is what inspired her to demand improvements, said Fee, adding that every person working at the company is easily replaced when they are seen as a liability.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Amazon has denied the recent allegations and in a statement to the Guardian said, “We don’t believe there is any merit to these claims filed with the NLRB, and look forward to presenting the facts as that process moves forward.”&nbsp;</p>

<p>They added that they value employee feedback and are investing “$1 billion&nbsp;over the next year to permanently raise hourly pay for frontline employees and we’ll continue looking for ways to improve their experience.”<br />
<br />
ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazon-workers-in-albany-reject-unionisation-labour-leader-calls-it-sham-election-526579">Amazon workers in Albany reject unionisation, labour leader calls it ‘sham election’</a></p>

<p>Reports suggest that Amazon has been able to fend off major labour unions since it was first founded in 1994, especially in the US. In 2020, it came under scrutiny when media reports suggested that the retail giant’s human resources department had been monitoring employees’ listservs which were reportedly the hotspots for worker activism.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Additionally, another report published in the same year suggested that Amazon’s corporate employees had participated in closed Facebook groups used by contracted drivers to track planned strikes and organise union activity. The company has since denied these claims.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;</em><br />
&nbsp;</p>


The workers at Amazon, the world’s largest retailer, have been pushing back with sporadic protests and strikes across the United States in order to improve working conditions and wages.

The workers at Amazon, the world’s largest retailer, have been pushing back with sporadic protests and strikes across the United States in order to improve working conditions and wages. This also comes amid allegations that the retail giant is conducting harsh crackdowns on unionisation efforts by employees, said a report by the Guardian. Earlier this year, an Amazon employee Matt Litrell was distributing union fliers outside a warehouse in Campbellsville when the local police were allegedly called by one of the managers for accusing him of trespassing on company property. However, the officers eventually left him as he was not on Amazon’s property. Litrell claims the incident amounted to an illegal-intimidation charge which he later filed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), said a media report. ALSO READ: Amazon fires employee for taking too many loo breaks Similarly, two workers in East Point, Georgia were fired from Amazon which they claim was in retaliation for their filing a petition and delivering it to the management. The petition in question sought higher pay and an increase in the minimum wage at the warehouse and had reportedly garnered over 300 signatures. Brandon Calloway and his co-worker were terminated two days later and they have since filed a complaint for unfair labour practice with the NLRB over the firings. This comes as workers have alleged that the company is conducting crackdowns on unionisation efforts while they have retaliated with protests and strikes. The conditions of Amazon workers and their unionisation movement have garnered attention worldwide however the movement has suffered quite a few setbacks including a recently lost vote at a warehouse outside New York. ALSO READ: Amazon workers who won a union their way open labour leaders’ eyes Citing similar incidents across the US, the report by Guardian says that many employees have walked off, held strikes and filed several lawsuits against the retail giant demanding higher wages and improved working conditions. “I watched them change some processes that made things harder for us, but it made things faster for them, and I watched more and more of my co-workers getting injured,” said an Amazon employee, Sara Fee. This is what inspired her to demand improvements, said Fee, adding that every person working at the company is easily replaced when they are seen as a liability. Amazon has denied the recent allegations and in a statement to the Guardian said, “We don’t believe there is any merit to these claims filed with the NLRB, and look forward to presenting the facts as that process moves forward.” They added that they value employee feedback and are investing “$1 billion over the next year to permanently raise hourly pay for frontline employees and we’ll continue looking for ways to improve their experience.” ALSO READ: Amazon workers in Albany reject unionisation, labour leader calls it ‘sham election’ Reports suggest that Amazon has been able to fend off major labour unions since it was first founded in 1994, especially in the US. In 2020, it came under scrutiny when media reports suggested that the retail giant’s human resources department had been monitoring employees’ listservs which were reportedly the hotspots for worker activism. Additionally, another report published in the same year suggested that Amazon’s corporate employees had participated in closed Facebook groups used by contracted drivers to track planned strikes and organise union activity. The company has since denied these claims. (With inputs from agencies)

Amazon workers in parts of US strike amid alleged crackdown on unionisation efforts

<p>Workers at an Amazon warehouse close to Albany decisively rejected a unionisation bid, dealing a setback to a fledgling labour union that was trying to organise staff at the retail giant.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The union received 206 votes, while 406 votes were against it. The decision of whether or not to join the Amazon Labor Union was up for vote among 949 employees at the ALB1 warehouse, according to officials.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The vote process "wasn't free and fair," according to ALU President Chris Smalls, who also hinted that the union would try to have the election results overturned. The National Labor Relations Board has already received 27 unfair labour practise complaints from the ALU's legal team against the business.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |</strong>&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/french-major-cement-firm-admits-paying-syrian-terror-groups-fined-780-million-526576">French cement firm Lafarge pleads guilty to supporting Syrian terror groups, fined $780 million</a></p>

<p>“It was a sham election where workers were subjected to intimidation and retaliation on a daily basis and even the workers who volunteered to be election observers were faced with threats of termination,” Smalls said.</p>

<p>Employees at ALB1 felt the union would aid in securing higher pay. The facility's beginning compensation was increased by Amazon last month from $15.70 to $17 per hour, consistent with pay hikes for front-line employees around the nation.</p>

