ReportWire

Tag: Labor rights

  • The Voting Rights Act Is Under Threat. So Are Workers’ Rights.

    Fred Redmond, AFL-CIO Secretary – Treasurer

    In our workplaces, in our communities and in our government, the right to vote is how working people make our voices heard. The late Rep. John Lewis (Georgia) proclaimed, “Your vote is precious, almost sacred.” The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing Texas to use a racially discriminatory congressional map threatens that precious right once again—and with it, the foundation of worker power itself.

    challenge out of Louisiana may soon make matters worse, threatening to further limit the strength of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965—the nation’s most powerful tool for correcting historical racial discrimination in voting, including the violence and suppression once used to keep Black voters from the polls.

    The VRA was brought to life by courageous civil rights and labor leaders who risked everything to end racial discrimination at the ballot box. The law transformed American democracy by dramatically increasing Black political participation, expanding representation at every level of government and giving working people a real chance to shape the decisions that affect their lives.

    This fight is part of the labor movement’s history too. In 1963, labor leaders were key architects of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, and labor unions mobilized 40,000 union members and provided resources. We offered critical lobbying support and testimony in support of the Civil Rights Act and the VRA—the passage of which in 1965 led to the filing of thousands of successful cases against workplace discrimination and eliminated many of the racist voting restrictions in the South. When Black voter turnout surged, so did worker power, especially in the South, where the VRA helped create a diverse coalition of working-class voters. 

    According to research from the University of California San Diego, the VRA narrowed the wage gap between Black and White workers by 5.5% between 1950 and 1980. Another study found that high-turnout communities saw more paved roads and streetlights; better access to city and county resources; and easier entry into public sector jobs such as police, firefighters and teachers.

    The lesson is clear: A strong democracy gives working people space to thrive. When democracy is weakened, workers pay the price.

    In 2013, the Supreme Court issued its Shelby County v. Holder decision and gutted the VRA, ruling that states with histories of racial discrimination no longer needed federal approval to change voting laws. Almost immediately, a race to the bottom began. States wasted no time closing polling places, shortening early voting hours and passing restrictive ID laws. The targets were clear: young people, shift workers and communities of color—the same groups driving today’s organizing momentum. In the years since Shelby, wages for Black teachers, city workers and health care aides have fallen, while corporate power has only grown stronger.

    The Texas congressional map offers a glimpse of a future without the VRA: diluted working-class voices in a system that answers only to the wealthy few. These attempts to roll back the clock on racial progress should sound an alarm. When politicians get a green light to manipulate voting maps and take intentional steps to block representation on the basis of race, they can use that power to dismantle protections for union power, fair wages and retirement security.

    Democracy depends on rules that keep it fair. Those in power understand this—and some are working overtime to erase the rules entirely. But America’s unions have never accepted a world where working people are silenced. We fought for the Voting Rights Act because this movement knows our fight for fair pay, safe jobs and dignity at work is the same fight as the struggle for the ballot box.

    Workers built this democracy, and we will defend it. We will continue to push Congress to do its job and pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to fully restore and permanently protect voting rights and ensure access to free and fair elections. 

    Voting rights are a labor issue—because when democracy breaks down, worker power breaks down with it.

    Fred Redmond, the highest-ranking African American labor official in history, is the secretary-treasurer of the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest labor federation, representing 64 unions and nearly 15 million workers.

    Fred Redmond AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer and NNPA Newswire

    Source link

  • Long Island leaders continue push for school construction reform | Long Island Business News

    A group of elected officials, labor leaders and construction workers held another press conference at a Long Island school Tuesday, extending their campaign to urge passage of a bill requiring project labor agreements in public school construction projects.  

    The event, held at Norman J. Levy Lakeside School, was aimed at condemning corruption in construction projects at Merrick School District and other public school districts across Long Island. The Merrick district is one of more than a dozen Long Island public school districts where contractors have recently been prosecuted for nonpayment of taxes and exploiting workers, according to a statement from the group. 

    Speakers at the press conference highlighted two contractors who were prosecuted this year by the Nassau County District Attorney’s office, and a third contractor who submitted fraudulent certified payrolls to the Merrick School District that went undetected.  

    Last month, the same group of officials held a press conference at Uniondale High School and mentioned the indictment of Bronx-based masonry contractor, who was arrested in July and charged in a 14-count complaint with failing to pay years of employee payroll taxes, scheming to defraud a construction contractor of millions of dollars, and aggravated identify theft. 

    Participants at the press conference said that Long Island school districts have awarded multi-million-dollar projects funded by state taxpayers to contractors who have been found guilty of wire fraud, wage theft, failed to secure New York-based insurance and workers’ compensation, and even refused to hire local workers. They said the crimes and lack of oversight have cost taxpayers millions of dollars and robbed workers of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  

    At both press events, officials called for passage of the Stop Worker Exploitation in Public Education Act, bipartisan state legislation to create a project labor agreement (PLA) between Long Island public school districts and local building trades unions to ensure construction projects are awarded to responsible, New York-based contractors that employ local workers.  

    Organizations and individuals involved in Tuesday’s press conference included: the Building and Construction Trades Council of Nassau & Suffolk Counties; Mason Tenders’ District Council of New York and Long Island; Long Island Federation of Labor; New York State Senators Mario Mattera, Monica Martinez, and Jack Martins; New York State Assembly Members Judy Griffin, Mike Durso, Chuck Lavine, Ed Ra, Michaelle Solages; construction workers and victims of wage theft. 

    “New York’s public education system is meant to strengthen our workforce, not weaken it through unfair construction practices. As we’ve seen here in Merrick and across Long Island, without reform, taxpayers can end up subsidizing contractors who exploit workers and cut corners,” Martinez, lead co-sponsor of the Stop Worker Exploitation in Public Education Act, said in a written statement. “The Stop Worker Exploitation in Public Education Act will change that by protecting workers, saving taxpayer money, and keeping students and staff safe during and after construction. Passing this legislation means safer schools, stronger local jobs, and greater respect for taxpayers.”   

    Martins added that PLAs provide school districts with the certainty they need when planning construction, including protection from unexpected surprises that can derail a project. 

    “They also ensure that good-paying jobs go to hard-working New Yorkers and don’t go out of state,” Martins said. “At a time when many families are struggling with affordability across our state, supporting our local workforce has never been more important. This is a win-win.” 

    Solages, who co-sponsored the measure in the State Assembly, said: “When contractors cheat workers, they cheat the entire community. Misclassifying labor and misappropriating public funds robs our students, our schools, and our local economy. That is why the Long Island delegation is pushing for project labor agreements for school districts to ensure every tax dollar builds quality schools and supports fair, lawful employment.” 


    David Winzelberg

    Source link

  • Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency


    An increasing number of people advocate being open about salaries as a way to fix pay iniquities and encourage employees to ask for more compensation, but there are many cultural and professional taboos around the practice. The Onion looks at the pros and cons of salary transparency.

