by Lindsay Beyerstein
How our blog got its name
Sidney Hillman was a powerful national figure during the Great Depression, a key supporter of the New Deal, and a close ally of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
When the rumor spread that President Roosevelt ordered his party leaders to “clear it with Sidney” before announcing Harry S. Truman as his 1944 running mate, conservative critics turned on the phrase, trumpeting it as proof that the president was under the thumb of “Big Labor.”
Over the years, the phrase lost its sting and became a testament to Hillman's influence.
It's hard to imagine a labor leader wielding that kind clout today, but we like the idea—and we hope Sidney would give thumbs up to our blog.
Clear It With Sidney
- It takes a special kind of scumbag boss to keep workers waiting for 40 minutes when they took advantage of his "open door policy" to ask about their union, and then fire them for not working. That's what Cablevision VP Rick Levesque did to workers in Canarsie.
- Levesque reportedly allowed some of the Cablevision techs to drift back to work before inviting a select group of union activists to meet with him and firing them on the spot.
- The conservative group FreedomWorks produced an attack video of a fake Hillary Clinton having fake sex with a fake panda, David Corn reports. An odd choice of themes, given that Clinton, sex, and pandas are all more popular than FreedomWorks.
- New York chain restaurants are required to post calorie counts, but the authorities don't check for accuracy. Filmmaker Casey Neistat puts their claims to the test.
Two weeks ago in Canarsie, a group of Cablevision workers took advantage of their company's famous "open-door" management policy by stopping by a vice president's office at the beginning of their shift. They wanted to talk about the future of their union. The technicians had voted to join the Communications Workers of America nine months prior, but contract talks were dragging on, and they wanted some assurance that the company was negotiating in good faith and not just trying to break the union.
The VP kept them waiting for 40 minutes and then fired them all on the spot, Michael Powell reports:
They waited for 20 minutes to talk, then 20 more. La’kesia Johnson, 44, grew restless and walked to the front office. A manager told her to go back inside. Then the vice president walked in and asked, essentially: Who’s supposed to be working now?
Every worker, 22 in all, raised a hand.
“Ladies and gentlemen,” the vice president said, according to multiple accounts, “I am sorry to tell you that you’ve all been permanently replaced.”
“I said, ‘Whaaat?’ ” Ms. Johnson says. “Replaced? You just fired us? You don’t even know what we want.”
Ms. Johnson says the vice president looked at her and stated: I don’t care what you want. [NYT]
Cablevision claims that the workers were fired because they refused to go to work, a claim that is undermined by the fact that the workers loaded up their trucks with all the supplies they needed for their shift before they went to see the VP.
The Village Voice reports that about 50 workers initially showed up to meet with vice president Rick Levesque, but that most left to go back to work when they realized he had no intention of meeting with them, but a core group of activists was invited stay, according to the Voice:
As the technicians were leaving, Levesque approached Adams, his fellow shop stewards and a few other technicians to meet with him inside the site's conference room.
"He says he has time all of a sudden to speak with us. So, we sit down, and we're expecting to speak with him right then and there. And, he spends another 20-25 minutes before he comes back," Adams says.
When he came back the workers were informed that they'd been permanently replaced for staging an unauthorized meeting and refusing to work. Five of the fired workers, who were rehired last week, were already in the middle of jobs when they were called back to be fired for "refusing" to work. [VV]
All of the major mayoral candidates in New York are supporting the Cablevision workers. The union and the fired technicians were in Albany this week urging state legislators to investigate Cablevision's labor practices.
[Photo credit: A cable technician, for illustration, jDevaun, Creative Commons.]
Congratulations to Bob Ortega of the Arizona Republic on winning the February Sidney Award for his expose of the faulty SurePath HPV test, which has a dramatically elevated rate of false-negative results compared to other tests on the market. Women have died or lost their uteruses to cancer after getting at least two false-negative SurePath test results in a row. A false negative means that an HPV+ woman is told she doesn't have the virus, which means that her doctors may wait longer before scheduling her next Pap smear. HPV is the virus that causes most cervical cancer. If HPV causes cancer, early detection is key to a successful treatment. If false-negative results delay cancer detection, the disease may become more difficult to treat. Millions of American women get the SurePath test every year, even though the manufacturer and the FDA are well aware of the false-negative problem. Find out why in my interview with Ortega for The Backstory.
This New York Times editorial pulls no punches. It bluntly states what everyone knows, but what some have been too delicate to spell out in so many words, namely, that the Republicans are using the filibuster to strangle Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
The bureau cannot operate without a director. Under the Dodd-Frank law, most of its regulatory powers — particularly its authority over nonbanks like finance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders and credit agencies — can be exercised only by a director. Knowing that, Republicans used a filibuster to prevent President Obama’s nominee for director, Richard Cordray, from reaching a vote in 2011. Mr. Obama then gave Mr. Cordray a recess appointment, but a federal appeals court recently ruled in another case that the Senate was not in recess at that time because Republicans had arranged for sham sessions.
