Progressive News, Opinion, and Analysis
This week on the Jared Paul Show … Capitalism vs the blizzard, Why Warren shouldn’t run and why we need a multiparty system.
Tina Silva is a casualty of mental health.
Just as working class taxpayers are casualties of economic disparity. Just as law enforcement has no interest in correcting their unjust actions and medical and psychological professions are interested in creating repeat offenders for monetary gains.
These are not new discoveries. But seeing how these entities work in conjunction with each other to fuel the disturbing medical-mental-prison construct has pushed the need for awareness to a new brink. Public services continue to serve the interests of private sectors grinding our dollars to the bone. The New Kennedy Plaza is evidence that we want the common person’s money, but not the common person.
In the middle of a severe snowstorm free bus fare did not exist to ensure that travelers who may be caught in such conditions get to there destinations safe. That’s because public transportation is interested in collecting from the consumer and not perpetuating the producer. Fare should be free, along with our cities senior citizens. This shouldn’t be a request but a requirement. Just like heated bus shelters. Just like free produce. Instead our state spends our money on racial profiling and intimidation, mental conditioning, and ridding our societies of the trash and vagabonds as they’ve been defined.
Let us return to our fellow sister Tina for a moment. She was forced and coerced into going to the hospital, at the behest of the police despite voicing her right to refuse medical and psychological services. Her rights were blatantly ignored and infringed upon by Providence police and paramedics. The law enforcement system has already shown what they do when “criminals” don’t comply with their shoot-first-sign-paperwork-later tactics. If these entities aren’t too be trusted why do we put our faith in them?
Just as Tina needs an advocate, Eric Garner needed an advocate. Why can’t we the people be that advocate?
Let us build our own public service initiative so that we may be free of those who pull our strings and call it a service to our society. Our federal government has imposed sanctions on the working class if we do not comply to have health insurance. Businesses have complied to offer full benefits to workers employed for 30+ hours a week, but how many workers hours were cut to avoid such payout? For every drone that has been built, for every location service that is included in our apps, our federal government shows it is NOT in the business of ensuring our safety.
They want to know what we are doing and what attracts us for means of psychological stimulation and operant conditioning. To have a collective of Pavlov’s dogs ready to salivate at any glimpse of freedom and economic relief. Instead of SNAP benefits, pay our farmers so they can provide free produce. Give us back control over our lives, or we will take control.
I am calling out to all medical and mental professionals. High priced care does not equate to quality care. Ask the number of patients who have lost the fight to cancer but have truly won the fight for Freedom. A shaman has a duty that came with that title to ensure the health, guidance, and well being of its village. This duty shouldn’t be aligned with a monetary incentive.
Let us build our own public service initiative so that we may be free of those who pull our strings and call it a service to our society. Let us build solidarity, not wait for it to be handed down. We don’t need to be dependent to the hand that feeds us. You cannot put us all in Bellevue if we don’t comply. You cannot put us all in prison if we don’t comply. Your prisons and mental institutions are not big enough for everyone. You can’t kill us all.
I, for one, am tired of the intimidation tactics, the genocide. Anarchy is not as radical as extortion. We shun one because of its portrayal and accept the latter because we have been conditioned to accept it as norm. If you are unwilling to change your environment, then you are as lost as a hamster on the wheel. My people, step off and join me in liberation.
There is a strong movement among the liberal base of the Democratic party encouraging Senator Elizabeth Warren (D – MA) to run for President. With social media pages like Run, Warren, Run popping up, and local gatherings organized by Democratic fund-raising powerhouse MoveOn.org, it seems that, in spite of the Senator’s own vehement denial of Presidential ambitions at this time, popular pressure might have built momentum too strong to abate.
I, for one, do not want Senator Warren to run for President.
I am a Senator Warren devotee, bordering on being zealot. I organized field for her in 2012 as a canvass-team leader in Fall River, Massachusetts, in a joint effort of SEIU and the Coalition for Social Justice. I had the honor of meeting her twice. Once as a candidate and then as Senator. I have followed her from the Obama apointee to head the Consumer Protection Bureau, blocked by Republicans, to her vindication as the now senior Senator from Massachusetts, to her current role as the polestar of the liberal (or progressive … whatever) wing of the Democratic party.
I have cheered as she has publicly shamed usurious banking cartels and corporate plutocrats for the economic imbalance that they caused with their collective greed. I have watched her verbally eviscerate the entire fallacy of supply-side economics in just over a minute, while speaking before leaders of AFL-CIO, championing the resurrection of the middle class and the empowerment of working families.
Why then, one may ask, do I not want her to run for the highest executive office in the nation?
From her legislative office as a high-profile Senator with a mobilized following, she is able to maintain her liberal ideology and focus on very specific issues without having to compromise the very values and agendas that make her so laudable. To run for president, I fear she would have to water-down her principles and move to the center. No longer would she need only to appeal to her constituents in the very blue and historically liberal state of Massachusetts when seeking re-election as an incumbent. Rather, she would have to cater to a much broader audience on a carefully coordinated national path, including key battleground states where Democrat is often defined quite differently.
From a Democratic primary perspective alone, pitting Warren against the far more centrist Hillary Clinton, would not only showcase Warren’s relative inexperience in foreign affairs as compared to the former Secretary of State, but would factionalize a party that needs to rally behind a unified message that spotlights sanity and pragmatism as a stark contrast to the Republican theatre of the absurd that is currently staging its primary play with a cast of thousands.
Well then, one may say, can she do both? After all, since her six year term as Senator in Massachusetts is not up until 2018, she would not be appearing twice on the ballot. Therefore, she can run for President without sacrificing her seat if she loses.
Running for President is an exhausting, time-consuming, and expensive undertaking that would expose her to a level of public scrutiny against which she has not yet had to defend, forcing her to take positions on issues that may not be within her realm of expertise. It is one thing to cast a vote as one one-hundredth of a chamber in a bi-cameral legislature. It is quite another to have to explain a position on which you may be expected to speak on behalf of your entire party and, potentially, lobby support of the nation and even multiple nations. Additionally, the level of fund-raising needed to run for President in the era of Citizens United may very well force Senator Warren to accept contributions from groups that would compromise her integrity and contradict the very values that she wields as her populist arms.
Clinton, on the other hand, (and I use her only as an example because it is a certainty that she will run and she has a prior presidential campaign history with which one can compare) is far more economically conservative and seasoned at fund raising. She is a far more corporate-friendly political pragmatist and, therefore, more likely to attract the kind of money necessary to compete against the nearly $900 million the Koch brothers alone have pledged to a Republican Presidential victory. Clinton also has the advantage of her skeletons being publicly aired ad nauseum, and a husband who spent eight years as Commander in Chief and still boasts a higher approval rating higher than our current president even after a decade and a half out of office.