    PRO

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Sharing logic behind compensation makes it easier for employees to understand why they’re worth less

    CON

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Employees might not respect CEO if they knew he only makes $20 million a year

    PRO

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Dicking around all day now a form of wage protest

    CON

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Jack still going to eat more than his fair share of donuts every Friday

    PRO

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Always nice to have another thing to be cripplingly insecure about

    CON

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    One less sexy little secret

    PRO

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Interns will find out who’s gaining the most experience

    CON

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Rude to discuss how much you make in mixed company

    PRO

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    Helps employees determine which side of angry mob to be on

    CON

    Image for article titled Pros And Cons Of Salary Transparency

    If handled incorrectly pay transparency could result in workers getting fairly compensated



    Source link

  • How Eva met Francesco: The golden couple at the heart of Europe’s Qatargate scandal

    How Eva met Francesco: The golden couple at the heart of Europe’s Qatargate scandal

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BRUSSELS — Eva Kaili and Francesco Giorgi had left nothing to chance.

    The duo that would later become the most famous — many would say infamous — couple in the European Union capital had been gearing up for this moment for years.

    As Qatar prepared to host the 2022 FIFA World Cup, they were among the Gulf state’s fiercest advocates in Brussels, defending its record on human rights and fending off criticism of its treatment of migrant workers.

    And now, less than a week before the high-profile soccer tournament was to kick off, it was all coming to a head. At a crucial hearing in the European Parliament, Qatar’s Labor Minister Ali bin Samikh Al Marri — aka “the Doctor” — would come in person to plead his case before the chamber’s human rights committee.

    In the preceding days, Kaili, a Greek lawmaker who was then a vice president of the European Parliament, had ramped up her efforts. According to public records, interviews and a cache of investigative files seen by POLITICO, she had flown back and forth to Doha and spent hours pleading and cajoling fellow lawmakers to give Qatar a clean bill of health on human rights.

    At several points, she turned to her partner, Giorgi, for advice. “Who else should I talk to?” she texted him on November 14, according to transcriptions of her WhatsApp messages included in the police investigation files.

    While Kaili worked the phones, Giorgi, an Italian parliamentary assistant, had been putting the finishing touches to the Qatari minister’s speech. In police surveillance photographs taken three days before the hearing, he can be seen poring over the text with his longtime boss, Pier Antonio Panzeri — a former EU lawmaker who Belgian prosecutors would later describe as the mastermind of a sweeping cash-for-influence operation known as “Qatargate.”

    Per their usual working method, the Italian-speaking Panzeri wrote the speech in his native language and then passed it on to Giorgi for translation. With one day to go, Giorgi and Kaili huddled with Al Marri in his suite at the 5-star Steigenberger Wiltcher’s hotel, according to hotel video recordings obtained by the police.

    Finally, it was the big day. As the minister took to the stage on November 14, 2022, Kaili nervously texted her partner again to ask if she should show up in person.

    “Don’t come,” Giorgi replied via WhatsApp. “I’m afraid you will be exposed. To enter with the baby, everyone will notice u.”

    She replied: “I don’t want to be exposed.”

    So she stayed with the couple’s child, while the rest of the key suspects in what would become the Qatargate scandal crowded into the auditorium where Al Marri — the man police would later describe as the leader in his country’s efforts to corrupt the European Parliament — was taking to the stage.

    At a hearing, Ali bin Samikh Al Marri laid out the case for Qatar’s labor reforms and why his country deserved the world’s respect despite reports alleging abuse of migrant laborers | Pierre Albouy/EFE via EPA

    If everything went well and Al Marri came out satisfied with their efforts over many months of lobbying, the Italian former lawmaker stood to make good on a long-standing business relationship he and Giorgi would later tell police was worth more than €4 million.

    And if it failed? Nobody wanted to know.

    As Al Marri spoke, laying out the case for Qatar’s labor reforms and why his country deserved the world’s respect despite reports alleging abuse of migrant laborers, Kaili and her partner of five years WhatsApped back and forth, as one might do while watching a major sporting event from two different locations.

    “So Arabic and speaks without reading,” Giorgi texted.

    A few minutes later, Kaili commented: “He’s losing it a bit.”

    As other lawmakers took to the floor following Al Marri’s speech, she bristled at criticism of Qatar. 

    “Who is this fat,” she texted her partner, referring to one lawmaker, adding an adjective which to her was an insult: “Communist.”

    As Al Marri wrapped up, the Greek lawmaker asked: “Why he didn’t follow the speech.”

    Finally, it was over. 

    Giorgi texted Kaili: “Ela, we did everything we could.”

    For the watch party, a major milestone had been crossed. A senior Qatari representative had been given a chance to address criticism in what could have been a fiercely critical environment. 

    So far, so good. Except what they didn’t know was that Giorgi and Panzeri had been under surveillance by Belgian secret services for months, suspected of taking part in a sweeping cash-for-influence scheme under which Qatar paid to obtain specific legislative outcomes. Their communications, including with Kaili and other suspects, would be scooped up as part of the wiretaps and the subsequent investigations. 

    Eva Kaili maintains her defense of Qatar was part of her job as a representative of the European Union | Julien Warnand/EFE via EPA

    Kaili denies any wrongdoing in a scheme in which police say Panzeri and others accepted money from Qatar, Morocco and Mauritania in exchange for pushing their interests in the European Parliament. Kaili maintains her defense of Qatar was part of her job as a representative of the European Union and that the investigation into her actions breached the parliamentary immunity enjoyed by sitting MEPs. 

    There is no other evidence in the hundreds of pages of wiretapping by the secret services that indicates Kaili directly received money from Qatar or other countries. Giorgi has provided details of the operation to police, but his lawyer has argued his statements were extracted under duress. 

    And yet, as the pro-Qatar operation turned to its next challenges, Belgian investigators who had taken over the probe from the secret service were closing in.

    On the morning of December 9, the trap slammed shut. Kaili, Giorgi, Panzeri and a couple of other suspects were arrested and thrown into jail on charges of corruption, money laundering and participating in a “criminal conspiracy.” Two other members of the European Parliament, Marc Tarabella and Andrea Cozzolino, would also be arrested and charged.

    Police published photographs of bags stuffed full of hundreds of thousands of euros which they had recovered in Panzeri’s flat, at Kaili and Giorgi’s home and in a suitcase wheeled by Kaili’s father — instantly turning their probe into a page one news story for outlets around the Continent.

    * * *

    The shock arrests of one of the highest-ranking members of the European Parliament, her boyfriend and their alleged accomplices smashed open a window onto a murky world of lobbying for foreign governments in the heart of EU democracy.

    The Brussels bubble, as the EU’s policymaking apparatus is known, likes to think of itself as a global paragon of democracy, transparency and respect for human rights. There’s another side of the EU capital, however — an ecosystem of hidden connections and low-grade corruption, of back-scratching politicians and the filter feeders that gravitate toward centers of political power and public largesse. 

    While the Qatargate case has yet to go to court and several of the key players, including Kaili, insist they are innocent of the charges, the scandal has already led to reforms. The European Parliament has introduced changes bolstering transparency, and the creation of an ethics body establishing common standards for EU civil servants is being negotiated.

    The story of Qatargate is also still being written. And nobody better captures the human element of this complex affair — and the cozy, transactional world in which it took place — than Kaili and Giorgi. 