<p>The ALB1 organisers have also expressed worries about the working environment, claiming that the high injury rates and staff fatigue are results of the fast-paced work environment.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/liz-truss-approval-rating-at-record-low-10-per-cent-in-uk-claims-new-poll-526485">labour</a> movement experienced a turning point with the ALU's victory at JFK8, which led to the establishment of the nation's first unionised Amazon warehouse.</p>

<p><strong>Also read |&nbsp;</strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amazons-leaked-documents-show-why-its-attrition-rate-is-so-high-526390">Amazon's leaked documents reveal why its attrition&nbsp;rate is so high</a></p>

<p>since Amazon has argued that the results should be thrown out, the union has not yet been able to negotiate a contract at JFK8. Recently, an NLRB representative suggested that the company's objections be disregarded. Amazon reportedly plans to appeal.</p>

<p>Amazon is dealing with a nationwide uptick in labour mobilisation. Last Monday, employees at an Amazon fulfilment centre in Southern California submitted a union petition in an effort to unionise.</p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:</strong></p>

<p><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></p>


Workers at an Amazon warehouse close to Albany decisively rejected a unionisation bid, dealing a setback to a fledgling labour union that was trying to organise staff at the retail giant.

Workers at an Amazon warehouse close to Albany decisively rejected a unionisation bid, dealing a setback to a fledgling labour union that was trying to organise staff at the retail giant. The union received 206 votes, while 406 votes were against it. The decision of whether or not to join the Amazon Labor Union was up for vote among 949 employees at the ALB1 warehouse, according to officials. The vote process "wasn't free and fair," according to ALU President Chris Smalls, who also hinted that the union would try to have the election results overturned. The National Labor Relations Board has already received 27 unfair labour practise complaints from the ALU's legal team against the business. Also read | French cement firm Lafarge pleads guilty to supporting Syrian terror groups, fined $780 million “It was a sham election where workers were subjected to intimidation and retaliation on a daily basis and even the workers who volunteered to be election observers were faced with threats of termination,” Smalls said. Employees at ALB1 felt the union would aid in securing higher pay. The facility's beginning compensation was increased by Amazon last month from $15.70 to $17 per hour, consistent with pay hikes for front-line employees around the nation. The ALB1 organisers have also expressed worries about the working environment, claiming that the high injury rates and staff fatigue are results of the fast-paced work environment. The labour movement experienced a turning point with the ALU's victory at JFK8, which led to the establishment of the nation's first unionised Amazon warehouse. Also read | Amazon's leaked documents reveal why its attrition rate is so high since Amazon has argued that the results should be thrown out, the union has not yet been able to negotiate a contract at JFK8. Recently, an NLRB representative suggested that the company's objections be disregarded. Amazon reportedly plans to appeal. Amazon is dealing with a nationwide uptick in labour mobilisation. Last Monday, employees at an Amazon fulfilment centre in Southern California submitted a union petition in an effort to unionise. WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Amazon workers in Albany reject unionisation, labour leader calls it ‘sham election’

<p>In what comes as a victory for labour rights organisations and regulators,&nbsp;a National Labor Relations Board judge on Friday ruled that Starbucks illegally fired an&nbsp;employee at&nbsp;its Ann Arbor, Michigan store.</p>

<p>The judge ruled that Starbucks “acted with animus” when it fired the employee and ordered the multinational coffee chain to reinstate the fired worker with back pay.</p>

<p>Moreover, the company will have to hold a meeting with the employees, management as well as government representatives where a notice about workers' rights will be read and Starbucks will have to&nbsp;reassert the agency's&nbsp;filing that it broke the law.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Hannah Whitbeck, the employee in question was fired because she helped build support for unionising the Ann Arbor store.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“I would hope that they learn their lesson, that firing people because they want to start a union is not going to solve their problems. In fact, it’s only going to make it worse.”&nbsp;Whitbeck was quoted as saying by Bloomberg.&nbsp;</p>

<p>This is not the first time that Starbucks has been ordered by a court to re-hire its illegally fired employees.</p>

<p>As reported by WION, in August,&nbsp;a&nbsp;US federal court ordered the company to reinstate its seven&nbsp;employees who were also fired for unionising.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-court-orders-starbucks-to-rehire-employees-it-fired-for-unionising-508252"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;US court orders Starbucks to rehire employees it fired for 'unionising'</strong></a></p>

<p>Judge Sheryl H. Lipman at the US District Court of the Western District of Tennessee passed the judgement, terming the&nbsp;rehiring as&nbsp;"just and proper".</p>

<p>Last month, the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser.&nbsp;</p>

<p>According to the agency, the case marks its first lawsuit for a violation of New York City’s “just cause” protections, a 2017 law meant to safeguard the interests of fast-food workers.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/new-york-city-agency-sues-starbucks-for-wrongfully-terminating-union-organiser-employee-512636"><strong>Read more:&nbsp;New York City agency sues Starbucks for wrongfully terminating union organiser employee</strong></a></p>

<p>The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently investigating hundreds of allegations of misconduct by Starbucks related to the union campaign, including claims of closing stores to dismantle unions, firing employees, and intimidating and threatening workers to prevent them from unionising.&nbsp;</p>

<p>While there is already a huge backlog of complaints, NLRB officials suggest that more cases will come to light in the coming year.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“Given the spike in case intake we are seeing in the field, we can expect even more cases to come before the board in fiscal year 2023,” said&nbsp;Lauren McFerran,&nbsp;NLRB chairperson.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Starbucks, on multiple occasions, has cleared that it is against any kind of unionising efforts.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“From the beginning, we’ve been clear in our belief that we do not want a union between us as partners, and that conviction has not changed,”&nbsp;Rossann Williams,&nbsp;Starbucks’ executive vice president stated last year.&nbsp;</p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em><br />
<br />
<strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>


In what comes as a victory for labour rights organisations and regulators, a National Labor Relations Board judge on Friday ruled that Starbucks illegally fired an employee at its Ann Arbor, Michigan store.