Does the idea of a centrist Democrat in the White House make me squeamish? Somewhat, yes. But not as much as the idea of Bush 3, Mitt 2.0, Ted Cruz, or any of the radical right wing Republicans vying to be tied to the marionette strings of Corporate America. And, to those who find little difference between a centrist Democrat and a right-wing Republican overseeing social security, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the most frightening military the world has ever seen, you and I will have to agree to disagree.
Then there are those who think that Senator Warren, herself, is hypocritical in her economic progressive rhetoric. Unfortunately for you, Alexander Supertramp has no plans of running for elected office.. But, I digress.
I do not believe Senator Warren would win a presidential election. That does not make me respect her or support her any less. But, from a political strategy perspective, it is a distraction from her current job at which she is excellent and, in which has a responsibility to her constituents and supporters to continue performing to the best of her abilities. Running for president would not make her a better senator for the next two years. One does not run for president to make a point. One runs for President to be President.
I do not know if I am “Ready for Hillary.” None of us know, for certain, who all will be running for the 2016 vacancy. In that time, my mind may change … multiple times. For now, I do know that I hope Senator Elizabeth Warren decides to continue devoting 100 percent of her efforts to her role as senior senator of Massachusetts, fighting for a level playing field, speaking as the voice of the working families, promoting policies that restore economic equity, and doing what she does best: legislating for a better future.
Stay, Warren, stay.
Yesterday an “Informational Picket” was held outside Rhode Island Hospital to draw attention to the stalled contract negotiations with Lifespan. Nearly 2,500 Teamsters, represented by Local 251, have been working under a contract that expired on December 31, and was extended to yesterday. According to a statement from RI Hospital the contract has been re-extended until January 30.
Union rep Brooke Reese told me that negotiations with the hospital are “not so great.” A press release from the union says that hospital management has rejected a union proposal that states, “providing quality care to patients and their families is the top objective of the Hospital and that poor working conditions, inadequate staffing levels, inadequate supplies and improper equipment undermine patient care.”
Lifespan has also rejected the union’s proposals on “job security, fair wages and benefits,” which the union calls “a slap in the face to every Rhode Island Hospital employee and every person in the community that is concerned about good jobs and quality patient care.”
To bring attention to their cause workers borrowed a large inflatable “Fat Cat” from New York Teamsters 804. It was an attention getting prop, and it had the effect of slowing rush hour traffic around the hospital more than usual. The Fat Cat is seen wringing the neck of a UPS worker, but for the purposes of yesterday’s picket we’re being asked to picture the strangled worker wearing hospital scrubs.
Jesse Strecker, of RI Jobs With Justice, said in a statement, “Lifespan isn’t hearing workers and the community’s concerns at the negotiating table, so we are coming together to raise our voices in front of the hospital.”
During the picket Strecker led a community delegation consisting of representatives from labor unions, community organizations and student groups as well as religious leaders in an attempt to deliver an “Open Letter” to the hospital administrators, but were prevented from doing so by hospital security. After much negotiation the letter was taken, with the promise of delivery, by the head of security, but no one from the delegation was allowed inside the hospital and no one representing the hospital addressed the delegation in any meaningful way.
Beth Bailey, Senior Media Relations Officer for Rhode Island Hospital, said in a statement that the most recent proposal from the union “does not make economic sense for the hospital or its patients, as our state continues to struggle economically” and that the hospital is “offering a fair contract that continues to provide wage increases, retirement, health care and other benefits.” The statement did not address community concerns about patient care.
The union maintains that Lifespan paid its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally.”
Don Weilberg is a 79-year-old retired orthodontist who lives in Saunderstown. He was a member of the Westerly Democratic Committee, the state Democratic Committee in the 1970’s, and a George McGovern delegate to the 1972 Democratic presidential convention.
And on Saturday, he’ll be one of three Rhode Islanders – one of the 224 across the nation – who will host a house party to help inspire Massachusetts Senator and progressive champion Elizabeth Warren to run for president.
“Young people have become so disillusioned with politics,” Weilberg told me. “They have tuned out. They say there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans, and in many ways they are right.”
Weilberg said Warren can help reverse this apathy.
“Warren is a very different kind of politician,” he said. “She just doesn’t back down. She’s very strong for the middle class. That’s why she is galvanizing the country.”
Move On, Democracy for America and Ready for Warren are helping to organize some 224 house parties to entice Warren to run for president. Ian Donnis, RIPR’s political beat reporter, recently interviewed Anna Galland, executive director of Move On and a Brown University graduate, on why the grassroots organizing organization is focusing its efforts on Warren. She told him, in part:
…she’s uniquely suited to take on some of the toughest challenges our country faces: income inequality, a skewed playing field, the middle class and working people taking it on the chin. She’s proven she’ll stand up to lobbyists and corporate interests, and fight to give the rest of us a fighting chance. That’s what we need right now…
Warren is America’s liberal superstar, her popularity increasing almost as sharply as the income inequality she’s made a reputation battling. She first electrified the liberal base in September, 2011 with her now legendary “you didn’t build that” speech. She went on to beat moderate Republican Scott Brown to win her Mass. Senate seat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-P-CoSNYaI
More recently, as a senator, she seemingly by herself defeated President Obama’s nomination for Secretary of Treasury. In a piece titled “Behind Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Treasury takedown: How the Massachusetts senator rallied the left and blindsided the White House”, Ben White writes:
“The game in Washington had changed … Elizabeth Warren, sometimes disregarded by the White House as a largely irrelevant nuisance, could no longer be ignored. Bolstered by grass roots groups eager for any anti-Wall Street crusade and a vibrant progressive media that hung on her every word, Warren succeeded in knocking out Weiss’ nomination.”
Warren isn’t the only progressive considering running for president; Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also keeping the option open. Meanwhile, ahead of the house parties this weekend, expected Democratic establishment candidate Hillary Clinton is sending signals she doesn’t see Warren as a possible competitor. According to Politico: “A Democrat familiar with Clinton’s thinking said: ‘She doesn’t feel under any pressure, and they see no primary challenge on the horizon. If you have the luxury of time, you take it.'”
Robin is an employee of a chain pharmacy here in Rhode Island who was required to work during Tuesday’s blizzard, from 11am to 7pm, or risk losing her full-time status. To protect Robin, I changed her name and won’t mention the name of the store.
She lives about a 15 minute walk away from the store at which she works. She doesn’t own a car, but sometimes her boyfriend might drop her off or pick her up. But of course, on Tuesday morning the streets were impassable by car or by foot. So her manager asked her to grab a shovel and dig her way to work through the snow.