    Start with Kaili: A political celebrity in her native Greece, where she’d gained fame as a TV presenter, at the time of her arrest she was one of Brussels’ most prominent politicians, widely believed to be bound for higher office either within the EU system or back home. She’d recently had her first child with Giorgi, an ambitious parliamentary assistant nine years her junior whose wavy blond hair and dimpled smile were well known in the European Parliament.

    Together, they formed a formidable power couple on the Brussels circuit — as well as a shining example of what Europeans hailing from their respective Mediterranean homelands can achieve in the EU system if they play their cards right.

    And yet, in an instant, it was all over. Both of them were in jail, their reputations in tatters, their infant child outside and in the care of family members. In the space of a single morning, the EU capital’s golden couple had become the most notorious duo in town.

    Pier Antonio Panzeri hired Francesco Giorgi as an intern in 2009 | European Union

    To understand what propelled this sudden plunge, it helps to dial back the clock to the earliest days of their relationship, five years before anyone heard of the so-called Qatargate scandal.

    It was a Monday in early 2017. Giorgi was at work doing a familiar task — interpreting for his language-challenged boss, Pier Antonio Panzeri, at a conference in Parliament.

    The two men went back a long way. Panzeri had been Giorgi’s boss for nearly a decade already, having hired him first as an intern in 2009 and then as a full-blown accredited assistant. The elder Italian was a well-known politician in Parliament — a shrewd operator on the left wing of Italy’s Partito Democratico, a trade union veteran from Milan who turned to international affairs late in his 15-year parliamentary career.

    But he was a man of his generation — only really comfortable speaking in Italian and, according to Giorgi, unable to switch on a computer.

    For all of those things, there was Giorgi. Then aged around 30, he was in a good place professionally and socially. Like thousands of Italians who flock to Brussels every year, he looked to the EU system as a land of opportunity. And the system had served him well. Paid handsomely, he had a front-row seat on his boss’s dealings, which included travel to places like Rabat, Morocco and Doha, Qatar, as well as more mundane tasks.

    But nearly 10 years in, Giorgi was ready for change. And little did he know, the embodiment of that change was about to walk in the door.

    While Kaili and Giorgi had seen each other in the halls of the European Parliament a few times since her election in 2014, according to her interviews with Belgian police, that Monday meeting in Brussels would stick out for them as their first proper encounter.

    The mutual interest must have been powerful because it’s hard to overstate the disparity, in terms of age and political and financial power, that separated Giorgi from Kaili as she walked in, heading a NATO delegation.

    To put it bluntly, Giorgi was a cog in the machine with no political weight. By contrast, Kaili was already a well-established politician in Brussels and very well plugged-in with Greece’s political and business elite. She had barreled her way up through the ranks of the Greek socialist party, PASOK, while still in her twenties, before making the jump to the European Parliament in 2014. In her office, Kaili employed no fewer than three Giorgis.

    And yet the young Italian, who’d grown up sailing in the Mediterranean and skiing in the French Alps, decided to try his luck. According to Kaili’s testimony to police, after this initial encounter, the two of them dined “two or three times.” Giorgi spent the better part of a year trying to woo the Greek lawmaker, but it was tough going as she claimed to be far too busy with her work to carve out time for a serious relationship.

    It was only after about a year, she said, that things became “serious.” Marking the transition from casual dating to partnership, they made a shared commitment: co-investing in an apartment located just behind their shared place of work, the European Parliament. It was Christmas Eve, 2019, according to Giorgi’s statements to police. 

    After Kaili returned to Greece in 2019 to campaign for reelection, Giorgi joined her a few months later. In February 2021, they were joined by a baby girl.

    Eva Kaili returned to Greece in 2019 to campaign for reelection | Menelaos Myrillas/SOOC/AFP via Getty Images

    But that’s where their story departs from the norm. Most wage-earning couples don’t live surrounded by stacks of cash. Most EU bubble couples don’t possess a “go bag” brimming with bank notes, or end up as suspects in sprawling corruption probes.

    Part of the explanation can be found in their link to Panzeri, the Svengali-like third wheel in their relationship, whom Giorgi described initially as a “father figure” and whom Kaili later called a manipulator taking advantage of her boyfriend’s “idealistic” personality.

    Indeed, in his interviews with Belgian investigators, Giorgi traces back the “original sin” of his involvement in Qatargate to a deal he agreed to with Panzeri shortly after becoming his employee in 2009. Under that arrangement, Giorgi allegedly agreed to pay Panzeri back €1,500 per month of his wages in exchange for the privilege of working for him, a relatively common scheme in the Parliament. (As a point of comparison, when the scandal broke, Giorgi was earning some €6,600 per month as an assistant to a different MEP).

    The deal was to prove an introduction to a transactional world in which Panzeri — as a lawmaker and later, as the head of Fight Impunity, a nongovernmental organization he launched after leaving Parliament — had no trouble accepting large sums of cash from foreign governments in exchange for services rendered.

    From 2018, Giorgi and Panzeri dove headlong into a partnership allegedly based on lobbying for Qatar in exchange for big cash payments. According to Giorgi’s statements to police, they agreed on a long-term lobbying agreement worth an estimated €4.5 million and to be split 60/40, with the larger share going to Panzeri.

    Once arrested, Giorgi and Panzeri would butt heads about the precise role of each in the lobbying arrangement. But one of the younger Italian’s key tasks was to pick up cash payments at various places around Brussels, often from total strangers. Once he picked up €300,000 in cash near the Royal Palace from a person driving a black Audi with Dutch license plates. Another time, the drop-off happened in a parking lot near the canal. 

    In total, there were around ten such drop-offs, two or three per year, with the smallest amount around €50,000.

    The alleged quid pro quo was that Giorgi and Panzeri would deliver specific parliamentary and public relations outcomes to their clients, which in addition to Qatar included Morocco and Mauritania. The ever-meticulous Giorgi kept a spreadsheet on his computer on which he documented hundreds of influence activities that the network allegedly carried out between 2018 and 2022.

    It records more than 300 pieces of work, using a network of aides inside parliament whom they called their “soldiers,” according to the files.

    Even as they pressed their clients’ interests, they were also trying to exploit their lack of familiarity with the workings of the bubble, reporting certain actions that, according to Giorgi, they actually had no influence over.

    The scheme, Giorgi later told police, “relied on the ignorance of how parliament works” — on the part of the duo’s clients.

    Panzeri, through his lawyer, declined to comment for this article.

    * * *

    As Giorgi dug deeper into his partnership with Panzeri, his romance with Kaili was expanding into a business partnership.

    While each already had other properties — including Kaili’s two apartments in Athens (which she said were worth a combined €400,000) and one in Brussels (estimated by Kaili at €160,000) and one belonging to Giorgi purchased for €145,000 in Brussels — they were soon eyeing other purchases.

    Eva Kaili and Francesco Giorgi purchased a flat near the European Parliament for €375,000 in 2019 | Leon Neal/Getty Images

    After the Christmas Eve purchase of their flat near the Parliament for €375,000 in 2019, they purchased a plot of land on the Greek island of Paros for €300,000 in 2021 which they planned to develop into four holiday villas and at least one swimming pool, according to files recovered from Giorgi’s computer in a folder called “Business”. Then, in 2022, came the purchase of their second apartment, a penthouse right next to the Parliament, worth €650,000, according to Giorgi’s statements to police. 