In what comes as a victory for labour rights organisations and regulators, a National Labor Relations Board judge on Friday ruled that Starbucks illegally fired an employee at its Ann Arbor, Michigan store. The judge ruled that Starbucks “acted with animus” when it fired the employee and ordered the multinational coffee chain to reinstate the fired worker with back pay. Moreover, the company will have to hold a meeting with the employees, management as well as government representatives where a notice about workers' rights will be read and Starbucks will have to reassert the agency's filing that it broke the law. Hannah Whitbeck, the employee in question was fired because she helped build support for unionising the Ann Arbor store. “I would hope that they learn their lesson, that firing people because they want to start a union is not going to solve their problems. In fact, it’s only going to make it worse.” Whitbeck was quoted as saying by Bloomberg. This is not the first time that Starbucks has been ordered by a court to re-hire its illegally fired employees. As reported by WION, in August, a US federal court ordered the company to reinstate its seven employees who were also fired for unionising. Read more: US court orders Starbucks to rehire employees it fired for 'unionising' Judge Sheryl H. Lipman at the US District Court of the Western District of Tennessee passed the judgement, terming the rehiring as "just and proper". Last month, the Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser. According to the agency, the case marks its first lawsuit for a violation of New York City’s “just cause” protections, a 2017 law meant to safeguard the interests of fast-food workers. Read more: New York City agency sues Starbucks for wrongfully terminating union organiser employee The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently investigating hundreds of allegations of misconduct by Starbucks related to the union campaign, including claims of closing stores to dismantle unions, firing employees, and intimidating and threatening workers to prevent them from unionising. While there is already a huge backlog of complaints, NLRB officials suggest that more cases will come to light in the coming year. “Given the spike in case intake we are seeing in the field, we can expect even more cases to come before the board in fiscal year 2023,” said Lauren McFerran, NLRB chairperson. Starbucks, on multiple occasions, has cleared that it is against any kind of unionising efforts. “From the beginning, we’ve been clear in our belief that we do not want a union between us as partners, and that conviction has not changed,” Rossann Williams, Starbucks’ executive vice president stated last year. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

Starbucks ordered to rehire employee it fired for 'unionising' with back pay

<p><meta name="uuid" content="uuidXafo4DHyNfTj" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></p>

<p>Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency has sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Reportedly, the barista named Austin Locke was fired after he and his colleagues voted to unionise a Starbucks in Queens. According to the agency, the case marks its first lawsuit for a violation of New York City’s “just cause” protections, a 2017 law meant to safeguard the interests of the&nbsp;fast-food workers.</p>

<p>Read more:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/trending/starbucks-taps-indian-born-laxman-narasimhan-as-its-next-ceo-twitter-erupts-with-memes-512454" target="_blank">Starbucks taps Indian-born Laxman Narasimhan as its next CEO, Twitter erupts with memes</a></p>

<p>According to the lawsuit, Starbucks at the time of Austin's firing argued that he was fired&nbsp;for failing to fill&nbsp;out a COVID-19 questionnaire and falsely reporting that a supervisor made physical contact with him.</p>

<p>In response to the filing of the lawsuit, the coffee chain refused to comment.&nbsp;</p>

<p>“We do not comment on pending litigation. However, we do intend to defend against the alleged violations of the New York City Just Cause Law.”</p>

<p>Read more:<a href="https://www.wionews.com/business-economy/intense-culture-of-fear-starbucks-reportedly-fires-workers-involved-in-union-efforts-510207" target="_blank">&nbsp;'Intense culture of fear': Starbucks reportedly fires workers involved in union efforts</a></p>

<p>As reported extensively by WION, over 55 distinct strikes by Starbucks employees have taken place in at least 17 different US states in recent months due to the company's vigorous opposition to a wave of unionisation.</p>

<p>According to an estimate by Starbucks Workers United, the company has directly lost more than $375,000 due to the strikes.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently investigating hundreds of allegations of misconduct by Starbucks related to the union campaign, including claims of closing stores to dismantle unions, firing employees, and intimidating and threatening workers to prevent them from unionising.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Last month, a US federal court ordered Starbucks to reinstate its seven employees who were allegedly fired for unionising.</p>

<p>Judge Sheryl H. Lipman at the US District Court of the Western District of Tennessee passed the judgement, terming the rehiring as "just and proper".</p>

<p>Akin to the case in Queens,&nbsp;seven Starbucks baristas had attempted to unionise the Memphis branch of the company and were promptly fired.</p>

<p>Read more<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-court-orders-starbucks-to-rehire-employees-it-fired-for-unionising-508252" target="_blank">: US court orders Starbucks to rehire employees it fired for 'unionising'</a></p>

<p><em>(With inputs from agencies)</em></p>

<p><strong>WATCH WION LIVE HERE:&nbsp;</strong></p>

<p><iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe></p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency has sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser. Reportedly, the barista named Austin Locke was fired after he and his colleagues voted to unionise a Starbucks in Queens.

Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, a New York City agency has sued Starbucks for wrongfully terminating a longtime worker and union organiser. Reportedly, the barista named Austin Locke was fired after he and his colleagues voted to unionise a Starbucks in Queens. According to the agency, the case marks its first lawsuit for a violation of New York City’s “just cause” protections, a 2017 law meant to safeguard the interests of the fast-food workers. Read more: Starbucks taps Indian-born Laxman Narasimhan as its next CEO, Twitter erupts with memes According to the lawsuit, Starbucks at the time of Austin's firing argued that he was fired for failing to fill out a COVID-19 questionnaire and falsely reporting that a supervisor made physical contact with him. In response to the filing of the lawsuit, the coffee chain refused to comment. “We do not comment on pending litigation. However, we do intend to defend against the alleged violations of the New York City Just Cause Law.” Read more: 'Intense culture of fear': Starbucks reportedly fires workers involved in union efforts As reported extensively by WION, over 55 distinct strikes by Starbucks employees have taken place in at least 17 different US states in recent months due to the company's vigorous opposition to a wave of unionisation. According to an estimate by Starbucks Workers United, the company has directly lost more than $375,000 due to the strikes. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently investigating hundreds of allegations of misconduct by Starbucks related to the union campaign, including claims of closing stores to dismantle unions, firing employees, and intimidating and threatening workers to prevent them from unionising. Last month, a US federal court ordered Starbucks to reinstate its seven employees who were allegedly fired for unionising. Judge Sheryl H. Lipman at the US District Court of the Western District of Tennessee passed the judgement, terming the rehiring as "just and proper". Akin to the case in Queens, seven Starbucks baristas had attempted to unionise the Memphis branch of the company and were promptly fired. Read more: US court orders Starbucks to rehire employees it fired for 'unionising' (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE:

New York City agency sues Starbucks for wrongfully terminating union organiser employee

<p>Alabama, a largely conservative state could become the first in the United States to have an Amazon union. Most companies came to the state to avoid the troubles of labour unions. But, now that is quickly changing as Amazon employees demand rights.</p>

<p>On Monday, employees at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama will decide whether the first union for the company’s employees will be instituted.&nbsp;If successful, the move could pave way for further unionisation within Amazon, a massive tech company.</p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-a-historic-vote-for-equal-worker-rights-at-amazon-367260/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>If employees chose to unionise, over 5,800 workers at the Amazon warehouse in Bessemer will find representation. Recently, Amazon made the headlines after reports of dire conditions for workers came to light, whereby employees didn’t even have the time to urinate.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;</strong><a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/employees-pee-in-bottles-undercover-writer-reveals-amazons-poor-work-conditions-373450" hreflang="en">'Employees pee in bottles': Undercover writer reveals Amazon's poor work conditions</a></p>

<p>Many truck drivers were forced to urinate in bottles owing to this. Following this revelation, accounts from numerous Amazon employees shed light on how they were being treated at the company’s warehouses.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Workers have revealed that employees are being forced to take 14-hour long shifts with little or no bathroom breaks. Amazon imposes strict targets and penalises people who fail to achieve the set goals. The pressure is such that employees end up peeing in bottles to save time from taking a bathroom break.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;</strong><a href="http://13.235.153.162/business-economy/amazon-says-it-pays-alabama-workers-well-other-local-employers-pay-more-371771" hreflang="en">Amazon says it pays Alabama workers well; other local employers pay more</a></p>

<p>Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent senator endorsed the plan for unionisation after visiting the area.</p>

<p>"This is historically a very anti-union state. That’s why I am incredibly moved and impressed by courage of these workers," Sanders said on Friday.</p>


Alabama, a largely conservative state could become the first in the United States to have an Amazon union. Most companies came to the state to avoid the troubles of labour unions.

Alabama, a largely conservative state could become the first in the United States to have an Amazon union. Most companies came to the state to avoid the troubles of labour unions. But, now that is quickly changing as Amazon employees demand rights. On Monday, employees at an Amazon warehouse in Alabama will decide whether the first union for the company’s employees will be instituted. If successful, the move could pave way for further unionisation within Amazon, a massive tech company. If employees chose to unionise, over 5,800 workers at the Amazon warehouse in Bessemer will find representation. Recently, Amazon made the headlines after reports of dire conditions for workers came to light, whereby employees didn’t even have the time to urinate. Also read: 'Employees pee in bottles': Undercover writer reveals Amazon's poor work conditions Many truck drivers were forced to urinate in bottles owing to this. Following this revelation, accounts from numerous Amazon employees shed light on how they were being treated at the company’s warehouses. Workers have revealed that employees are being forced to take 14-hour long shifts with little or no bathroom breaks. Amazon imposes strict targets and penalises people who fail to achieve the set goals. The pressure is such that employees end up peeing in bottles to save time from taking a bathroom break. Also read: Amazon says it pays Alabama workers well; other local employers pay more Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent senator endorsed the plan for unionisation after visiting the area. "This is historically a very anti-union state. That’s why I am incredibly moved and impressed by courage of these workers," Sanders said on Friday.