“The manager wanted us to be at the store and wait for the pharmacist to open,” she told me. “He wanted us to shovel our way into work.”
The manager, who worked from home, wanted the store opened at 8am. To her credit, Robin told her manager that his plan “wasn’t happening.” The manager contacted the plow company and got the parking lot cleared. By that time the streets were plowed enough for Robin to walk to work. Her 15 minute walk took about 40 minutes.
“It was miserable,” Robin said, “and absolutely dangerous. There were plows everywhere and the sidewalks weren’t shoveled. I could have had my boyfriend drive me, but there was driving ban and I’m not on the exempt list.”
In Governor Gina Raimondo’s Executive Order restricting motor vehicle travel throughout Rhode Island, health care and pharmacy workers were exempted from the ban.
“I’m technically not a pharmacy worker,” said Robin, adding that in her opinion she, “could have been arrested.”
It turns out that the chain pharmacy corporation is quite clear with the employees as to who is a pharmacist and who isn’t. There are all sorts of rules governing the operation of the pharmacy, keeping it distinct from the operation at the front of the store. Of course, a case could be made that the front of the store operation was providing “critical services to the public,” and therefore be exempt from the governor’s order in much the same way as might a grocery store or hardware store, and I doubt any police officer would have bothered to arrest Robin if she told them she was on her way to her job at the chain pharmacy. But just as Robin isn’t a pharmacist, she’s also not a lawyer. And she can’t afford to risk a ticket she can’t pay.
It wasn’t a busy day, of course. The majority of Rhode Islanders were doing what Robin’s manager was doing: staying home and waiting for the storm to be over. “I must have gotten a hundred phone calls asking if we were open,” said Robin, “but by the time we closed at 7pm we maybe had 20 customers in all.” The customers were looking for chips, candy, soft drinks and other junk foods.
The pharmacist didn’t have a single customer all day.
After closing, Robin walked home. The blizzard had abated somewhat, but the snow was still coming down and the wind was still kicking up powdery snow. “The roads were a little better, but it was still freezing and slippery,” Robin told me. Of course now it was dark, and the plows were still out and the sidewalks still needed shoveling, so Robin was walking in the street again. She finally arrive home at around 8pm.
For her trouble Robin made about $72 on Tuesday, before taxes and insurance. I asked her if the experience was worth the money. Her answer was blunt.
“No. It was uncalled for,” Robin said, noting her co-workers felt the same way. “No one was happy. We were all extremely disappointed that no one cared about our safety.
Robin is in her early twenties and has worked at the chain pharmacy store for about four years. In December of last year she was making $8.75 an hour but when the minimum wage was increased to $9 in January, she found herself making 25 cents an hour more, the same as all the new hires. Robin has a high school diploma, and no college.
She lives with her boyfriend, and they split the rent and utilities, though he makes slightly more than she does. Because she and her boyfriend combined make enough to eke by, she considers herself middle class, but if she were on her own she wouldn’t be able to afford the rent on her apartment and would be poor.
“I can’t afford to live on my own,” she told me. Robin has worked since she was 16 and has never been on any kind of public assistance.
Because Robin is technically a full time employee, she is entitled to healthcare under the rules established by the chain pharmacy corporation. The cost of the healthcare is about 25 percent of her take home pay when she works 40 hours a week, but since the new year began all employees have had their hours cut and Robin’s been averaging 30 hours a week, if she’s “lucky.” 30 hours is the minimum amount she has to maintain to keep her full time status and her healthcare.
The technical title for Robin’s job is “Customer Service Representative” and her duties include helping customers locate items in the store, running the register and restocking shelves. When new people are hired their training technically is the responsibility of the store manager or a shift supervisor, but often the training falls on Robin, due to her four years of experience.
I asked Robin if she likes her job.
“No, not really,” she replied, “but I like some of my co-workers, especially the people who were there when I started. I love them.”
Some of Robin’s complaints about her boss are perhaps typical. “He’s not very shy about letting you know that he’s not fond of you. He micromanages and he doesn’t recognize good work. He only tells you when you’re doing a bad job.”
Others are indictments of the company’s business model. “He cut everybody’s hours down so that pretty much everybody is at part time. Then he hired a bunch of new people and we’re all fighting for hours.”
Some say if low wage workers don’t like their jobs, they should find jobs that pay more, or get an education and find better jobs. So I decided to ask Robin why she doesn’t do these things.
“It’s not as easy as you might think it is,” she answered. “I don’t have a great education, I don’t have transportation… I know it’s possible, I can go back to school, but people think it’s so easy to go back to school. Get loans. Get grants. But it’s a lot of hours and a lot of work and I’d have to cut down hours at my current job and I’d have less money. Plus I’d be paying for school.”
I asked Robin if she thinks the minimum wage should be raised to a living wage, like $15 an hour. Her answer shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. “I know that there’s a lot of things that come with an increase in minimum wage. When you increase minimum wage, other things increase as well.”
I told her that a study just came out from UMass Amherst that purports to show that the price increases of goods in the event of an increase in the minimum wage would be modest.
Robin had never heard of this study, which is unsurprising, given the sparse media coverage given to economic reports that play against conservative business interests. Instead, she was parroting the accepted “wisdom,” a narrative that conveniently prevents employees from demanding fair and just compensation for their work.
Robin does think that there should be a law mandating double time for hourly employees who are forced to work during official declarations of disaster. Being paid fairly would help make her feel more appreciated. “This sounds a little selfish, I guess,” said Robin, “but if I were getting something extra, I’d be more willing to be there, and I wouldn’t be so upset and disappointed with my job.”
Four New England states – Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Maine – are poised to enact measures to regulate marijuana like alcohol in the next two years. The big question is, which state will do it first?
The editorial board at The Providence Journal does not want it to be Lil Rhody.
According to them, adults who responsibly use marijuana should continue to be labeled as lawbreakers because marijuana inexorably leads to the “general rot” of society (“Put pot on hold,” Jan. 6). Fortunately, not all of our newly elected state leaders share The Providence Journal’s antiquated views. Governor Raimondo, for example, recently argued that, “[legalizing marijuana] is absolutely something we should evaluate, because if we think it’s inevitable, and if there’s a way to do it that is properly regulated so people don’t get hurt, then it’s something we should look at.”
Polls show that a majority of Rhode Islanders — and Americans — agree with Governor Raimondo and think it is time to end the failed policy of marijuana prohibition. Last year 29 members in the house of representative and 13 members of the state senate signed onto the Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act. This year the bi-partisan coalition of legislators backing the bill is expected to grow even larger. At committee hearings last year, few legislators expressed staunch opposition to the legislation. Most of the hesitation came from those who suggested that we hold off another year to study the issue.