    All told, the couple’s joint real estate purchases amounted to more than €1.3 million over a period of two years.

    In between these purchases, there were other expenses: sailing holidays, a Land Rover bought for €56,000 and a fully refurbished kitchen. On several occasions, the couple sought to minimize their outlay by exploiting their insiders’ knowledge of the system.

    According to documents seized at Giorgi’s home, a Qatari diplomat helped him get a discount on the Land Rover by taking advantage of special conditions for diplomatic staff, reducing the sticker price by about €10,000.

    By any normal standards, Kaili and Giorgi were already wealthy based on their income.

    In addition to taking home €6,600 per month as a parliamentary assistant, Giorgi received €1,000 in social benefits for their daughter, €1,800 per month from the rental to the Mauritanian ambassador and — since the envoy never occupied the flat — €1,200 in cash from two women to whom he sublet the flat for a few months. 

    As for Kaili, she earned about €10,000 before taxes plus about €900 in monthly rent from a flat she owned in Brussels.

    All told, the couple was pulling in well over €20,000 per month, an eye-watering amount in a country where the median monthly wage is €3,507 before taxes.

    Yet even these substantial monthly earnings seem not to have covered the mounting costs related to their real estate investments or make the couple feel fully secure. Despite the fact her partner was pulling in more than three times the Belgian median wage, Kaili would tell police during the first interview after her arrest: “I know that Francesco doesn’t have a lot of money because he isn’t able to partake in all of our expenses.”

    What motivated this drive for accumulation? According to a person who knew Kaili professionally and asked not to be named due to fear of retaliation, the answer lies partly in her background growing up without much money in Thessaloniki, Greece. “It feels like she grew up with a lot of deprivations,” the person said. “She wanted to feel that even if she quits politics, she will have a comfortable life.”

    According to a person who knew Kaili professionally, the answer to her drive for accumulation lies partly in her background growing up without much money in Thessaloniki | Sakis Mitrolidis/AFP via Getty Images

    As a result, Kaili tended to be very focused on financial opportunities. “She loved people with power and money. She was always, ‘You know this event is going to have businessmen,’” the person added. “And she always liked to have houses and property stuff, but she was never into luxury stuff.”

    As for Giorgi, the son of a school director and import-export entrepreneur, he grew up in more comfortable circumstances in a town near Milan.

    But as the junior partner in his relationship with Kaili, he may have struggled to keep up financially with a partner who earned more than he did and kept company with wealthy entrepreneurs and crypto bros. 

    “I have never loved luxury. I don’t know why I lost my way,” he told police during his first interview shortly after his arrest. 

    * * *

    In interviews with police, Giorgi admitted to being part of a scheme, with Panzeri, to take hundreds of thousands of euros in cash from foreign governments — admissions his lawyer now says he made under pressure from police who he says threatened to take away his daughter.

    But Kaili always maintained that she had nothing to do with the setup. Not only does she claim ignorance about the ultimate source of much of the money found in her apartment, and on her father; she also told police that she had nothing to do with Panzeri and Giorgi’s deals with foreign governments — an argument that her partner has always backed up, telling police early on that she had nothing to do with the scheme.

    Panzeri, however, says the opposite. He alleges that in the spring of 2019, Kaili was part of a pact struck with Qatar to fund several MEPs’ election campaigns to the tune of €250,000 each. Giorgi and Panzeri both attest that a deal like this took place — but disagree on whether Kaili was involved. 

    In any case, having forged a reputation as a tech policymaker, Kaili’s work as a lawmaker veered suddenly toward the Middle East and the world of human rights, particularly in the Gulf, from 2017 onwards the year she met Giorgi. She traveled to Qatar for the first time later that year, at the invitation of another lawmaker, and made trips — some with Giorgi, some without — in 2020 and 2022.

    In early 2022, just after she became a Parliament vice president, she asked the chamber’s president, Roberta Metsola, to give her files related to the Middle East and human rights. “I hope I didn’t make it difficult for you,” Kaili WhatsApped Metsola. “You gave me everything I love the most!” She was later designated as the vice president who would replace Metsola in her absence on issues related to the Middle East.

    In the days and weeks leading up to the kickoff of the World Cup, Kaili and Giorgi’s work increasingly overlapped on two main files: opposition to a resolution critical of Qatar and a deal Doha was seeking with the EU that would allow its citizens to travel to the bloc without a visa.

    On November 12, two days before Qatar’s labor minister would appear before the European Parliament, she reached out to Metsola, offering her tickets to the tournament in Doha.

    “My dear President!” she wrote to Metsola. “Hope you are well. I have to pass you an invitation for the World Cup, you [sic] or your husband and boys might be interested,” she wrote on WhatsApp. 

    Eva Kaili reached out to European Parliament President Roberta Metsola, offering her tickets to the World Cup in Doha | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    It’s not clear what, if anything, Kaili asked from Metsola in exchange for the tickets. Throughout her dealings with lawmakers over Qatar, the Greek lawmaker would occasionally delete the messages she had sent. This includes her side of the rest of the conversation with Metsola — except for one text: “The rest I disagree too but I believe they will digest if we get the visa,” she wrote.

    (A spokesperson for the Parliament president said Metsola never accepted any tickets to the World Cup and did not read Kaili’s messages before they were deleted.)

    With the World Cup having started, the next big challenge awaiting Kaili, Giorgi and Panzeri was a plenary session in Strasbourg where rival politicians aimed to criticize Qatar’s human rights record weeks before the World Cup by putting a resolution on the agenda. Once again, they ramped up their lobbying.

    So noticeable was the pro-Qatari line being pushed by Kaili and others affiliated with Panzeri that it started raising eyebrows among their colleagues.

    “There were some very strange opinions being voiced on how we should not criticize Qatar, and we should rather recognize the reforms they were making and so on,” remembered Niels Fuglsang, a Danish MEP from the same S&D group. “I thought it was obvious that our group should criticize this, we are social democrats, we care about workers’ rights and migrants’ rights.”

    For example, on November 21, Kaili pressed José Ramón Bauzá Díaz, a Spanish centrist MEP who ran the Qatari-EU friendship group, over his political faction’s stance on the resolution, poised to slam Qatar’s human rights track record. 

    “So, your group wants to vote in favor of a resolution Against Qatar World Cup,” she WhatsApped to him. He said: “It is crazy.” She went on to press him to take a pro-Qatari stance and reject the resolution. 

    Later that day, in a now-infamous video, Kaili took to the stage during Parliament’s plenary session and sung the praises of Qatar. “I alone said that Qatar is a front-runner in labor rights,” she said. “Still, some here are calling to discriminate them. They bully them and they accuse everyone that talks to them, or engages, of corruption. But still, they take their gas.”

    With a crunch vote on the resolution’s final wording still to take place on November 24, Kaili was still going strong, texting with Abdulaziz bin Ahmed Al Malki, the Gulf country’s envoy to the European Union and NATO.

    During this exchange, the Qatari gave Kaili direct instructions to take action on legislation of interest to Qatar.

    “Hi Iva,” wrote the Qatari in a WhatsApp message on November 24. “My dear my ministry doesn’t want paragraph A about FIFA & Qatar. Please do your best to remove it via voting before 12 noon or during the voting please.”