That opinion, if upheld by the Supreme Court, is likely to apply to Mr. Cordray as well, which could invalidate the rules the bureau has already enacted. The president has renominated Mr. Cordray, but Republicans have made it clear that they will continue to filibuster, using phony arguments to keep the agency from operating. [NYT]
Forty-three Senate Republicans wrote a letter to the president threatening to filibuster his nominee until "major structural changes" are made to the CFPB. Needless to say, the Republicans are holding out for structural changes that would cripple the bureau. In its short life so far the CFPB has won an $85 million settlement against American Express for deceptive marketing practices, cracked down on some predatory mortgage-lending tactics, and opened an investigation into dubious credit card marketing on college campuses. Some critics say the bureau hasn't done enough, but the Republicans want to see it doing even less.
[Photo credit: 401(k) 2013, Creative Commons.]
The U.S. Border Patrol claimed that 16-year-old Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez was throwing rocks over a border fence at U.S. agents when he was shot last October, but the autopsy tells a different story.
Bob Ortega reports:
An autopsy report raises new questions about the death of a Mexican youth shot by at least one U.S. Border Patrol officer four months ago in Nogales.
The Border Patrol has maintained that Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, 16, was throwing rocks over the border fence at agents on the U.S. side when an agent fired across the international border the night of Oct. 10.
But entry and exit wounds suggest that all but one of as many as 11 bullets that struck the boy entered from behind, according to the report by two medical examiners working for the Sonora Attorney General’s Office.
Those bullets also entered the boy’s body at a lower point on his frame than they exited, the report found.
“The only way I can fathom that report is that he was lying on his face when he was hit,” said Luis Parra, an attorney representing the Elena Rodriguez family. [Arizona Republic]
Border Patrol claimed the boy was hurtling rocks clear over the fence, but the boy was at street level and the top of the fence was at least 43 feet above him, so if he was throwing rocks over the fence, he wasn't lying down at the time.
Nineteen people have been killed by Border Patrol agents since January 2010.
In an op/ed entitled "The Case for Torture," Will Saletan writes that a recent panel discussion with former CIA officials "shook up [his] assumptions about the interrogation program" and "might shake up yours, too." He doesn't say what he thought before he watched Michael Hayden, Jose Rodriguez, and John Rizzo justify torture, but he goes on to sympathetically enumerate 13 arguments the panelists made. The invited inference is that these are the arguments that changed Saletan's mind, and that the change was to make him more sympathetic to torture.
Saletan shamelessly exploits the ambiguity between "the case some other people made for torture" and "the case I'm making for torture." The defense that he's just reporting what the panelists said is ridiculous. He's not a stringer for the AP. This column appears in the op/ed section.
Saletan structures the column to give himself maximum cover. He starts out by saying that the AEI panel changed his mind, then he enumerates the panelists' arguments, and in the final section he mouths some platitudes about how we should all be willing to reexamine our moral positions.
If it is reporting, it's bad reporting. Saletan takes the claims of the most senior architects of torture at face value. These guys know more about the program than almost anyone, so we can't afford to reflexively discount what they say about it, if we want to understand it, but let's keep in mind that they are professional deceivers who, at best, skirted the law and at worst broke it. They see themselves as fighting an ongoing war and they know that what they say now will have implications for how that war goes. They have every reason to lie about what they did and how they did it.
Saletan blithely ignores basic critical questions like: If torture was so effective, why didn't we catch Bin Laden during the height of the torture era? Why did it take over a decade?
He comes across as utterly credulous, producing lines like: "So, for what it's worth, there were internal checks on the practice, at least because the CIA would be politically accountable for what its interrogators did." Right. That's why Jose Rodriguez deleted all those interrogation tapes.
For minimum journalistic due diligence, Saletan should have tried to square the claims of the panelists against other available evidence--like the testimonies of former detainees, their lawyers, defectors from the military and the intel communities, academic and journalistic experts, and so on. These sources have their own vested interests, but a responsible journalist tries to sort through the competing claims and acknowledges the limits of the available evidence.
Saletan reveals a shaky grasp of the moral and empirical issues at stake. He's impressed with the panelists' bizarre claim that their brand of torture was somehow more acceptable because they used it to crush the detainees' will to resist rather than to extract information through sheer physical agony. Practically speaking, torture is an ineffective means of extracting truth in the moment because the target will say anything to stop the pain. However, it's an unproven assumption that utterly crushing a detainee's spirit is a more reliable means to the truth than non-coercive interrogation. You might end up with a detainee who will say anything he thinks you want to hear because you've severed his grip on reality, or not say anything intelligible because you've pushed him into stupor, delirium, or intractible paranoia--as opposed to a detainee who will say anything to make you stop pouring water into his sinuses. To suggest that it's more ethical to push an individual to psychological collapse makes a mockery of ethics.
Saletan resorts to pompous weasel words when he lacks the courage of his convictions. He's too timid to come out and say that he approves of the "enhanced interrogation program" as it was used in the hunt for Bin Laden, but he keeps tipping his hand with the language he uses to describe the panelists' arguments.
