Daniel Imperato – Official Website
Daniel Imperato For President 2024
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Video: US-NATO Proxy War in Ukraine Utilizes Space Technology appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Former Wall Street Analyst Counts the True Cost of COVID-19 Vaccines. appeared first on Global Research.
Likud files criminal complaint against television writer, producer Gior Chamizer, accusing him of incitement to murder.
By World Israel News Staff
The Likud party filed a criminal complaint Tuesday against an Israeli television producer and writer whom it says is guilty of incitement to murder for his comments against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The complaint was filed against Giora Chamizer, creator of a number of children’s and teen-oriented television drama shows, over his comments during a protest against the government’s judicial reform plan Sunday evening. The protest was called after Netanyahu announced plans to fire Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (Likud) over his Saturday night address demanding the government freeze the judicial overhaul.
Chamizer spoke with Channel 12 during the protest, calling Netanyahu a “dictator,” and suggesting the prime minister will be violently overthrown or killed.
The end for [Netanyahu] will be like that of every dictator in our history,” Chamizer said. “Look up on Wikipedia and see where dictators end up. That is where Bibi [Netanyahu] will end up.”
“The prime minister wanted to divide the people, and without intending it, he united the people,” Chamizer added.
In a recent Instagram video aimed at young viewers of his television shows, Chamizer claimed the judicial reforms would benefit Netanyahu in his ongoing corruption trials and called Netanyahu’s son, Yair, a “parasite.”
“When you watch my series, you always know who’s good and who’s bad, right? The question is whether you know how to do it in real life as well, when you look at what’s happening in our beloved country. I’m sure you do.”
“Let’s say that in my series there was a character of a leader who is on trial for serious crimes, and instead of fighting for his innocence, like any citizen, he tries to change the rules of the game in order to cancel his trial. Does he belong to the good guys or the bad guys?
“And let’s say that this leader had a son, a parasite who never worked a day in his life, who — from the moment he wakes up — does not stop writing horrible and violent posts on the internet in which he vilifies prime ministers, presidents, chiefs of staff, judges, anyone who dares to criticize his father.”
“If you don’t wake up today, already on the next [Passover] Seder night you will not live in the State of Israel, but in Bibi’s dictatorship. This will be a halachic [run according to Orthodox Jews law] state where women and minorities have no rights, where you can be put in jail without trial for a comment you wrote on Instagram. There will be no more elections, and the government will pass from Bibi to his son like in the dictatorships of Syria and Egypt,” he claimed.
“Join the side of the good guys,” Chamizer said, urging his young followers to join the anti-Netanyahu protests.
The post Israeli TV producer accused of calling for Netanyahu’s assassination appeared first on World Israel News.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid has repeatedly said he will roll back everything on the day he returns to power.
By David Isaac, JNS
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for a “timeout” on judicial reform to give dialogue a chance. He also promised his supporters that reform will get done. If negotiations fail, and the coalition pushes through reform anyway, the opposition has promised to reverse it once it’s at the helm.
Opposition leader Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid Party has repeatedly said, as he did in February at the Knesset, “On the day we return to power, all these changes will be canceled.… We will fight against all this insanity with all our strength.”
Two analysts JNS spoke with, despite holding opposite views about the reform, said that’s unlikely. Russell Shalev of the Kohelet Policy Forum, who supports the reform, and Amichai Cohen of the Israel Democracy Institute, who opposes it, agree that the opposition will not want to give up the reform’s benefits because the reform takes power away from judges and gives it to elected officials. Politicians would, therefore, have an incentive to uphold the new system.
“The basic idea behind all these reform proposals is democratic accountability—increasing the public’s ability to decide on the policies that influence our faith, our politics, our country,” Shalev told JNS. He noted that the most important proposal advanced so far, up until Netanyahu froze the legislative process on Monday, was a bill to change how judges are selected by nullifying judges’ control over the Judicial Selection Committee.
“The reform gives the public [through its elected officials] the ability to appoint judges. So I have a hard time believing that should this be passed in the future, a left-wing government will give up its newfound power to decide who will be the judges,” he said.
Cohen, despite having an unfavorable view of the reforms, believing “they would significantly undermine the identity of Israel as a democratic state,” nevertheless seconded Shalev’s assessment. “Once they receive more power, will politicians be willing to give it up? I don’t think so. They believe that they should be in control and they won’t want to hand it back,” he said, adding that he opposes politicians from either side having “unbalanced, unchecked power.”