Alabama could be home to first Amazon union in US after Monday vote

<p>Workers at Amazon's Alabama warehouse are standing up to the retail giant, with over 5,000 employees set to vote on potential unionisation this month. The workers will decide whether to join one of the oldest retail unions in the US or not.</p>

<p>In the past, Amazon has fought efforts to unionise its American facilities. But now, workers who are backing a union at Amazon won support from the highest levels of the American government, marking the biggest push for a union that Amazon has faced.</p>

<p>This month, workers at the retail giant's Alabama warehouse will decide if they want to unionise. On Monday, pro-union workers won the support of the US President himself. Joe Biden released a video message in which he backed the rights of the workers to unionise without naming Amazon.</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
<p dir="ltr" lang="en">Workers in Alabama – and all across America – are voting on whether to organize a union in their workplace. It’s a vitally important choice – one that should be made without intimidation or threats by employers.<br />
<br />
Every worker should have a free and fair choice to join a union. <a href="https://t.co/2lzbyyii1g">pic.twitter.com/2lzbyyii1g</a></p>
— President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1366191901196644354?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 1, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

<p>"It's not up to me to decide whether anyone should join a union. But let me be even more clear: it's not up to an employer to decide that either. The choice to join a union is up to the workers - full stop. And there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, no anti-union propaganda", Biden said.</p>

<p>In recent weeks, Amazon has tried to block the voters by blocking an option to cast the votes by mail. If the workers vote to unionise, the Amazon facility in Alabama will be the first warehouse union. Increasingly, workers across America's tech giants are expressing their will to unionise.</p>

<p><strong><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-a-historic-vote-for-equal-worker-rights-at-amazon-367260">WATCH |</a></strong></p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-a-historic-vote-for-equal-worker-rights-at-amazon-367260/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

<p>At the beginning of this year, more than 200 employees of Google announced they had formed a union - one of the first in an industry that has been hostile to organized labour.</p>

<p>Reportedly, the move by the workers was prompted by growing ethical concerns over the company's work and culture in recent years, especially owing to the fact that not all employees of Google enjoyed the same rights. The final trigger was the controversial departure of an artificial intelligence engineer.</p>

<p>The Alphabet Workers Union now boasts of more than 800 members who say they want to give a voice to every employee of Google.</p>

<p><strong>Also read:&nbsp;</strong><a href="http://13.235.153.162/technology/digital-colonialism-has-big-tech-become-the-new-east-india-company-364621" hreflang="en">'Digital colonialism': Has big tech become the new East India Company</a></p>

<p>"The primary goal is to give a voice to the workers... all that we’re being told is to implement the decision that was given to you and when we find that that’s not fitting with the values that we agreed to for the company, we are told that we have to leave. At this point we are trying to make a firm organization that will continuously fight for the values of the company so as each of these different big moments come up, we can make sure than even if an individual gets push out for speaking up, their campaign keeps going on.", Chewy Saw, a software engineer and Alphabet union's vice chair said.</p>

<p>After Google, a union at Amazon could spread the efforts to unionise across big tech. With the American president endorsing the creation of unions, the tech giants may find it harder to ignore these demands this time.</p>


Workers at Amazon's Alabama warehouse are standing up to the retail giant, with over 5,000 employees set to vote on potential unionisation this month. The workers will decide whether to join one of the oldest retail unions in the US or not.

Workers at Amazon's Alabama warehouse are standing up to the retail giant, with over 5,000 employees set to vote on potential unionisation this month. The workers will decide whether to join one of the oldest retail unions in the US or not. In the past, Amazon has fought efforts to unionise its American facilities. But now, workers who are backing a union at Amazon won support from the highest levels of the American government, marking the biggest push for a union that Amazon has faced. This month, workers at the retail giant's Alabama warehouse will decide if they want to unionise. On Monday, pro-union workers won the support of the US President himself. Joe Biden released a video message in which he backed the rights of the workers to unionise without naming Amazon. Workers in Alabama – and all across America – are voting on whether to organize a union in their workplace. It’s a vitally important choice – one that should be made without intimidation or threats by employers. Every worker should have a free and fair choice to join a union. pic.twitter.com/2lzbyyii1g — President Biden (@POTUS) March 1, 2021 × "It's not up to me to decide whether anyone should join a union. But let me be even more clear: it's not up to an employer to decide that either. The choice to join a union is up to the workers - full stop. And there should be no intimidation, no coercion, no threats, no anti-union propaganda", Biden said. In recent weeks, Amazon has tried to block the voters by blocking an option to cast the votes by mail. If the workers vote to unionise, the Amazon facility in Alabama will be the first warehouse union. Increasingly, workers across America's tech giants are expressing their will to unionise. WATCH | At the beginning of this year, more than 200 employees of Google announced they had formed a union - one of the first in an industry that has been hostile to organized labour. Reportedly, the move by the workers was prompted by growing ethical concerns over the company's work and culture in recent years, especially owing to the fact that not all employees of Google enjoyed the same rights. The final trigger was the controversial departure of an artificial intelligence engineer. The Alphabet Workers Union now boasts of more than 800 members who say they want to give a voice to every employee of Google. Also read: 'Digital colonialism': Has big tech become the new East India Company "The primary goal is to give a voice to the workers... all that we’re being told is to implement the decision that was given to you and when we find that that’s not fitting with the values that we agreed to for the company, we are told that we have to leave. At this point we are trying to make a firm organization that will continuously fight for the values of the company so as each of these different big moments come up, we can make sure than even if an individual gets push out for speaking up, their campaign keeps going on.", Chewy Saw, a software engineer and Alphabet union's vice chair said. After Google, a union at Amazon could spread the efforts to unionise across big tech. With the American president endorsing the creation of unions, the tech giants may find it harder to ignore these demands this time.