    Kaili deleted her responses.

    Eva Kaili has challenged the lifting of her immunity in an EPPO investigation at the European Court of Justice | Nicolas Bouvy/EPA via EFE

    But the recipient appeared to be pleased with what she texted, writing back a few hours later: “Thanks excellency” with a hands-clasped-in-prayer emoji.

    The Qatar Embassy in Brussels and the spokesperson’s office in Doha did not respond to requests for comment.

    * * *

    Plainclothes Belgian police arrested Giorgi at 10:42 a.m. on December 9 at his home in Brussels. Earlier, they had picked up Panzeri. According to her statements to police, Kaili did not immediately know what had happened and originally thought Giorgi was involved in a car accident. She was told by police that her partner had been arrested. 

    Having tried and failed to get through by phone to Panzeri and his friends, Kaili set about trying to get rid of the stacks of cash in her apartment.

    She headed to the safe that Giorgi had installed in their apartment and started to shovel stacks of bills into a travel bag. On top of them, she placed baby bottles for her child as well as a mobile phone and a laptop computer. Then she told her father, a civil engineer and sometime political operator who was visiting the family in Brussels, to take the bag and go to a hotel, where her father’s partner and Kaili’s baby were waiting. “I didn’t leave him the choice,” she later told police. “I just said, ‘Take this and go.’” 

    A few hours later, police followed Kaili’s father as he walked to the Sofitel, a short distance from their flat. According to a person familiar with the details of the investigation, bank notes were fluttering out of the bag as he went. Cops stopped Kaili’s father inside the hotel, seized the suitcase and detained him. Then it was Kaili’s turn. In the early afternoon, police detained her and took her to the Prison de Saint-Gilles. 

    The next day, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) announced it was investigating Kaili and another Greek member of Parliament in a probe looking at whether she took kickbacks from her assistant’s salaries as well as cuts of their reimbursements for “fake” work trips. Kaili has challenged the lifting of her immunity in this case at the European Court of Justice.

    As the one-year anniversary of her spectacular downfall has approached, Kaili and her lawyers have done their best to turn the tables on the prosecutors, casting doubt on the evidence gathered against her and the way the investigation was carried out. Since her arrest, and through a four-month incarceration, Kaili has never wavered from her story. Her advocacy for Qatar, she has argued, was just part of her job as a European politician trying to foster ties with a petroleum-rich country in a region of critical importance to the EU.

    Kaili’s lawyers have argued that the testimony provided by Panzeri, who has struck a deal with investigators and confessed in detail, cannot be trusted. Giorgi’s lawyer, Pierre Monville, has maintained his client’s statements were made under duress. “Whatever Giorgi has declared or written during his detention was under extreme pressure and preoccupation regarding the fact that his daughter was left without her parents,” he said.

    Kaili’s lawyers have also noted that police kept Panzeri and Giorgi in the same cell in the days after their detention, giving them a chance to coordinate their stories. Kaili’s lawyers argue she was subjected to illegal surveillance, arbitrary detention and what amounts to “torture” while in jail.

    The Qatargate suspects won a major victory last summer when the lead investigator, Michel Claise, stepped down over conflict-of-interest concerns after it was revealed that his son was in business with the son of an MEP who was close to Panzeri but hasn’t been arrested or charged. 

    Then, in September, Kaili played the ace up her sleeve, throwing the entire investigation in doubt with a legal challenge arguing that the evidence against her should be ruled inadmissible because it was gathered before the European Parliament voted to lift the immunity she enjoyed as a lawmaker. 

    The Qatargate suspects won a major victory last summer when the lead investigator, Michel Claise, stepped down over conflict-of-interest concerns | BELPRESS

    Prosecutors retort that such a step wasn’t needed because Kaili had been caught red-handed by her decision to send her father out with a suitcase full of cash, but the case has been delayed pending a decision on her challenge by an appeals court expected in the middle of next year.  

    “We’re exploring uncharted legal territory here,” said a person familiar with the case, who requested anonymity as they were not allowed to speak on the record. In the meantime, Kaili is back in Parliament, giving interviews to international media and losing few opportunities to make the case for her innocence to her fellow lawmakers.

    Giorgi and Kaili are, by all accounts, living together again. One of her lawyers says they’ve been given dispensation to do so, despite the fact that they are suspects in the same case. 

    Kaili and Giorgi declined to comment for this article, but they clearly haven’t given up the fight. Giorgi’s WhatsApp status is “FORTITUDINE VINCIMUS” — through endurance, we conquer. 

    Kaili’s profile pic on the app features the famous quote often wrongly attributed to Mahatma Gandhi:

    “First they ignore you.

    Then they laugh at you.

    Then they fight you.

    Then you win.”

    Nicholas Vinocur, Elisa Braun, Eddy Wax and Gian Volpicelli

    Source link

  • What genocide? Volkswagen’s morally expensive bet on China

    What genocide? Volkswagen’s morally expensive bet on China

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BERLIN — The blowback came in the form of cake.

    An annual meeting of Volkswagen shareholders in Berlin in May was disrupted by protesters, one of whom hurled the creamy confection at the assembled executives, forcing Chairman Hans Dieter Pötsch to flinch out of the way.

    Among the subjects of their ire: A car plant some 3,500 miles away in the Chinese region of Xinjiang, where Beijing has carried out a campaign of mass detention, reeducation and forced labor that the United States has described as genocide of the Uyghur ethnic minority.

    One topless woman in the room waved a banner with the words “End Uyghur Forced Labor” before the protesters were escorted away. Outside, other activists held up signs saying “Camps, forced labor, family separations: VW major shareholders in Lower Saxony must not remain silent about crimes against Uyghurs.”

    Volkswagen denies it has ever utilized forced labor in Xinjiang. But it has been less willing to grapple with the broader accusation: That by maintaining the facility at the request of Beijing, the company — and by extension the German government, which supported the carmaker’s investments in China — is providing political cover for crimes against humanity.

    “Even if there is no forced labor, it is such a big symbol for the Chinese government to show the world that they bring prosperity to the region,” said Eva Stocker, senior project officer from the World Uyghur Congress, an advocacy group for Uyghur rights and self-determination. “But we see it as a genocide.”

    The rising criticism over Volkswagen’s presence in Xinjiang has been accompanied by a shifting in the political and economic winds. Russia’s war on Ukraine has kicked off a broader conversation about strategic dependency, with officials in Brussels and Washington calling for “de-risking” with regard to Beijing. At the same time, worries about climate change are upending the automobile market, with Chinese electric carmakers preparing to challenge legacy brands in Europe on their own soil.

    This all poses a conundrum for Volkswagen, which led the Western charge into the Chinese market in the 1980s and remains dependent on business there for 15 percent of its pretax profit and 37 percent of its new car sales last year.

    China’s treatment of Uyghurs is unlikely to be central to the discussions as German Chancellor Olaf Scholz hosts a Chinese delegation led by Prime Minister Li Qiang this week. But Volkswagen’s relationship to China, and the human rights abuses being carried out there, is illustrative of Berlin’s increasingly uncomfortable dependency on Beijing — and the challenges Germany is likely to face as the West seeks to turn de-risking from a slogan into action.