Shalev disagreed that politicians will gain unchecked power, noting that elections act as a check. “There is a lot of misinformation about the proposals—how the coalition will have no checks and balances and can do whatever it wants; how giving it the power to choose judges is such a terrible thing. But in a democracy, the coalition today is the opposition tomorrow and the opposition in four years will be the majority. It’ll be the other side that chooses the judges and will be able to promote its policies. There’s nothing here that warrants the apocalyptic rhetoric that we’re hearing.”
Jerome Marcus, an American lawyer who has written extensively on Israel’s legal reform, took a more pessimistic view about the chances reform will stick, even assuming the legislative freeze thaws and the government resumes it. In his scenario, the opposition won’t get a chance to reverse it because the Supreme Court will strike the reform down.
“I don’t know what happens then. There’s no road map here. It’s the very definition of a constitutional crisis,” Marcus told JNS. “But I think the likelihood is very strong that the government would fall and it’s certainly good odds that the next government would not be a government that supported these proposals.
“They probably would be delighted to reverse whatever was enacted, but again I think they won’t have to reverse anything because the Supreme Court will already have struck it down.”
Marcus said he thought the government, and not the court, would fall because cracks had already appeared within the Likud Party before Netanyahu made his announcement calling for a timeout.
While Justice Minister Yair Levin warned the Supreme Court on March 20 that he wouldn’t accept a court decision overturning judicial reform, and was echoed by another architect of the reform, Knesset member Simcha Rothman, Economy Minister Nir Barkat of Likud said a day later he would accept the court’s decision. Other Likud MKs called for a temporary halt to the legislation.
The coalition has a five-vote margin in the Knesset and it won’t hold on to enough MKs to see the battle between the branches through, Marcus predicted. The court, on the other hand, will be of one mind, “which is the problem this reform attempts to address in the first place. They all think alike.”
The post What’s to stop the next government from reversing judicial reform? appeared first on World Israel News.
Representative Patrick McHenry (R-NC) speaks before a hearing in Washington, DC, on July 17, 2019. (Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The Republican lawmaker overseeing the House investigation into the ongoing banking crisis told an influential bank lobbying group last week that it was “hackish” to blame deregulation for recent bank failures — including the collapse of an institution that’s been his top individual source of campaign cash.
Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), who has received $275,000 in donations since 2013 from executives at Signature Bank, will lead the House Financial Services Committee’s first hearing on Wednesday looking into the sudden failures of Signature Bank and Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) earlier this month.
One key factor in Signature Bank’s collapse was its decision to aggressively pursue cryptocurrency companies’ deposits before the crypto market imploded. McHenry, who benefited last election cycle from nearly $170,000 in spending by a pro-crypto super PAC, has been an avid supporter of the industry, which is built around digital money or assets.
The lawmaker has previously scolded financial regulators seeking to scrutinize crypto — which critics describe as inherently speculative and without real use — and he has embraced crypto lobbyists’ proposal to establish new special regulations for digital currencies, even though they can be overseen and reined in using existing regulatory authorities.
In advance of the House hearing this week, McHenry has made several public appearances urging lawmakers to wait to get the facts and avoid speculating about what caused the banks’ downfalls. But in a speech last week before the American Bankers Association, a powerful Washington banking lobby, McHenry ruled out one potential factor: the bipartisan 2018 deregulation law signed by President Donald Trump.
The 2018 law, which McHenry supported, pared back government oversight of so-called regional banks like Signature Bank and SVB.
McHenry was one of a handful of lawmakers from both parties who addressed the American Bankers Association last week during its annual Washington summit. The bank lobbying group raised $141 million in 2021, according to its most recent tax return.
After a quick speech, McHenry was interviewed by the American Bankers Association’s CEO, Rob Nichols, who asked McHenry to respond to critics blaming the recent bank failures on the 2018 deregulation law, which the association backed.
“I think it’s unbecoming, I think it’s quite hackish,” said McHenry. “We need to be a little more patient and find out what the facts are,” he continued, adding that the 2018 law “did not touch at all the facts and circumstances for these two failed banks.”
The legislation reduced mandatory oversight of regional banks, firms holding between $50-250 billion in assets under management. Instead, the law allowed banking regulators, who have historically been differential to the banking industry, to use their discretion to apply enhanced rules on regional banks.