The “wait and see” argument, however, will be far less effective in 2015. We now have more than a year’s worth of data on Colorado’s experiment with allowing adults to purchase marijuana from tightly regulated, licensed stores. We no longer need to speculate: it is clear that the sky does not fall when you treat marijuana like alcohol. Neutral observers like the New York Times and the Brookings Institute have deemed Colorado’s rollout a success, and even Governor Hickenlooper, who initially opposed Amendment 64 in 2012, recently said this on CBS’s 60 Minutes:
“[A]fter the election [in 2012], if I’d had a magic wand and I could wave the wand, I probably would’ve reversed it and had the initiative fail. But now I look at it…and I think we’ve made a lot of progress…still a lot of work to be done. But I think we might actually create a system that can work.”
We don’t have to go west to know that regulating marijuana works. Here in our own backyard, state-licensed compassion centers, which have provided medical marijuana to registered patients for nearly two years, are running smoothly, giving back to the community, and creating jobs for local residents.
The notion that we should “wait and see” is wrongheaded for many reasons, but it is particularly foolish if the state hopes to reap any economic benefits from regulating and taxing marijuana. Massachusetts is very likely to approve a ballot initiative to make marijuana legal for adults in 2016. If Rhode Island does not get the ball rolling this year, we will lose a tremendous opportunity to attract new businesses to our state and take home a larger share of the economic pie.
A resurrected specter of “reefer madness” is the only thing holding us back. Ignoring the clear scientific evidence that marijuana is much safer than alcohol, opponents of regulating marijuana are forced to rely on fear tactics and sparse anecdotes to make a boogeyman out of marijuana
In truth, however, the vast majority of adults who use marijuana are responsible, tax-paying citizens who ask only that they not be automatically treated as lawbreakers. Just as some adults enjoy the occasional weekend cocktail, or a beer after work, others prefer to relax and socialize with marijuana. Every objective, scientific study has confirmed that marijuana is far less harmful to the individual and society than alcohol. So if we don’t have an issue with adults who responsibly consume alcohol, why should we have a problem with adults who responsibly consume marijuana?
As with any piece of legislation, the ultimate fate of the Marijuana Regulation, Control, and Taxation Act will depend mostly on how vigorously our allies in the General Assembly push for its passage. Those of us who live in districts with unsupportive legislators must make the case and show them that their constituents support the bill. Those of us who live in districts with supportive legislators must be unrelenting in asking these allies to make the issue a top priority for 2015.
Ultimately, whether Rhode Island becomes the first state to regulate marijuana on the East Coast is up to us. I hope you will join me and the rest of the Regulate Rhode Island coalition in the fight.
If you think all the snow and wind this week was an inconvenience on your life, think of what it was like for homeless Rhode Islanders.
“Just about everyone was in a shelter,” said Barbara Kalil, an outreach worker for the Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project.
On Monday evening, between 5 and 8pm, just as the winds were starting to pick up, Kalil and others scoured downtown Providence and the South Side one more time, looking for people still on the streets. She found five, and got them into shelters. But it’s safe to assume not everyone in Rhode Island made it into a shelter.
John Freitas, also an outreach worker and Kalil’s husband, said he knew of a small group of men on Cranston Street who planned to stay in their tents through the winter storm. “I hope they went in when the wind started to really blow,” Freitas said. “A lot of them had tried the shelter system and it just didn’t work for them.”
The shelters were willing to take anyone and everyone who needed a warm, safe, dry spot to spend the storm. Even people who had previously been banned from shelters were allowed to stay on Monday night, no questions asked, said Karen Santilli, spokeswoman for Crossroads RI.
“We would not turn anyone away,” she said.
Crossroads RI typically provides shelter for 61 people – 41 in the women’s shelter and another 10 men and 10 women. But on Monday night through Wednesday morning, there were 85 people. Some 25 people slept on the community room floor. A family came in Monday night, as did a man whose car broke down after being discharged from the hospital.
“Things went well,” said Santilli. “Uneventful, which is how we like them.”
Harrington Hall, which has 120 beds, housed 124 people – plus six employees – for the duration of the storm.
Just last week, there were more than 140 men sharing the 120 beds at Harrington Hall. But because Providence shelters – such as Crossroads, Emmanuel House and the Providence Rescue Mission – were offering extra space, the load was actually lightened on the state-funded shelter in Cranston.
“It wasn’t our busiest night,” said Jean Johnson, the executive director of House of Hope, which runs Harrington Hall. “It was actually very calm. People watched TV, played cards, played chess. Everyone was really cooperative.”
The Seamen’s Church Institute in Newport, a day shelter, stayed open through the storm to accommodate the extra need for beds in the City-by-the-Sea. More than 20 people stayed for two nights, said superintendent Michelle Duga-Erb. They had a big feast on Tuesday, and plow drivers stopped in throughout the nights for coffee and a rest.
“Our mission is to be a safe haven,” Duga-Erb said.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) took the next, and almost final, step required to force through Spectra Energy’s AIM project Friday. If approved, it would expand pipelines and compressor stations needed to transport fracked-gas from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania to New England.
FERC admits that the proposed project will have “some adverse environmental impacts” but it is of the opinion that most of these would be reduced to “less-than-significant” by minor changes to the original plan, FERC wrote, with a toxic brew of acronyms and legal jargon designed to be impenetrable by the average reader in its Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
I admit that wrecking the global climate and exposing humanity to the risk of wiping out a couple of billion people is highly suggestive of an “adverse environmental impact.” The support offered for the opinion that minor changes would reduce this problem to “less-than-significant” is less-than-convincing.
To put the FEIS in perspective, let me recall some background information. Fracked gas is an essential component of the President’s Climate Action Plan – aka all-of-the-above. It provides the fossil fuel industry with cover for enterprises like the AIM project.
James Hansen, former head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, submitted an amicus science brief in a lawsuit brought against the U.S. government:
[U]nabated fossil fuel emissions continue to drive the Earth increasingly out of energy balance. Unless action is undertaken without further delay … Earth’s climate system will be pressed toward and past points of no return … [D]elay in undertaking sharp reductions in emissions will undermine any realistic chance of preserving a habitable climate system.
The bracketed edits are by Mary Christina Wood in her book Nature’s Trust. For more on Hansen’s work this see this short version of a paper, or this long version of the same.
Another important piece of background information is the contained in a video clip from Gassland 2 in which Robert Howarth explains the results of a series of scientific studies:
HOWARTH: The hypothesis here is that shale [fracked] gas is better for global warming than other fossil fuels and it’s a good transitional fuel. We tested that and the answer is: “No, it’s not!” The Whitehouse has clearly bought into this idea that natural gas is part of the solution of moving us gradually off of fossil fuels. I don’t think that they did that with good science.