    Slave labor

    Potential complicity in genocide is a charge to which one might expect Volkswagen to be sensitive. When the company was founded in 1937 by the national labor organization of the Nazi Party, it used concentration camp prisoners as slave labor. Hundreds of infants kept at a children’s home run by Volkswagen were starved to death.

    During the Holocaust, the Nazis sent their perceived enemies to extermination camps. In Xinjiang, human rights groups have documented mass incarceration, forced sterilization, the suppression of religious practices, including the burning of mosques, and the separation of hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren from their parents. Many believe these practices meet the definition of genocide as acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”

    The United States government has denounced human rights abuses in Xinjiang as genocide, as have national legislatures in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Lithuania and Canada. The German Bundestag has not, though Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock has called for a ban on goods made with forced labor and for investigations into China’s actions in Xinjiang.

    Volkswagen denies it has ever utilized forced labor in Xinjiang | Freddy Chan/EPA via EFE

    Investigative journalists have found traces of forced labor camps within 15 miles of Volkswagen’s Xinjiang plant, which is a joint venture initiative with SAIC Motor, the largest state-owned automobile manufacturer in China. As POLITICO and other media reported, the use of forced labor was so rampant in the region that schoolchildren were organized by schools to carry out manual labor.

    “By the plant, there are seven concentration camps … so this is what Volkswagen cannot deny, but they say they are not connected with them,” Erkin Zunun, the chief coordinator of the World Uyghur Congress based in Munich, said. “Nobody can say 100 percent there is no connection to forced labor.”

    Ralf Brandstätter, the head of Volkswagen’s China operations, said after a visit to the Xinjiang plant in March that he’d found no evidence of forced labor. “I can talk to people and draw my conclusions. I can try and verify the facts [from joint venture partner SAIC], and that’s what I did,” Brandstätter said. “I didn’t find any contradictions,” he added, citing seven staffers he’d spoken to via translators.

    Over the past few years, European diplomats based in China have made repeated inquiries into Volkswagen’s presence in Xinjiang, according to three diplomats granted anonymity to speak frankly about their exchanges. Time and again, they received the same answer. “They always insist there’s no forced labor, and that the minorities they hire in the local plant are not forced labor,” one of them said. “They don’t care what happens outside the factory.”

    Volkswagen rejected the accusation that by being in Xinjiang, the company is complicit in the human rights violations being perpetrated there. “Will something change if Volkswagen leaves?” said a Volkswagen spokesperson speaking on condition of anonymity. “We have doubts about this.”

    The spokesperson said the company pays its employees at the plant on average 30 percent more than other automakers in the region and has had practically no staff turnover in recent years. “We are offering around 250 workers and their families a good … living in the region,” the spokesperson said.

    ‘Devil’s agreement’

    On its own, Volkswagen’s investment in Xinjiang — and the company’s decision to stay there despite human rights violations in the area — makes little reputational or economic sense.

    Since the COVID shutdowns, the plant hasn’t been used for vehicle assembly or production, but rather as a sorting center for cars heading to local dealerships. Last year, Volkswagen says some 10,000 cars — an average of less than 28 a day — were cleared through the facility, with plans to increase this over the next few years. Staff at the site carry out water resistance checks, quality controls and assess driver assistance systems, a spokesperson said.

    The investment has to be considered in the broader context of Volkswagen’s engagement with Beijing. Unrestricted access to the Chinese market is mission-critical for all German automakers, but for Volkswagen, it’s what makes it a global heavyweight brand. Nearly 40 percent of Volkswagen’s global car sales were in China last year, up from 31 percent a decade ago, according to data from the Center for Automotive Management in Cologne.

    According to a senior Western diplomat, Volkswagen’s Xinjiang presence is part of a “devil’s agreement” that the Chinese government imposed on the German car company 15 years ago. Under the deal, Volkswagen had to agree to build a new factory in Xinjiang — which was and has remained an economic backwater — in return for permission for a dozen new plants in the economically vibrant eastern coastal area, as well as the booming central provinces.

    “The misleading assumption is that we were forced, that we opened the plant as a push from the government in Beijing,” said the Volkswagen spokesperson. “That isn’t true. It was part of a greater plan — the Go West strategy,” referring to the company’s ambitions to expand into less developed parts of China.

    Today, pulling out would risk jeopardizing relations with Beijing, as China often treats expressions of concern about human rights violations in Xinjiang as endorsements of what it sees as U.S. pressure on the country.

    The presentation of the new Golf GTI at the Shanghai car show in 2021 | Hector Retamal/AFP via Getty Images

    Volkswagen is determined to live with its contractual obligation with SAIC to stay in Xinjiang at least until 2030, Volkswagen chief lobbyist Thomas Steg told journalists in March. “This plant is owned and operated by a non-controlled joint venture, all the decisions have to be taken unanimously,” the company spokesperson said.

    In a written statement, Volkswagen Group said it “stands firmly against” forced labor, adding it “takes its responsibility for human rights very seriously in all regions of the world, including China.”

    “In a globalized world, we can only really strengthen Germany as a business location if we maintain and further develop our relations with major economic players such as China,” it said.

    Green evolution

    While Volkswagen has traditionally enjoyed strong support from Berlin for its investments in China, the political winds back home have started to shift.

    The main push comes from the Green Party, a junior partner in Germany’s coalition government, and its calls for “values-driven” diplomacy. In May 2022, the German Economy Ministry, led by Green Party heavyweight Robert Habeck, announced it would stop all investment guarantee schemes for companies looking to invest in the Xinjiang region of China due to the deteriorating human rights situation.

    Volkswagen’s investment guarantees were not extended because the interministerial committee that decides on them determined that the company “has too little control and knowledge … within the joint venture to adequately counter the human rights risks,” a German official said.

    Chinese carmakers with cheaper battery technology are making a play for Europe | Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

    Foreign Minister Baerbock has also taken a tougher line, warning companies that they won’t be bailed out with taxpayers’ money if “things go wrong” in other parts of the world. Her stance has not gone unnoticed by Beijing. When Baerbock visited China in April, her counterpart Qin Gang warned Berlin it should be thinking about its business interests.

    “Both sides should maintain and advance existing cooperation, create a favorable environment and stable expectations for cooperation between enterprises of the two countries, and provide stronger growth drivers for the global economy,” Qin said.

    Germany’s first National Security Strategy, released last week, criticizes China for disregarding human rights, although the document does not go further into detail. Berlin also plans to release a dedicated China strategy in July.

    For the automaker, the Green Party’s China policy has become a headache. “It’s crazy what Habeck and Baerbock are doing at the moment … [They] just try to bring confrontation to the world,” said Ferdinand Dudenhöffer, director of Center for Automotive Research, an industry group with close ties to Volkswagen and to Chinese carmakers. “It’s really crazy.”

    Dudenhöffer insisted the German carmaker had done everything within its capacity to ensure good labor standards in the Xinjiang plant. He didn’t believe the company had broached with Beijing the possibility of the plant’s closure or the transfer of its ownership to its Chinese partners. “I think they discussed it internally, but … if you start to talk about that issue [with the Chinese], then you start to go into opposition with the most important market you have in the world,” he said.