McHenry attempted to distance himself from Signature Bank, after Bloomberg News reported that the bank’s executives hosted a fundraiser for him just ten days before the firm went bust.
Both SVB and Signature Bank surpassed the $50 billion asset threshold in 2019, the year after Congress passed the deregulatory law. Both banks then continued expanding rapidly until earlier this month, when they were taken over by state and federal banking authorities. If Congress had never relaxed the rules, each bank would have been subject to more stringent regulations, stress tests, and capital requirements.
Nichols, who was paid nearly $5 million in 2021, said that he was in “heated agreement” with McHenry, whom he described as “the adult in the room.”
During an appearance on CBS News on March 19, McHenry similarly cautioned against pointing fingers over the collapse of SVB and Signature Bank, saying that “until I have the facts, I’m not going to draw a conclusion.”
However, he also gave a nod to conservative culture warriors’ insistence that SVB’s failure stemmed from the company’s interest in “environmental, social, and corporate governance,” suggesting that SVB’s and Signature Banks’ executives may have been “more concerned about politics, or the environmental or social goods” than with “proper oversight of people’s deposits.”
Ironically, no other lawmaker has financially benefited more in recent years from Signature Bank executives’ interest in politics.
McHenry has been the top House recipient of campaign donations from Signature Bank executives in every election cycle since 2014, according to data from OpenSecrets. The bank’s employees have been McHenry’s top individual source of campaign cash over the course of his career.
Last week, McHenry attempted to distance himself from Signature Bank, after Bloomberg News reported that the bank’s executives hosted a fundraiser for him just ten days before the firm went bust.
McHenry told reporters that he returned the donations, adding: “When people contribute to me, it’s an endorsement of my agenda — not the other way around.”
Signature’s rapid growth, its accumulation of uninsured deposits worth more than the $250,000 guaranteed by the federal government, and its decision to court major clients in the highly volatile crypto industry should have prompted regulators to take a closer look at the bank, analysts bemoaned after the collapse.
Before the crypto bubble burst, there was as much as $3 trillion worth of investor money in the cryptocurrency industry.
Despite the vast amount of money behind the industry, boosters have never been able to demonstrate a clear use-case for crypto, other than as a means of facilitating crime, scams, money laundering, or regulatory arbitrage, the pursuit of legal loopholes to evade government oversight.
These problems are exemplified by Signature Bank’s crypto clientele, which played a major role in its recent collapse. The bank’s partners included the crypto exchange FTX and the crypto lender Celsius, both of which went bankrupt last year amid allegations of large scale embezzlement.
Another Signature Bank client, the crypto exchange Binance, has reportedly been helping clients launder money and evade taxes for years. On Monday, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) accused Binance of operating unregistered derivatives exchanges, which enabled the company to disregard rules “designed to prevent and detect money laundering and terrorism financing.”
Former representative Barney Frank (D-MA), who served on Signature Bank’s board of directors, has publicly speculated that “regulators were trying to send a message about crypto” when they took over the bank, though he failed to articulate why that might be inappropriate.
When the government facilitated the sale of Signature Bank’s deposits and loans to Flagstar Bank on March 19, the transaction notably did not include the bank’s crypto-related deposits.
Despite the controversy around crypto, the industry has won staunch defenders in Congress — including McHenry, who became the House financial services chair in January.
McHenry has been among lawmakers who have, since 2021, pushed back against top officials at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) who were interested in charging crypto firms like Binance with operating unregistered securities exchanges.
Regulators at the SEC, including its chair, Gary Gensler, have said that most cryptocurrencies are securities and, therefore, come under their jurisdiction. McHenry has pushed for the CFTC to have regulatory power over cryptocurrencies, rather than the SEC, which is known as a much tougher regulator.
Such a move — long sought by lobbyists — would give the public the impression that crypto companies are subject to comprehensive oversight when, in reality, they would be under the authority of a relatively weak regulator of their own choosing.
In August 2021, for example, McHenry lashed out at Gensler for asserting SEC authority over crypto exchanges, accusing the agency head of “a blatant power grab that will hurt American innovation.” McHenry has also introduced legislation that would exempt cryptocurrency token issuers from SEC disclosure requirements.
The shape of the congressional inquiry into Signature Bank will depend in large part on McHenry, who has received substantial financial support from the bank’s executives.