The result of a convincing study of the effects of fracked gas on the climate is that
… both shale [fracked] gas and conventional natural gas have a larger GHG [greenhouse gas footprint] than do coal or oil, for any possible use …
a quote from a peer reviewed paper A bridge to nowhere: methane emissions and the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas.
With this in mind, deconstructing the FEIS requires only common sense. The conclusion is that our lawmakers fail in their fiduciary duty to cherish and protect the Earth —water, land and air— for current and coming generations.
This is my “favorite” part of the FEIS (see page I-5); you won’t miss a thing if you only read what I highlighted, but I’m including the whole paragraph for lovers of bureaucratic hogwash:
Commentors also noted that the EIS should address the indirect impacts of induced Marcellus shale development. Impacts that may result from additional shale gas development are not “reasonably foreseeable” as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. Nor is such additional development, or any correlative potential impacts, an “effect” of the Project, as contemplated by the CEQ regulations, for purposes of a cumulative impact analysis. The development of the Marcellus shale, which is regulated by the states, continues to drive the need for takeaway interstate pipeline capacity to allow the gas to reach markets. Therefore, companies are planning and building interstate transmission facilities in response to this new source of gas supply. In addition, many production facilities have already been permitted and/or constructed in the region, creating a network through which natural gas may flow along various pathways to local users or the interstate pipeline system, including Algonquin’s existing system. Algonquin would receive natural gas through its interconnection with other natural gas pipelines. These interconnecting pipeline systems span multiple states with shale formations in the northeast, as well as conventional gas formations. We cannot estimate how much of the Project volumes would come from current/existing shale gas production and how much, if any, would be new production “attributable” to the Project.
Take the phrase: “not ‘reasonably foreseeable’ as defined.” Of course, it is perfectly clear that we have a problem: we’re importing gas to Rhode Island and exporting death and destruction to Pennsylvania and to the globe as a whole and we are causing health problems for the people living in the vicinity of the pipelines. Might there be a reason why the pipeline does not run through Watch Hill? No worries! The problem has been defined out of existence by laws written by lobbyists in exchange for campaign contributions. The law is an ass; you can ride it wherever you like, but it usually delivers for the ruling class.
Then there is is the phase “[w]e cannot estimate.” Clearly, our system of government has reversed the burden of the proof: pollution is just fine until the People prove that it’s not. Nobody seems to notice that this runs contrary to the original intent of the Clean Air and Clean Water acts.
There is more of this in the next paragraph, also from page I-5 with my bold:
We also note that the EPA and the states have imposed regulations within the past 2 to 3 years on natural gas production to minimize leaks and methane emissions. Therefore, past studies on production leaks and methane emissions cannot be used to appropriately predict future methane emissions. Predicting methane emissions and associated climate impacts is speculative given the newly required minimization efforts.
Again, the burden of the proof has been reversed. There is no evidence that the fugitive methane problems can be solved; all we have is the “yes we can” from the likes of Halliburton.
Tony Ingraffea explains the problem of methane emissions in this video:
Let me summarize it. There are numerous workshops and conferences, and countless papers on “well-bore integrity” for a simple reason: wellheads leak and nobody knows how to fix it. EPA and FERC act as if they have super-natural powers: “We impose regulations; nature know who’s the boss; problem solved!” I also wonder, if past studies cannot be used to make predictions, how does FERC predict the impact of what it’s approving? Once again, in case of doubt, the corporate stakeholders win.
The next paragraph of the FEIS talks about “improper segmentation.” Let me explain what that means: chop the project into several segments and build the first one under different, national regulations. That has the additional advantage that you’re working with New England senators and governors whose main concern, as we know, is to keep the poor in New England warm. Most importantly, you to never have to evaluate the cumulative impact of all the segments that you incrementally ram down the People’s throat.
FERC has yet another half-assed argument to show that improper segmentation is not a problem for the AIM Project. I’ll spare you the gobbledygook; it’s again on page I-5 of the FEIS. Let me just mention that the price of natural gas on the world market was probably three of four times as high as the national fracked-gas price when the AIM Project was hatched, but we are supposed to have forgotten that.
FERC goes by statutory law written by polluters for polluters. Here is The Trillion-Gallon Loophole: Lax Rules for Drillers that Inject Pollutants Into the Earth, yet another case that strengthens me in my conviction that:
This last point deserves a fuller explanation. For that see this video or better yet read Mary Christine Wood’s book: Nature’s Trust.
More than 500 people crowded into the meeting room of Our Lady of the Rosary Church on Benefit St in Providence for the Worker & Community Speakout for Good Jobs and Quality Care on January 17. At issue was the contract negotiation between Lifespan/Rhode Island Hospital and General Teamsters Local 251 representing some 2,500 hospital employees.
According to Local 251, “As a non-profit entity, Lifespan and RI Hospital are supposed to put the healthcare needs of the community first. Unfortunately, management has taken cost cutting measures, causing shortages in equipment and staff that undermine patient care.”
Literature at the Speakout quoted a nurse, Aliss Collins, saying, “When we are understaffed, I cover 56 patients in three units. It’s not right for the patients or the employees.” There was a story at the Speakout of another nurse who was forced to buy her own equipment for measuring oxygen levels, because the hospital did not provide it.
Obamacare has allowed Lifespan/RI Hospital to take in an additional $33 million in net revenue last year, because so many Rhode Islanders are now covered under Medicaid. Yet rather than invest this money in patient care, Lifespan pays its “ten highest paid executives” more than $16.6 million in its last fiscal year, an average of $1 million more in compensation “than the average earned by CEOs of nonprofit hospitals nationally,” according to the union.
At the same time, hospital employees such as single mom Nuch Keller make $12.46 an hour with no healthcare coverage. Keller’s pay does not even cover her rent. She regularly works 40 hours or more per week, yet Lifespan continues to pay her as a part-time employee. And in case you missed it, Keller works at a non-profit hospital, and receives no healthcare.
The Speakout was intended to show community support for the workers of RI Hospital, and was attended by Representatives David Cicilline and Jim Langevin, as well as General treasurer Seth Magaziner. There were also representatives from many other unions and community groups such as Jobs with Justice, Unite Here! and Fuerza Laboral. Many religious leaders, including Father Joseph Escobar and Rev Duane Clinker, were on hand to show support.
It was hard not to feel that something new was happening at the Speakout. The level of community support and solidarity made one feel as if a union resurgence were imminent, which many feel is necessary if obscene inequality is to be combated.