To Amazon's dismay, warehouse workers set to vote on potential unionisation

<p>Donald Trump, the former television celebrity and current Republican Party candidate for the president, as well as Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and current Democratic Party presidential nominee, have made the claim that, if elected, they will implement policies that will improve the lives of working Americans.&nbsp; To see whether either candidate is on the right track to make lives better for average Americans, let&rsquo;s take a look at the last half-century or so of unionisation and wages for average Americans, the two standard benchmarks of working class health.&nbsp;</p>

<p>Without unions, an individual worker is virtually powerless to negotiate with an employer. It is through a union, that a worker can gain both leverage and power. Workers, of course, go to work for a wage, the money is necessary to keep them and their families alive. The historical experience of the United States is that on average, strong unions increase wages and benefits whereas weak&nbsp;or no unions decrease them.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/resize%20image_2-20161104081713.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>The decline of unions is roughly paralleled by the decline and stagnation of wages, bringing down the working class standard of living (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>As in many countries, employers and governments fought early efforts by workers to unionise but the Great Depression of 1929 radically changed the situation. As unemployment reached a third of the workforce and with a dramatic increase in poverty, labour struggles multiplied. Such labour activism was often supported by the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and his brilliant and politically active wife, Eleanor. Unionisation grew through the Depression. &nbsp;</p>

<p>When the Great Depression ended up in World War II, the new extremely tight labor market favoured workers, as millions of men and women went off to war and millions of others got good work in war industries. Therefore, by the 1940s, the rate of unionisation peaked at 35 per cent of the labour force.&nbsp; Beginning in the 1950s, continued attacks by employers, right-wing groups and sometimes less-friendly governments, led to a slow decline in unionisation. Attacks accelerated after the 1973-75 oil crisis and the unionisation rate fell to 20 per cent in 1983, 12 per cent in 2009, and 11 per cent in 2015. This union decline took place under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Today, unions are essentially a negligible economic and political force. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/resizeimage_3-20161104082022.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>With strong unions and the buoyant post-war economy, wages and incomes grew steadily through the 1950s, 60s and 70s. (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;The decline of unions is roughly paralleled by the decline and stagnation of wages and the working class standard of living.&nbsp; The labor market is stratified with many different wage levels, so while it&rsquo;s true that incomes have increased for many working people, for the average worker and for those on the bottom, real wages have either declined or stagnated.</p>

<p>&nbsp; With strong unions and the buoyant post-war economy, wages and incomes grew steadily through the 1950s and 1960s. In terms of the value of&nbsp; dollars in 2015, the real minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $ 10.85.&nbsp; It has fallen or stagnated since and today is $7.25. According to the Pew Research Center, the 2014 average hourly wage of $22.41 was the same in real terms as the $4.03-an-hour rate of 1973.&nbsp; No growth at all. The average household today has a net worth 14 per cent below that of 1984, according to the Russell Sage Foundation.&nbsp; Meanwhile, from 1973 to 2013 labour productivity has increased by 73 per cent. Thus, the country got richer but average working families did not.&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/resize%20image_1-20161104081429.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>While labour productivity has increased over the decades and the country got richer, but average working families did not (Others)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp; So, the real question of the labour perspective under Trump or Clinton is whether they can change these long-run and deep-rooted tendencies.</p>

<p>Republicans are traditionally a pro-business anti-labour party, and Trump&rsquo;s presidential platform is typically anti-labour. It endorses an expansion of &ldquo;right-to-work&rdquo; laws, which effectively prevent unions from organising.&nbsp; Many Republicans would like to eliminate the legal minimum wage, and they oppose most regulatory statutes that protect working people. They argue that eliminating them and dropping wages will increase job opportunities, though the evidence from austerity programmes worldwide over the last 20 years provides no support for that.</p>

<p>&nbsp;The Democratic Platform calls for an elimination of &ldquo;right to work&rdquo; laws and therefore an extension of unionisation.&nbsp;It also calls for raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour, doubling the current figure.&nbsp; They also support broader protections for working families and unions.</p>