The Republican has additionally pushed back on other regulators who have expressed an interest in subjecting banks involved in cryptocurrencies to higher levels of scrutiny.
In November 2021, as the crypto market was near the height of its frenzy, McHenry criticized a top bank regulator, acting head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) Michael Hsu, for arguing that banks with partners in crypto and other forms of financial technology, or fintech, required more government oversight.
“The nascent fintech industry and the development of digital assets offer great promise to strengthen the US financial system and improve access to credit and investment for all American consumers and small businesses,” the lawmaker wrote in a letter.
McHenry again cautioned Hsu in October 2022, when the acting OCC head said that fintech firms who partnered with banks should face “enhanced engagement” and a shift away from a “lighter supervisory approach.”
As it happens, Signature grew unsustainably in part by relying on a fintech platform, made by a company called Tassat Group Inc., that enabled the bank’s corporate clients to trade cryptocurrency at any time of day.
The system, called Signet, helped Signature Bank enjoy an “enormous growth in deposits,” as Tassat CEO Kevin Greene boasted in February 2022, before the crypto market downturn. Two other banks that have used TassatPay to facilitate crypto transactions, including Customers Bancorp and Western Alliance, have also experienced distress after the collapse of Signature Bank and SVB.
A class action lawsuit filed last month against Signature Bank argues that the platform gave the bank “actual knowledge” of the now-infamous FTX fraud and “substantially facilitated” embezzlement by company executives.
Brought by Statistica Capital, a crypto trading firm and former Signature Bank client that used Signet to deposit funds with FTX, the suit alleges that “by virtue of operating Signet, Signature directly observed the improper commingling and misappropriation of customer funds.”
Now, the shape of the congressional inquiry into Signature Bank — and its crypto dealings — will depend in large part on McHenry, who has received substantial financial support from the bank’s executives and its former crypto interests.
In addition to being the top recipient of campaign cash from Signature Bank executives, McHenry also benefited from $167,000 in spending last year by a super PAC called Crypto Innovation — which was primarily funded by a separate crypto-focused political group bankrolled by FTX executives, including its alleged fraudster CEO Sam Bankman-Fried.
“That Chair McHenry was on the wrong side of the crypto debate is now even more clear with the failure of his Signature benefactor,” said Bartlett Naylor, financial policy advocate for the consumer watchdog organization Public Citizen.
You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Lever, here.
Members of a recently formed union of Starbucks workers hold a rally to celebrate the first anniversary of their founding, December 9, 2022, in New York City, New York. (Andrew Lichtenstein / Corbis via Getty Images)
In a federal court case over Starbucks’s alleged anti-union retaliation, the coffee giant is deploying a maneuver that labor experts say could have a chilling effect on workers’ organizing efforts and potentially set a disastrous precedent — hijacking the proceedings to dig up information on employees and intensify retaliation as part of its battle to crush a labor uprising in its stores.
That includes the Buffalo location where employees launched the Starbucks Workers United organizing campaign that has now spread nationwide — and where the company fired six workers in alleged retaliation for organizing.
Federal labor regulators are suing Starbucks on behalf of the union and workers over its conduct, but last October, a Trump-appointed judge in Buffalo, New York, ruled that as a defendant in the case, Starbucks is allowed to use subpoena power to obtain employee communications — even though the company can then use those communications to identify union sympathizers within its workforce.
In other words, instead of simply defending itself against allegations of illegal union busting on a mass scale, the coffee giant is using the ensuing legal proceedings to double down. Labor officials and union scholars say the information the company is seeking to obtain can empower its executives and managers to target union organizers for pressure, intimidation, and retaliation.
“It would put all the employees at risk of being terminated, because they’re clearly terminating union supporters,” said Cathy Creighton, director of the Buffalo Co-Lab of Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. “It’ll be easy to figure out who the union supporters were and terminate them.”
After getting the green light on this legal strategy in Buffalo, Starbucks is now employing it elsewhere. On Monday, another federal judge overseeing a Long Island–based injunction case ruled in favor of granting several key subpoenas sought by Starbucks, although with a more restricted scope, in a separate case also stemming from alleged anti-union retaliation. These New York cases that remain in limbo are the last two of the five injunctions the National Labor Relations Board has so far filed against Starbucks.