It was Duane Clinker who helped put the event into perspective for me. He said that unions have often limited their negotiations to wages, hours and benefits, and health-care unions have long argued staffing levels, but “when/if organized workers really make alliance with the community around access to jobs and improved patient care – if that happens in such a large union and a key employer in the state, then we enter new territory.”
This struggle continues on Thursday, January 29, from 2-6pm, with an Informational Picket at Rhode Island Hospital. “The picket line on Thursday is for informational purposes. It is is not a request that anyone cease working or refuse to make deliveries.”
Full video from the Speakout is below.
The bill to criminalize interfering with traffic on the highway while protesting was introduced by Senator Leo Raptakis and co-sponsored by, among others, Senator Paul Jabour. Coincidentally, Senator Jabour is the brother of Christine Jabour, the judge assigned to oversee the cases of five of the seven people arrested during the November 25 #blacklivesmatter protest here in Providence.
I contacted Senator Jabour to ask him about his reasons for signing onto the bill and the coincidence of his sister being the judge in many of the cases that provided the impetus for the legislation. Jabour, a practicing attorney, wanted to be upfront and quite clear when he said, “I never have and never will discuss cases with my sister.” He added that when he and his sister speak, they talk about family, and not about any issues to do with their jobs.
Jabour said that when the author of a bill is looking for co-sponsors, they make the rounds to their colleagues and ask for signatures. Like many, Jabour was “disturbed by the conduct” of protesters blocking the highway and was eager to support a bill that would clarify the limits of protests he sees as dangerous not only to motorists, but to the protesters themselves.
Jabour told me that the penalty outlined in the “final bill may not be a felony” but a misdemeanor. He expects the bill to change in significant ways after public testimony, which will likely include input from the Rhode Island State Police and the Department of Transportation.
A spokesperson for Christine Jabour informed me that the judge has no comment and was unaware of the Senate bill.
Judge Jabour set a trial date of February 5 today for Tess Lavoie-Brown, arrested Nov 25 with six others after hundreds of protesters blocked 95 southbound traffic for about 25 minutes. Due to the snowstorm the court appearances of three defendants, Steven Roberts, Larry Miller and CBattle, will be rescheduled. The case of Servio Gomez, who is facing more serious and complicated charges, is still ongoing.
Molly Kitiyakara pled to the charge of disorderly conduct on January 8, receiving a filing and 50 hours of community service. Charges against Tololupe Lawal were dismissed on December 17.
Radical perspectives on weekly news, local and national, with touring artist and activist, Jared Paul. This week’s episode focuses on (1) Protesters Run Over By Motorists (2) MLK Being Viewed As An Enemy Of The State By The FBI (3) Continued Perspectives On Pervasive Subconscious Racism In America.
I’m bracing myself for the grey wave due to soak us all this Valentine’s Day when the movie opens. A couple of years ago the book was all the talk around my office. Why, I wonder, do smart, competent women go for this type of junk?
My grandmother, who worked as a secretary from youth to old age, a cop’s widow and mother of four, consumed romance novels like she smoked her cigarettes. One after the other. She was nothing like the swooning and weeping women on the covers, even the plucky heroines were wimps compared to her. She faced enough adversity for three lifetimes with Irish-American toughness.
So why did she love these stories? The prize for the right combination of submissiveness and trembling self-assertion was the heart of some arrogant inbred British lord. Like there was no cute stable boys around? Like our relatives back in the old country didn’t have issues with the British?
Good thing Christian Grey doesn’t look like Donald Trump. Even so, this oligarch worship is creepy. Bad enough we have to listen to politicians drivel on about ‘job creators’ as if any mortal ever created anything. As if we need to flatter and appease our betters so maybe they’ll create us some jobs.
And the Fifty Shades plot that a young woman out of college has no better prospects than to sell sex to some rich guy? This is not romance- it’s outrageous. And untenable. Simple math says that the 99% can’t all count on making a living as a sex toy to the 1%.
I miss the old days. Back then when we said ‘eat the rich’ we didn’t mean it that way. We wanted to stick it to the man, not kneel down for him. Where did the anger go?
Like everything else in American culture it was co-opted, commodified and neutralized. The draft ended, campuses settled down. The women’s movement made substantial legal gains and discrimination became a dirty word. Plenty of it, but you don’t see ‘whites only’ or ‘ladies entrance’ any more. Social progress left much of America behind and gave cover to the dismantling of the working middle class.
From ‘Dallas’ to ‘Pretty Woman’ to ‘Maid in Manhattan’ and now ’50 Shades of Grey’ it’s the same wealth worship. It doesn’t work for me. I thought Scarlett O’Hara was a slave owning parasite who should get a job. I thought Princess Diana could have done better. I think rich guys are more likely to look like Rupert Murdoch than Richard Gere.
I know that escapist fantasies are just that. Escape from our real lives. Agency brings responsibility, and that’s a burden sometimes. Everyone on some level would like to be rescued. It’s just that this junk culture, like junk food, will make you fat and hungry at the same time. Believing in fairy tales can mess up your life. Think of poor Diana, she dreamed of Prince Charming and got Prince Charles instead.
Who am I to judge? I think the hottest screen couple ever was the snails in Microcosmos. I read The Enquirer in the grocery line. I own the complete set of Firefly. I call M&M’s and potato chips a balanced lunch. But there’s something not right in making gods of the rich.
If The Baffler ‘Fifty Shades of Late Capitalism’ is correct, this film may be an orgy of product placement. Tell me if I got that right, I’ll be doing other stuff with my time off.
Until this new Congress, Rhode Island’s District 2 Congressman Jim Langevin served on the House Intelligence Committee, tasked with, among other duties, overseeing the US drone program. During his tenure on House Intelligence, Langevin also accepted tens of thousands of dollars from corporations that manufacture drones.
In fact, drone manufacturers are among Langevin’s most generous supporters, according to Open Secrets. The top 5 donors to Langevin’s 2014 campaign committee were:
1. General Dynamics ($32,050)
2. Democratic Party of RI ($19,800)
3. Northup Grumman ($15,200)
4. Raytheon Co. ($13,250)
5. Sheet Metal Workers Union ($12,500)
General Dynamics, Northup Grumman and Raytheon all manufacture drones. This is not the first time I’ve brought up the issue.
“It is not surprising that Congressman Langevin’s work in Congress is of relevance to the defense industry,” said Meg Geoghegan, Langevin’s spokesperson. “General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are key players in our local economy, with General Dynamics Electric Boat alone planning to add 3,000 more jobs at Quonset Point by 2020. In fact, the Rhode Island defense sector supports more than 32,000 jobs overall. ”
The issue isn’t the defense industry. The issue is a Congressman taking money from the industry he was exercising oversight upon. Is that how the game is often played in Washington? Of course. Does it make it right? No. Especially when lives are involved.