For example, he writes that the panelists "scorned the delusion that these methods hadn't produced vital information." By using the word "delusion" instead of "belief" or "claim," Saletan implies that the pro-torture contingent is right without having to provide any evidence for their dubious claim that torture produced vital information that couldn't have been gotten any other way. According to Saletan, the panelists "trashed the Obama-era conceit that we're a better country because we've scrapped the interrogation program," the word "conceit" implies that Obama is wrong or dissembling.
Saletan concludes by saying that "even when we decide that brutal interrogation methods are justified," we should reexamine our prejudices so that we stop brutalizing people "when the reasons no longer suffice." That's when we decide, not if we decide, according to Saletan. That construction seems to allow for wrong decisions, but by adding "when the reasons no longer suffice," Saletan is implying that sometimes the reasons for torture do suffice. If that's what he really thinks, he should come out and say so instead of laundering his opinions through the pronouncements of AEI panelists.
[Photo credit: Truthout.org, Creative Commons.]
Michelle Alexander estimates that each year, thousands of innocent people plead guilty because they fear that a police officer will perjure himself to convict them. Alexander, author of the acclaimed book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, argues in the New York Times that police officers face institutional pressure to lie and do so terrifyingly often. Ordinary people facing trial have good reason to be afraid of police perjury. They know that judges and juries will reflexively believe a police officer over an accused drug offender. Unless perjury can be proven, there are no consequences for a officer who lies in court.
Increasing, senior law enforcement officials and judges are sounding the alarm about systematic police prevarication, Alexander writes:
The New York City Police Department is not exempt from this critique. In 2011, hundreds of drug cases were dismissed after several police officers were accused of mishandling evidence. That year, Justice Gustin L. Reichbach of the State Supreme Court in Brooklyn condemned a widespread culture of lying and corruption in the department’s drug enforcement units. “I thought I was not naïve,” he said when announcing a guilty verdict involving a police detective who had planted crack cocaine on a pair of suspects. “But even this court was shocked, not only by the seeming pervasive scope of misconduct but even more distressingly by the seeming casualness by which such conduct is employed.”
Remarkably, New York City officers have been found to engage in patterns of deceit in cases involving charges as minor as trespass. In September it was reported that the Bronx district attorney’s office was so alarmed by police lying that it decided to stop prosecuting people who were stopped and arrested for trespassing at public housing projects, unless prosecutors first interviewed the arresting officer to ensure the arrest was actually warranted. [NYT]
In some quarters, policing has become a volume-driven, stats-oriented business where officers must prove their "productivity" by making a certin number of arrests. If a spurious arrest ends up in court, the officer will be locked into perjury. Civil forfeiture can create another perverse incentive to lie. In some jurisdictions, police departments get a cut of the assets of the people they bust for drug offenses.
Alexander argues persuasively that the testimony of cops should be viewed with as much skepticism as that of any other witness.
[Photo credit: Thomas Hawk, Creative Commons.]
- It's a unregulated speculative free-for-all, but is it art? Yeah, it's art.
- Co-directors co-directors Jon Alpert and Matt O’Neill discuss their Academy Award-nominated documentary short "Redemption," a portrait of the people who eke out a living collecting New York City's recyclables.
- Yes, Virginia, ProPublica rounds up the best reporting on the hot topic of gerrymandering.
- Fearless Distribution: How a botched ATF front operation put a machine gun and $35,000 worth of stolen goods on the streets.
[Photo credit: Wander Mule, Creative Commons.]
A fire swept through the ironically-named Smart Export Garments factory in Bangladesh over the weekend, killing 7 workers, including 2 teenagers:
DHAKA, Bangladesh — Clothing from many European brands, including at least two brands owned by the Spanish apparel giant Inditex, was discovered Sunday inside a charred factory where a deadly weekend fire killed seven female workers, including several who were teenagers.
The blaze at the Smart Export Garments factory, which erupted Saturday afternoon in a densely populated area of Dhaka, the capital, is the latest tragedy for a Bangladeshi garment industry that is now the world’s second-biggest clothing exporter, trailing only China. Two months ago, a fire at the Tazreen Fashions factory killed 112 workers, where jeans, lingerie and sweaters were made for retailers like Walmart and Sears.
The story is sadly familiar: The building was illegally constructed, lacking sufficient fire extinguishers and emergency exits. When the fire broke out, the young workers were horrified to discover that one of the fire exits was barred by a locked door. Smart Export was a subcontractor to major global brands, some of which pledge to maintain humane labor practices overseas, but it was unclear whether the SE factory had ever been audited for compliance.
[Photo credit: Unnamed seamstress in Bangladesh. kgbbristol, Creative Commons.]
Rachel Aviv of the New Yorker grapples with a very tough question: What should we do with men who have an intractable sexual attraction to children, but who have not yet abused a child? These are the guys who keep getting caught with child porn, but who have never touched a child, as far as anyone knows. Even self-proclaimed experts are very bad at predicting which child porn addicts will become full-blown child abusers. Some never do. Aviv reports that the current approach of indefinite civil commitment for these offenders coupled with dubious psychiatric treatments may be doing more harm than good.