At issue is the federal injunction process, an emergency legal maneuver that calls on a federal court to order labor rights offenders to provide immediate relief for workers. In August 2021, Jennifer Abruzzo, the proactive general counsel of the NLRB, which enforces US labor law, issued a directive urging staff to aggressively seek federal injunctions against employers when the agency’s internal remedies are too slow to prevent anti-union retaliation.
Since Starbucks workers began to unionize, the coffee chain has racked up more than five hundred alleged labor violations across thirty-eight states, according to the NLRB. A year and a half later, not only has the NLRB’s strategy of seeking outside intervention failed so far to stop Starbucks’ union-busting efforts on a national scale, but in Buffalo, the coffee chain used the discovery process of an injunction case to ask for internal texts and emails between employees or union members in response to a cease-and-desist order filed against the company.
The NLRB is appealing the Buffalo ruling in the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, leaving the injunction case effectively paused in the lower court. Both the labor board and labor organizers contend that using subpoenas to ask for such information is itself a violation of the law that could chill unionization for workers wary of being targeted and harassed by their managers.
The NLRB called for the federal appeals court to force the lower court to protect employees’ confidential messages or to directly grant its original request for worker relief and reinstatement.
Starbucks’ abusive litigation conduct has already significantly delayed justice in a proceeding designed by Congress to provide swift relief. Worse still, it has enlisted the power of a federal court to try to extract confidential information implicating important federally protected rights,
wrote Buffalo NLRB regional director Linda Leslie in her petition.
In August 2021, Starbucks workers at one store in Buffalo filed the first union drive for what would become Starbucks Workers United, a union affiliate of the Service Employees International Union.
In the following months, more stores in the area followed suit, and the coffee chain flooded the region with a team of corporate executives and managers. Over the next few months, these anti-union operators allegedly surveilled and intimidated employees, and ultimately fired six in retaliation for organizing.
The understaffed NLRB office in the region took six months to investigate the union’s claims, but by June 2022, it had issued a far-reaching complaint that encompassed hundreds of alleged labor violations and filed an injunction to reinstate the workers who had been fired, as well as a seventh employee whom the NLRB alleges had been forced to quit.
The proposed injunction carries particular weight, because it contained a national cease-and-desist order, which union lawyers could use to prompt quick enforcement against future Starbucks labor violations in other cities by charging the company with contempt of a federal court.
In case proceedings, Starbucks’ lawyers asked for a subpoena that would force the union to give up a broad range of emails, texts, and other notes that would disclose employees’ union activities.
In the US District Court for the Western District of New York, the union and NLRB argued these subpoenas violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which prevents an employer from “coercively” questioning workers about their views on the union, or what other employees have said to each other about it.
In September, Judge John Sinatra rejected the argument that he should have to consider so-called “union-employee privilege” if it bars evidence gathering on broad topics — a decision that shocked labor experts.
“It’s so abnormal that I would never have dreamed it possible — that essentially a judge would be ordering employees to turn over their internal union communications, which an employer may not ask for under the law,” Creighton told us.
In a blog post in On Labor, University of California, Berkeley, law professor Catherine Fisk said that the decision — and the results of NLRB’s subsequent appeal, filed on January 27 — risk turning injunction cases into “a hunting license for companies to harass unions and workers.”
Over the past several years, Sinatra, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018, has made headlines for rulings that caused consternation for liberal and left-leaning politicians in New York State. In the fall, Sinatra overturned part of a concealed-carry law signed into law by New York governor Kathy Hochul (D), after the US Supreme Court overturned a law that effectively banned people from carrying handguns statewide.
In 2021, Sinatra ruled to place Byron Brown on the ballot in the general election for mayor of Buffalo against democratic socialist India Walton, even though Brown lost the Democratic primary to Walton and missed the deadline to get on the ballot with another party. The decision was later reversed in appellate court, and Brown subsequently won the race with a write-in campaign.
After the favorable outcome in Buffalo, Starbucks asked the court to allow similar subpoenas in an injunction case that the NLRB filed on behalf of the union and workers over alleged anti-union conduct on Long Island.
In May, the union lost its election there six to five. But according to a suit filed by the NLRB in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, several of the workers who voted against the union had been supportive before receiving threats from their managers, and one of the workers leading the union push had been fired in retaliation.
While Starbucks spokesperson Andrew Trull told us that the worker was let go because of violation of company policy, the NLRB suit seeks to reinstate the employee and recognize the union at the store, despite the union loss.