In the fall 2014 election, Langevin spent $782,691 against first time GOP candidate and contractor Rhue Rheis, who spent a mere $13,548, according to Open Secrets. Did the incumbent really need the extra money from defense contractors to win against a first time Republican candidate who served in no previous elected office and didn’t even raise even $50,000?
When on the House Intelligence Committee, Langevin voted against “an amendment to require that U.S. agencies involved in drone wars produce annual reports in which they account for all deaths in U.S. drone strikes overseas and identify the civilians and alleged combatants killed. The amendment already passed the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence” in 2013.
Geoghegan, Langevin’s spokesperson, said, “Campaign donations are accepted in good faith with no strings attached, and do not influence Congressman Langevin’s policy work or voting record. He remains a strong advocate for campaign finance reform and transparency, and he is beholden only to the people of Rhode Island.”
In response to the December 2014 Senate Intelligence Committee report which revealed heinous instances of torture, Langevin stood on the side of decency, arguing, “Human rights must be preserved in times of peace and war, and I sincerely hope we can learn from this dark moment in our history.”
But in response to the use of drones, Langevin’s record is more evasive. Drones are used as deadly weapons to track and kill suspected terrorists. At times civilians have been killed. Langevin served on the committee reviewing the drone program, while also receiving money from drone manufacturers.
With the new Congress, Langevin no longer serves on the House Intelligence Committee. To show he is “beholden only to the people of Rhode Island,” Langevin should return donations from the industries he exercised oversight- or give the equivalent amount to charity. His action can serve as an example to incoming members on the House Intelligence Committee.
‘Footballs Plagued By Leaky Bladders’
Great headlines are all that matters
When papers print and networks air
Stories that increase market share
Based on hearsay instead of facts
They fabricate whatever it lacks
‘Cheaters, liars’ are names they use
Building a case without any clues
Innocent means that we turn away
Guilty! we’re glued day after day
When media gets us on their side
Their advertisers smile with pride
The clock ticks down to Super Bowl
Football frenzy is out of control
Not for the Seahawks to repeat
But for bad boy Brady to get beat
c2015pn
With one and five Rhode Island children living in poverty, we discussed why this week on NBC 10 Wingmen.
News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England
The RI ACLU is asking the Providence Police Department to stop videotaping protests until it develops public policies and procedures for this increasingly controversial police tactic.
“That this kind of surveillance is conducted is troubling,” said a letter from the ACLU to Providence Public Safety Commissioner Stephen Pare.” That it has been conducted repeatedly, without oversight or public accountability even after the need for such guidance had been raised with the Department is unacceptable.”
Rachel Simon reported Providence police videotaped Black Lives Matter actions in December. The ACLU mentions that instance, and quotes Simon’s post, and others.
Providence Public Safety Commissioner Steven Pare said he does not think the police department needs a policy on recording protests. “I think we have adequate procedures in place,” he said. He also said the ACLU letter cites an incident that Providence police did not record.
Providence police have been videotaping large protests since at least Occupy Providence, Pare said, and noted that Rhode Island State Police did, too. The video is used in case police need to identify someone who commits a crime, he said.
“If you’re interest is to protest lawfully, it shouldn’t have a chilling effect,” Pare said.
Pare said the video is not used for homeland security purposes and is not shared with any other governmental agency.
The ACLU letter says police videotaped a hotel workers protest at the Renaissance Hotel in June 26, 2014 as well as a State House press conference on the Comprehensive Racial Profiling Prevention Act in February, 2013, among others. Pare said it is not true that police videotaped the State House press event.
Supporters of civil liberties and marginalized people are criticizing Coventry Sen. Lou Raptakis’ bill that would make it a felony, punishable by at least a year in jail, to block a highway.
Raptakis, a conservative who owns a pizza place in Coventry, submitted the controversial bill yesterday. It is a direct response, he has said, to the highway protests, in Providence and across the country, led by Black Lives Matter activists, who organized to counter racial injustice and police violence against Black people in America.
The bill says: “A person commits the crime of unlawful interference with traffic if he or she intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (1) Stands, sits, kneels, or otherwise loiters on any federal or state highway under such circumstances that said conduct could reasonably be construed as interfering with the lawful movement of traffic.” It was co-signed by Senators Frank Lombardo, of Johnston, Frank Lombardi, of Crnaston, Michael McCaffrey, of Warwick, and Paul Jabour, of Providence.
Raptakis’ bill has drawn a sharp rebuke from civil libertarians, homelessness advocates as well as groups promoting an end to racism.
The Rhode Island Homeless Advocacy Project and the RI ACLU released a joint statement yesterday.
“Legislation introduced by Senator Raptakis today, ostensibly to deal with protesters creating a public safety hazard by blocking roadways, is both short-sighted and unnecessary. The bill, S-129, would make it a felony to cause the ‘interruption, obstruction, distraction, or delay of any motorist,’ punishable by between one and three years in prison for a first offense. On its face, this legislation is unnecessary because there are already statutes under which individuals can be charged for this conduct, as happened to several protesters involved in the I-95 demonstration in November.
Apparently feeling that the punishment isn’t severe enough, the Senator would like to give these mostly young people a felony record, potentially impacting severely their future employment, housing and other opportunities for the rest of their lives. The introduction of the bill this week is particularly ironic, considering that we just celebrated the life of Martin Luther King, Jr., whose historic Selma-to-Montgomery march had to have been one of the country’s greatest “obstruction, distraction or delay” of motorists ever. Do we really want to reserve a prison cell for three years to hold his successor?
“The bill also has the potential to curtail the civil liberties not only of lawful protesters but also of individuals experiencing homelessness and living in poverty. The legislation’s broadly-worded and ambiguous language leaves open the possibility that individuals panhandling on sidewalks or medians – a means of survival and a legal exercise of one’s First Amendment rights – could be accused of distracting motorists and jailed under the proposed law.
“Such use of this legislation has negative consequences both for the individual charged and for our state more broadly. To charge an individual attempting to meet his or her basic needs in a legal manner with a felony is both cruel and illogical. Both the court proceedings and the subsequent incarceration of the individual are extremely costly to the state. Furthermore, because of a felony conviction’s impact on employment and housing, the charge could also lengthen bouts of homelessness, which are expensive to taxpayers.
“If Senator Raptakis’ intention is to ensure public safety, this end could better be achieved by fostering constructive dialogue between the police and marginalized communities – whether communities of color protesting unequal treatment or the homeless community securing basic needs – about collaborative solutions to the injustices they face daily. Filling the prisons even more is not the answer.”