<p>The problem is that both unions and real wages have been undermined for the last forty years under both Republican and Democratic governments.&nbsp; There is no question that a Trump victory would be unfavourable for workers, but there is a question of whether a Clinton victory would help working families or not.&nbsp; Only time will tell.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>There is no question that a Trump victory would be unfavourable for workers, but there is a question of whether a Clinton victory would help working families or not.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=There is no question that a Trump victory would be unfavourable for workers, but there is a question of whether a Clinton victory would help working families or not." target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Clinton and Trump differ on other issues that affect working families, but none more central than tax policy.&nbsp; Municipalities, counties, state, and the federal government all require money to operate and, by and large, that money comes from taxes. Governments can tax businesses as well as individuals.&nbsp; Individual taxes can take two forms: progressive and regressive. While the former can make those with higher incomes provide proportionately more taxes, the latter make those with lower incomes provide proportionately more.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The principal progressive tax in the United States is the Federal Income Tax. When implemented in 1913, the tax rate on the highest incomes was only 7 per cent. Governments soon discovered a basic principle of taxation, which is you can&rsquo;t get money from people who does not have money. So, if you want to finance government, you have to tax the wealthy.&nbsp; For that reason, with the Great Depression, Roosevelt brought the top tax rate up to 79 per cent in 1936, and then with World War II, to 94 per cent (it&#39;s expensive to fight wars). The top rate has been declining ever since: 77 per cent in 1964, 38.5 per cent in 1987, and 35 per cent from 2003 to 2012, though currently, under President Obama, it is 39.6 per cent. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false"><img alt="" draggable="false" src="http://s.wionews.com/photos/federaltax-20161104085435.jpg" />
<div class="media-description">
<p>Cutting taxes on the rich make the rich richer and government poorer (Reuters)</p>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="javascript:void(0)" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Trump and the Republicans have all promised to cut taxes, claiming that it will help to restore growth and jobs. Though, as with wages, austerity programmes around the world over the last 40 years provide no evidence for this.&nbsp; Cutting taxes on the rich make the rich richer and government poorer.&nbsp; Trump has said he would cut the&nbsp;top individual rate to&nbsp;25 per cent and the top corporate rate&nbsp;to&nbsp;15 per cent while also eliminating the estate tax, a tax that disproportionately affects the wealthy.&nbsp; The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has expressed support for the progressive income tax and the principle that the wealthy should pay a greater per cent of their income in taxes.</p>

<p>The Government has many expenses. So, when taxes on the wealthy are cut, a government must either cut spending which, incidentally, is the favoured position of the Republican programme, or raise regressive taxes, which incommensurably affect the poor.&nbsp; Historically speaking, most spending cuts do disproportionately hurt the poor. This has for long been evident, for instance, when welfare was slashed in the 1980s, or in reduced spending in education, particularly, in Republicans controlled states. The wealthy have the option of sending children to private schools, an option closed to the poor. &nbsp;</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="row">
<div class="article-blockquote">
<div class="col-sm-10 col-sm-offset-1 blockquote-content quoteshare">
<blockquote>
<h5>Historically speaking, most spending cuts do disproportionately hurt the poor.</h5>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="col-sm-1 blockquote-content">
<div class="share-blockquote"><a class="twitter popup" href="http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=Historically speaking, most spending cuts do disproportionately hurt the poor. " target="_blank"><i class="fa fa-share">&nbsp;</i></a></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqquoteclosemark">&times;</a></div>
</div>
</div>

<p>&nbsp;</p>

<p>Here are many other policy issues &ndash; health care, education, retirement benefits, social security, climate change &ndash; that affect working people, but unions, wages, and taxes are the most immediate and direct.&nbsp; That said, nobody can predict the future.&nbsp; Future growth rates, technological change, climate change, and the political activities of the working class itself are at least as important, if not more, as government policy.&nbsp; Furthermore, once in office, candidates change as the real world impinges. A candidate may say one thing, but once in power, may do another.&nbsp; Furthermore, and as of this writing, Trump has only a miniscule chance of winning the election after insulting African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, Muslims, the disabled, women, and many leaders in his own party.</p>

<p>&nbsp;Nonetheless, the problem for the working class remains.&nbsp; After 40 years of declining or stagnating growth rates, declining rates of unionisation, and declining or stagnating real wages, can even a Clinton presidency reverse these trends? &nbsp; There is nothing among her policies to suggest they will.</p>

<p>&nbsp;</p>


There is no question that a Trump victory would be unfavourable for workers, but will Hillary Clinton's victory help working families?