In response, Starbucks requested in December that Magistrate Judge James Cho issue a subpoena for communications related to why employees changed their minds over the course of the union drive, among others.
After urging Starbucks and the NLRB to find a compromise on the matter, Cho ruled on Monday to allow key subpoenas seeking communications from any employees who changed their minds about the union and documents charting the number of employees who favored or disfavored union representation.
In a conference earlier this month, Cho first suggested he was open to granting some of Starbucks’s subpoenas, saying that he viewed his role as not being strictly bound by the NLRA protections but as balancing Section 7 rights “and [Starbucks’s] ability to be able to put on an appropriate defense.”
During that conference, Cho also told union lawyers that he may compel them to provide text and email communications between two employees who had voted against the union after initially showing support for it. The workers previously testified in the NLRB administrative hearing, so he argued that their identities have effectively been revealed.
The problem with doing so, argued a union lawyer in the conference, is that it’s possible that these communications refer to other employees’ views on unionization.
“There’s only twelve or fifteen employees at issue here, and even if names are redacted, they’re going to be able to figure out exactly who’s being referenced,” noted Rachel Paster, an attorney with Cohen Weiss & Simon LLP representing Starbucks Workers United.
Starbucks lawyers in the Long Island case argue that restricting all NLRA-protected messages from becoming evidence violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “We continue to contend that decisions made about the allegations should consider all available facts,” said Trull.
Labor scholars say this view subverts labor law. The fact that the NLRA isn’t enforced the same way in federal court as in NLRB proceedings shows a lack of familiarity with labor law among district court judges and court clerks, said Anne Marie Lofaso, a professor of labor law at West Virginia University.
“The whole point of the act is to create uniform national labor rights and policy,” said Lofaso. “That’s the purpose of it: so that we don’t have uneven enforcement of rights.”
After the conference earlier this month, the NLRB compromised with Starbucks’ lawyers by withdrawing its objection to several subpoenas in exchange for tightly restricting the time frame of the documents to the period of the union drive, and for issuing a protective order that preserves employees’ anonymity “to the greatest extent possible.”
The law firm representing the union and workers continued to maintain that the subpoenas should be quashed in their entirety as a violation of worker confidentiality.
Cho only granted subpoenas that complied with the NLRB’s proposed restrictions on March 27, but he left it unresolved how the board plans to preserve employee confidentiality. The NLRB will now have to work this out in the coming weeks.
At the beginning of the month, the Buffalo case reached a milestone when an administrative judge from within the agency ruled that Starbucks had illegally fired the six workers and committed hundreds of other violations of labor law. That case, however, is likely to remain in limbo. Starbucks said it plans to appeal the decision to the five-member national labor board — a process that can take more than a year to conclude.
In the meantime, some of the pro-union workers who were fired in the Buffalo area have been waiting for relief for around a year. Many have had to get new jobs, which prevent them from being active in the ongoing push for a contract.
“There’s days where I’m like, ‘Yeah, we’re gonna fight this, we’re gonna win, I can do this, it’s only a couple more months, this is gonna be fine,’” said Victoria Conklin, a barista who alleges she was fired in retaliation for union activities shortly after the NLRB filed its Buffalo complaint in June. “And then there’s days where I’m missing so much of my coworkers’ lives.”
Conklin said that Starbucks union drives have slowed in the Buffalo area, where around half the stores have unionized, but she thinks momentum may be picking up again. Since Buffalo has a unique role in the Starbucks Workers United campaign as its starting point, Casey Moore, another area barista-turned-spokesperson for the union, said that it’s frustrating to see the process start to founder there.
“Even with all of the stuff that the NLRB is doing, it’s still not enough,” said Moore. “I mean, labor law was not built for workers in this country.”
You can subscribe to David Sirota’s investigative journalism project, the Lever, here.
Ancient fishhooks, among the oldest ever found, used to hunt sharks or large fish, were discovered in Ashkelon.
The post SHARK HUNTING? What does discovery of ancient tool tell us about Ashkelon’s history? appeared first on World Israel News.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post UN Security Council Won’t Probe Nord Stream Bombing appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Serbia and Hungary Form Strategic Council Despite EU Opposition appeared first on Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article …
The post Video: What Is America’s Exceptionalism? Ray McGovern and Judge Napolitano appeared first on Global Research.