    The EV threat

    The irony is that Volkswagen’s morally expensive bet may not even pay off.

    After enjoying decades of market leadership, the German auto giant is struggling to cope with the impending demise of the combustion engine and is facing unprecedented challenges from Chinese-made electric vehicles, which are now set to become the “greatest risk” facing European carmakers, according to a report by Allianz Trade.

    Even as Volkswagen doubles down on the Chinese market, Chinese carmakers with cheaper battery technology are making a play for Europe, with brands like BYD, Great Wall, Nio and Xpeng launching across the Continent.

    While electric vehicles only make up around 5 percent of European sales, EU regulators have mandated a phaseout of the combustion engine by 2035. One analysis predicts Chinese imports could make up nearly a fifth of all European sales by 2025 — bad news for local legacy brands.

    Even if Volkswagen does find a way to hold out at home, its investments in China could be at risk if Europe raises trade barriers against Chinese vehicles, as France has been calling for. Such a move would almost certainly lead to reciprocal action from Beijing, which has not shied away from using its regulatory muscles to push its diplomatic interests.

    In 2017, for example, when South Korea sought to buy a missile defense system from the U.S. in order to stave off the threat from North Korea, Beijing vocally opposed the move, and sales of Hyundai and Kia models subsequently plummeted, sparking rows with dealerships and plant closures.

    Under President Xi Jinping, China has also sought to diminish the market share of foreign companies. In telecoms, for example, European players like Ericsson and Nokia have been crowded out by homegrown heavyweights Huawei and ZTE. China may have needed Western companies to jump-start its industrial development, but with Xi seeking to present China as an alternative to the West, that utility is quickly fading.

    In other words, for Volkswagen’s executives, cake-throwing protesters may be the least of their worries.

    Stuart Lau , Joshua Posaner and Hans von der Burchard

    Source link

  • G7 vs China: US, Europe unite in tough messaging against Beijing

    G7 vs China: US, Europe unite in tough messaging against Beijing

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    HIROSHIMA, Japan — China on Saturday faced a strong pushback from the Group of Seven countries over its stances on Russia, Taiwan, trade bullying, economic monopoly and domestic interference, with the G7 leaders’ statement reflecting a broad convergence of the U.S., Europe and Japan on a need to change tack.

    Issued around the time of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s arrival in Hiroshima, where the summit is taking place, the statement by leaders of the G7 wealthy democracies asked Beijing to do more to stop Russia’s war on Ukraine.

    “We call on China to press Russia to stop its military aggression, and immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw its troops from Ukraine,” the leaders said in the statement. “We encourage China to support a comprehensive, just and lasting peace based on territorial integrity and the principles and purposes of the U.N. Charter, including through its direct dialogue with Ukraine.”

    Crucially, the U.S. and Europe — the two main constituents of the G7 — came round to a common set of language on China. For France and Germany, in particular, their focus on a conciliatory attitude to China was reflected in the final statement, which began the China section by stating “We stand prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China.”

    The G7’s repeated emphasis of “de-risking, not decoupling” is a nod to the EU approach to China, as European member countries are wary of completely cutting off business ties with Beijing.

    The language on Taiwan remained the same compared with recent statements. “We reaffirm the importance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait as indispensable to security and prosperity in the international community,” the statement said, adding there’s “no change in the basic positions” in terms of the one China policies.

    Domestic interference

    Apart from Russia, another new element this year is the mention of domestic interference — which human rights groups say is a reflection of the growing concern about China’s “overseas police stations” in other countries. “We call on China … not to conduct interference activities aimed at undermining the security and safety of our communities, the integrity of our democratic institutions and our economic prosperity,” the leaders said in their statement, citing the Vienna Convention which regulates diplomatic affairs.

    On global economics, both sides of the Atlantic and Japan now see the need to fundamentally change the overall dynamic of economic globalization, placing security at the front of policy considerations.

    “Our policy approaches are not designed to harm China nor do we seek to thwart China’s economic progress and development. A growing China that plays by international rules would be of global interest,” the G7 leaders said in the statement.

    “We are not decoupling or turning inwards. At the same time, we recognize that economic resilience requires de-risking and diversifying. We will take steps, individually and collectively, to invest in our own economic vibrancy. We will reduce excessive dependencies in our critical supply chains,” they said.

    One central theme is economic coercion, where China has punished a wide range of countries — from Japan and Australia to Lithuania and South Korea — over the decade when political disagreements arose.

    The G7 countries launched a new “coordination platform on economic coercion” to “increase our collective assessment, preparedness, deterrence and response to economic coercion,” according to the statement. They also plan to coordinate with other partners to further the work on this.

    For France, the focus on a conciliatory attitude to China was reflected in the final statement, which began by stating “We stand prepared to build constructive and stable relations with China” | Pool phot by Stefan Rousseau/Getty Images

    The joint call for diverse sources of critical minerals, while stopping short of naming China, is widely seen as targeted against the Asian superpower that controls, for instance, 70 percent of global rare earths output. The G7 countries “support open, fair, transparent, secure, diverse, sustainable, traceable, rules and market-based trade in critical minerals” and “oppose market-distorting practices and monopolistic policies on critical minerals,” according to the statement.

    They also vow to deliver the goal of mobilizing up to $600 billion in financing for quality infrastructure through the Partnership for Global Infrastructure Investment, a rival to China’s Belt and Road initiative. “We will mobilize the private sector for accelerated action to this end,” they said.

    In a bilateral in Hiroshima, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and French President Emmanuel Macron “welcomed the strong unity of purpose at the G7 on … our collective approach to the economic threat posed by China,” a spokesperson for Sunak’s office said.

    Stuart Lau and Eli Stokols

    Source link

  • There’s A Big New Ruling On What You’re Allowed To Say About An Ex-Employer. Here’s What It Means For You.

    There’s A Big New Ruling On What You’re Allowed To Say About An Ex-Employer. Here’s What It Means For You.

    When companies lay off or fire employees, they often include nondisparagement provisions as a standard part of any separation agreement. If you’ve ever been in that vulnerable position and agreed to a severance package that included a nondisclosure agreement, you are all too familiar with the scary silencing effect that this language can have.

    But this month, the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency in charge of protecting private sector employees’ rights, clarified that there’s a limit to how much an employer can make you keep quiet.

    In a February ruling involving McLaren Macomb Hospital in Michigan, the NLRB said that furloughed workers had been asked to sign severance agreements with nondisparagement clauses that were overly broad, as those agreements violated the employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act to talk about their working conditions.

    Making very broad nondisparagement clauses has been a general and intentional practice, said California-based employment attorney Ryan Stygar.

    “The gray area between a truthful statement which is unflattering for the employer and a ‘disparaging’ remark can be hard to understand,” he said. “Employers want workers to think, ‘I should keep my mouth shut about labor issues because I might get sued.’”

    But the National Labor Relations Act, first passed in 1935, protects the rights of eligible employees to join forces and engage in “concerted activities” against an employer’s union-busting behavior, wage theft and other unfair working conditions.

    So in a March memorandum to regional offices, Jennifer Abruzzo, the NLRB’s general counsel, clarified that the decision in the hospital case had “retroactive application.” This means any severance agreements that were made prior to February in the U.S. by employers covered by the National Labor Relations Act, and that asked employees to “broadly waive” rights provided by it, are no longer valid, either.