Donald Trump, the former television celebrity and current Republican Party candidate for the president, as well as Hillary Clinton, former secretary of state and current Democratic Party presidential nominee, have made the claim that, if elected, they will implement policies that will improve the lives of working Americans. To see whether either candidate is on the right track to make lives better for average Americans, let’s take a look at the last half-century or so of unionisation and wages for average Americans, the two standard benchmarks of working class health. Without unions, an individual worker is virtually powerless to negotiate with an employer. It is through a union, that a worker can gain both leverage and power. Workers, of course, go to work for a wage, the money is necessary to keep them and their families alive. The historical experience of the United States is that on average, strong unions increase wages and benefits whereas weak or no unions decrease them. The decline of unions is roughly paralleled by the decline and stagnation of wages, bringing down the working class standard of living (Others) × As in many countries, employers and governments fought early efforts by workers to unionise but the Great Depression of 1929 radically changed the situation. As unemployment reached a third of the workforce and with a dramatic increase in poverty, labour struggles multiplied. Such labour activism was often supported by the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt and his brilliant and politically active wife, Eleanor. Unionisation grew through the Depression. When the Great Depression ended up in World War II, the new extremely tight labor market favoured workers, as millions of men and women went off to war and millions of others got good work in war industries. Therefore, by the 1940s, the rate of unionisation peaked at 35 per cent of the labour force. Beginning in the 1950s, continued attacks by employers, right-wing groups and sometimes less-friendly governments, led to a slow decline in unionisation. Attacks accelerated after the 1973-75 oil crisis and the unionisation rate fell to 20 per cent in 1983, 12 per cent in 2009, and 11 per cent in 2015. This union decline took place under both Republican and Democratic presidents. Today, unions are essentially a negligible economic and political force. With strong unions and the buoyant post-war economy, wages and incomes grew steadily through the 1950s, 60s and 70s. (Others) × The decline of unions is roughly paralleled by the decline and stagnation of wages and the working class standard of living. The labor market is stratified with many different wage levels, so while it’s true that incomes have increased for many working people, for the average worker and for those on the bottom, real wages have either declined or stagnated. With strong unions and the buoyant post-war economy, wages and incomes grew steadily through the 1950s and 1960s. In terms of the value of dollars in 2015, the real minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $ 10.85. It has fallen or stagnated since and today is $7.25. According to the Pew Research Center, the 2014 average hourly wage of $22.41 was the same in real terms as the $4.03-an-hour rate of 1973. No growth at all. The average household today has a net worth 14 per cent below that of 1984, according to the Russell Sage Foundation. Meanwhile, from 1973 to 2013 labour productivity has increased by 73 per cent. Thus, the country got richer but average working families did not. While labour productivity has increased over the decades and the country got richer, but average working families did not (Others) × So, the real question of the labour perspective under Trump or Clinton is whether they can change these long-run and deep-rooted tendencies. Republicans are traditionally a pro-business anti-labour party, and Trump’s presidential platform is typically anti-labour. It endorses an expansion of “right-to-work” laws, which effectively prevent unions from organising. Many Republicans would like to eliminate the legal minimum wage, and they oppose most regulatory statutes that protect working people. They argue that eliminating them and dropping wages will increase job opportunities, though the evidence from austerity programmes worldwide over the last 20 years provides no support for that. The Democratic Platform calls for an elimination of “right to work” laws and therefore an extension of unionisation. It also calls for raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour, doubling the current figure. They also support broader protections for working families and unions. The problem is that both unions and real wages have been undermined for the last forty years under both Republican and Democratic governments. There is no question that a Trump victory would be unfavourable for workers, but there is a question of whether a Clinton victory would help working families or not. Only time will tell. There is no question that a Trump victory would be unfavourable for workers, but there is a question of whether a Clinton victory would help working families or not. × Clinton and Trump differ on other issues that affect working families, but none more central than tax policy. Municipalities, counties, state, and the federal government all require money to operate and, by and large, that money comes from taxes. Governments can tax businesses as well as individuals. Individual taxes can take two forms: progressive and regressive. While the former can make those with higher incomes provide proportionately more taxes, the latter make those with lower incomes provide proportionately more. The principal progressive tax in the United States is the Federal Income Tax. When implemented in 1913, the tax rate on the highest incomes was only 7 per cent. Governments soon discovered a basic principle of taxation, which is you can’t get money from people who does not have money. So, if you want to finance government, you have to tax the wealthy. For that reason, with the Great Depression, Roosevelt brought the top tax rate up to 79 per cent in 1936, and then with World War II, to 94 per cent (it's expensive to fight wars). The top rate has been declining ever since: 77 per cent in 1964, 38.5 per cent in 1987, and 35 per cent from 2003 to 2012, though currently, under President Obama, it is 39.6 per cent. Cutting taxes on the rich make the rich richer and government poorer (Reuters) × Trump and the Republicans have all promised to cut taxes, claiming that it will help to restore growth and jobs. Though, as with wages, austerity programmes around the world over the last 40 years provide no evidence for this. Cutting taxes on the rich make the rich richer and government poorer. Trump has said he would cut the top individual rate to 25 per cent and the top corporate rate to 15 per cent while also eliminating the estate tax, a tax that disproportionately affects the wealthy. The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has expressed support for the progressive income tax and the principle that the wealthy should pay a greater per cent of their income in taxes. The Government has many expenses. So, when taxes on the wealthy are cut, a government must either cut spending which, incidentally, is the favoured position of the Republican programme, or raise regressive taxes, which incommensurably affect the poor. Historically speaking, most spending cuts do disproportionately hurt the poor. This has for long been evident, for instance, when welfare was slashed in the 1980s, or in reduced spending in education, particularly, in Republicans controlled states. The wealthy have the option of sending children to private schools, an option closed to the poor. Historically speaking, most spending cuts do disproportionately hurt the poor. × Here are many other policy issues – health care, education, retirement benefits, social security, climate change – that affect working people, but unions, wages, and taxes are the most immediate and direct. That said, nobody can predict the future. Future growth rates, technological change, climate change, and the political activities of the working class itself are at least as important, if not more, as government policy. Furthermore, once in office, candidates change as the real world impinges. A candidate may say one thing, but once in power, may do another. Furthermore, and as of this writing, Trump has only a miniscule chance of winning the election after insulting African-Americans, Latinos, immigrants, Muslims, the disabled, women, and many leaders in his own party. Nonetheless, the problem for the working class remains. After 40 years of declining or stagnating growth rates, declining rates of unionisation, and declining or stagnating real wages, can even a Clinton presidency reverse these trends? There is nothing among her policies to suggest they will.

The 2016 US election: Labour unions and working class wages

unionisation

Unionisation, News on Unionisation, stories on Unionisation, articles on Unionisation, Unionisation stories at Wion, Unionisation news, Unionisation latest news