Similarly, DARE activists submitted this op/ed.
The movie Selma with its vivid celebration of human courage and dignity, creates poignant and powerful imagery affirming the reason we conmemorate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. How gut-wrenching it was then, to see Dr. King’s holiday marred with a press release by Rhode Island Senator Leonidas Raptakis announcing proposed legislation to charge peaceful protestors, like those who marched along the Edmund Pettus Bridge, with felonies.
Anyone who has watched Henry Hampton’s Eyes on the Prize series, read books like J.L. Chestnut’s Black in Selma, or simply listened to their parents or grandparents tell it, knows that as powerful as the movie Selma was, it only depicts a small slice of the massive grassroots organizing work that went on in Alabama and throughout the Blackbelt. People met, planned, strategized, and analyzed. And people marched. 600 people marched on Bloody Sunday, and at least 25,000 in the final leg into Montgomery on March 24, 1965. Route 80 was merely the terrain in a people’s struggle for justice.
Fifty years later the marching continues so that Black lives will be treated as more than disposable by the system of policing in this country. While being stuck in traffic is a pain, how much greater is the pain of losing a loved one to police violence, and then seeing no repercussions whatsoever for his killer?
Senator Raptakis and other critics of protests that include blocking highways have suddenly become fervent advocates for smooth travel by emergency vehicles. Where is their concern when emergency vehicles are slowed to a crawl during sporting events, construction, or Waterfire? The response of this new cadre of traffic safety advocates is something to the effect of, “Yes, but people going to sporting events or boat shows aren’t blocking traffic on purpose,” as if thinking only of fun and games is somehow morally superior than using desperate means to draw attention to unchecked police racism and violence.
However in a string of cases dating back through the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s, courts, even those in the Deep South, made it clear that “from time time out of mind … [s]uch use of the streets and public places has … been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.” In 1965, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama addressed the issue of whether people could march along U.S. Highway 80 from Selma to Montgomery. Williams v.
Wallace, 240 F. Supp. 100 (N.D. AL 1965). Hardly a liberal institution, the court held, “it seems basic to our constitutional principles that the extent of the right to assemble, demonstrate and march peaceably along the highways and streets in an orderly manner should be commensurate with the enormity of the wrongs that are being protested and petitioned against.”
The rights protected in these court decisions belong to everyone; consider that disruptive, intentional protest up to and including blocking entrance ramps to Route 95 was part of a mainly white, middle class protest by Credit Union depositors in 1991, as recently reported by The Coalition talk
Fifty years after Bloody Sunday, people still march and sometimes block highways or shut down malls and train stations because Black lives do matter. And as Dr. King said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” Yet Senator Raptakis would have us charged with felonies and jailed for up to five years for something that even courts in the segregated south in 1965 recognized as a fundamental constitutional right.
We hope he has a chance to see Selma.
This op/ed was co-signed by:
The recent protest outside Juan Noboa’s Olneyville residence by restaurant workers claiming that they were owed thousands of dollars in unpaid salaries for work at his Café Atlantic restaurant has provoked conversation about the propriety of such tactics. Noboa, though his lawyer, denies any wrongdoing and claims that one of his children was “terrified” by the crowd outside his house. His lawyer added that dissatisfied employees should not “protest at a man’s home in the dark” and suggested that a suitable location for protest might be the now closed restaurant.
It is true that no one would be disturbed by a protest at a closed restaurant. For Noboa and other business owners accused of misconduct by their employees, such an event would be perfect, because the media would not cover it, and no one would have to hear the protester’s demands. Those targeted by such protests and their defenders like to point out that there are proper channels through which to make such complaints. The protesters outside Noboa’s home, with the help of Fuerza Laboral, did file complaints with the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, so we can all rest assured, it is argued, that once the system has run its course, justice will be served and Noboa will be compelled to pay, or not, depending on the Dept. of Labor decision.
Yet protests like these are not about one business owner who may have stolen wages from employees, or even about two restaurants (the other being Gourmet Heaven, located in downtown Providence and formerly on the East Side) that have closed suddenly, leaving their employees high and dry. These protests are about what Phoebe Gardener, a Community Organizer for Fuerza Laboral, called, “…a pattern of Providence-based food establishments intentionally cheating workers of their wages.”
Statistics on wage theft are difficult to find. At the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) it is estimated that nationally, wage theft, “is costing workers more than $50 billion a year.” To put that into perspective, the EPI notes that “All of the robberies, burglaries, larcenies, and motor vehicle thefts in the nation cost their victims less than $14 billion in 2012, according to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports.” Wage theft is at least three times more costly than all other forms of theft combined, yet our prisons are filled with conventional thieves, not duplicitous employers.
Surveys indicate that most victims of wage theft never sue and never complain to the government. “A three-city study of workers in low-wage industries found that in any given week, two-thirds experienced at least one pay-related violation,” reports EPI, emphasis mine.
Wage theft is widespread, extremely profitable and easy to get away with.
Workers at the low end of the pay scale, or who are socially vulnerable, such as undocumented immigrants or former prisoners, are frequent victims. Reporting the crime of wage theft takes time, time the working poor need to be working in order to survive.
There is little reason for employers to properly pay what they owe workers. If caught, an employer will be ordered to pay the workers what they are determined to owe and may be fined a “maximum civil monetary penalty” of $1,100.
So let’s revisit the tactics of protest.
Having protesters arrive outside your home at 6am to accuse you of theft with a bullhorn is embarrassing and may be even a little frightening for your family. The very possibility that this might happen should serve as a deterrent to any business owner in Providence who might be considering cheating employees out of the money owed to them. As the Fuerza Laboral press release stated, “Workers and allies are bringing the message that they must be paid in full immediately or else they will continue to bring public attention on Noboa and the other owners.” [emphasis mine]
Workers, who used to be all but powerless in these situations, are finding ways to shift the playing field. This doesn’t mean that workers suddenly have the advantage, far from it, but if workers continue to use such tactics, business owners will no longer be able to steal from their employees so easily. Now offending employers risk something much more valuable than money: Their public reputations and the respect of their neighbors and family.
Laws could be passed that strengthen the rights of workers and make it easier to file claims of wage theft. Fines and penalties for non-payment or underpayment of wages could be increased to the point where they act as real deterrents, rather than as a cost of doing business. Our legislature could enact legislation that makes it economically worthwhile for unpaid employees to pursue their rightful claims.
However, in the absence of thoughtful legislation that protects the rights of workers, public protest must fill in to loudly proclaim a simple truth: Workers have dignity and deserve to be treated with respect.