    In fact, any “employer communication” that violated an employee’s rights under the National Labor Relations Act is now on notice, according to the memo.

    “For employees, the guidance signals that they cannot be lawfully precluded from making public statements on protected ‘concerted’ workplace issues, such as by criticizing an employer’s stance on union organizing,” said James M. Cooney, a labor and employment law expert in the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations.

    This new clarification sends the message that preventing employees from talking to each other about their working conditions is no longer allowed, according to Florida-based employment attorney Donna Ballman.

    Ballman said companies used overly broad NDAs to keep people from finding out about complaints made by fellow employees and then bringing similar claims of their own.

    “And that’s what the NLRB says is now illegal,” she told HuffPost. “Employees should be free to discuss working conditions with co-workers and former co-workers.”

    You may be wondering what exactly this means for you, especially if you’ve ever signed a severance agreement. Legal experts weighed in on pressing questions about how freely you can now talk about bad employers from your past.

    Am I now free to talk badly about my horrible former employer? I have some things I want to get off my chest.

    Lawyers caution against using the new NLRB guidance as carte blanche approval to break an old NDA and start posting negative things about your old bosses on social media.

    “Truthful statements about employers’ labor practices are usually protected,” Stygar said. “But — and this is crucial — defamatory statements are not protected. Any false statement, or any statement made with ‘reckless disregard’ for the truth, could land an employee in legal trouble.“

    At the very least, talk with a lawyer first before making any public statement, attorneys said. “You should carefully review the purpose of the statement and what goal you want to achieve,” Stygar said.

    Beyond the threat of being sued for violating your nondisparagement clause, bad-mouthing a previous employer is generally frowned upon because future employers may believe you will one day speak ill of them, too.

    “I generally think it’s a bad idea because it makes you look unprofessional and undesirable to potential employers,” Ballman said.

    Are all severance agreements now void, too?

    “Lawful severance agreements may continue to be proffered, maintained, and enforced if they do not have overly broad provisions that affect the rights of employees to engage with one another to improve their lot as employees,” Abruzzo stated in her memo.

    In other words, employers can still protect trade secrets and confidential information and can prohibit defamation in the agreements they ask you to sign while onboarding or offboarding.

    “I’m seeing more narrowly tailored nondisparagement provisions since this decision,” Ballman said. “Some employers are now just saying employees can’t defame them or say anything maliciously untrue, and that should be OK with the NLRB.”

    So what does ‘overly broad’ employer communication look like?

    Watch out for employer communication language that infringes upon your legal rights.

    “An overly broad nondisparagement clause occurs when protected speech, such as your right to report unlawful harassment to the [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] or to a lawyer, appears to be prohibited by the agreement,” Stygar said.

    “Examples of illegal and overly broad provisions to watch for in a nondisparagement agreement would include language seeking to silence an employee from disclosing information on workplace health and safety violations or a discriminatory work environment in violation of federal, state or local civil rights laws,” Cooney said.

    Is this guidance from the NLRB set in stone?

    Maybe. Abruzzo’s memo could be challenged in court by an employer appealing the decision.

    “NLRB rulings are not self-enforcing, and therefore an employer could appeal to the federal courts any case applying the standards announced in the McLaren Macomb decision,” Cooney said. “However, the board did not create new law in that case, but rather returned to long-standing precedent, so it is probably not likely that a court would overturn a board ruling.”

    At the same time, Cooney noted that actual cases will need to be litigated in front of the NLRB to see if it will adopt all aspects of the guidance.

    Who is serving on the NLRB could make a big difference too, because it is common for presidential administrations to make new appointments and roll back NLRB policy decisions from their predecessors.

    “The current NLRB is focused on scaling back some of the policy decisions from the [President Donald] Trump era. In this case, that includes policies which could enable employers to get around the statutory purpose of the National Labor Relations Act,” Stygar said.

    “If Mr. Trump or another Republican candidate returns to the Oval Office … we can and should expect reversals in some form or another. How far those would go is anyone’s guess. But for now, I am optimistic of the direction the current NLRB is taking on these issues.”

    Source link

  • Macron pays high price in popularity over pension reform, survey shows

    Macron pays high price in popularity over pension reform, survey shows

    Emmanuel Macron is paying a high price for his push on pension reform as a survey on Sunday showed the French president is facing a new low in popularity — as low as during the protests of the so-called Yellow Jackets.

    As the French take to the streets to protest against Macron’s pension reform, 70 percent of respondents said they are dissatisfied with the president, according to the Ifop barometer published by Le Journal du Dimanche. Macron’s popularity rating fell by 4 points in one month, it showed.

    Since December, Macron has suffered a substantial drop of 8 points, and he now sees only 28 percent satisfied and 70 percent dissatisfied, according to the poll carried out, Le Figaro emphasized, between March 9 and 16.  

    That is the same period as the negotiations that finally led the Elysée to shun parliament and impose the unpopular pension reforms via a special constitutional power, the so-called Article 49.3, which provides that the government can pass a bill without a vote at the National Assembly, the lower house of parliament, after a deliberation at a Cabinet meeting.

    The procedure has been used in the past by various governments. But this time it’s prompting a lot of criticism because of the massive public opposition to the proposed reform, which raises the legal retirement age from 62 to 64 years. Some media stress that recent opinion polls have shown that a majority of the French are opposed to this type of procedure.

    “You have to go back to the end of the Yellow Jackets crisis in early 2019 to find comparable levels of unpopularity,” writes Le Journal du Dimanche commenting the survey. The outlet also stresses that dissatisfaction with Macron crosses all categories, the younger generations as well as the blue- and white-collar workers.

    A total of 169 people, including 122 in Paris, were taken in custody for questioning on Saturday evening in France during demonstrations marred by tensions between the police and the protesters, according to French media citing figures communicated on Sunday by the Ministry of the Interior. 

    Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link

  • New Contract Ratified Between New School and Union Workers

    New Contract Ratified Between New School and Union Workers

    Following a strike that ended late last year, part-time faculty union members ratified a new contract with the New School — home of the Parsons School of Design and its prestigious fashion program — with a 97% approval rating on Dec. 31, the university announced.

    Back in mid-November, nearly 1,800 part-time faculty at the New School went on strike, after the university failed to raise wages in pace with inflation. (UAW Local 7902 — the union of academic workers at New School and New York University — had initially asked for a 10% wage increase, against the backdrop of 8.6% inflation; the university offered 3.5% instead, which the union swiftly rejected.) It became the United States’ longest-ever strike by adjunct faculty and prompted angry parents to file a lawsuit against the school.

    Andrea Bossi

    Source link

  • Twitter VP in Ireland gets temporary court injunction against firing

    Twitter VP in Ireland gets temporary court injunction against firing

    A Twitter executive in Ireland secured a temporary court injunction preventing Elon Musk from firing her in his mass layoffs at the social media giant.

    Sinead McSweeney, Twitter’s global vice president for public policy, was granted the interim injunction on Friday by Ireland’s High Court, local media reported. The court order temporarily prevents Twitter from terminating McSweeney’s employment contract.

    McSweeney claimed before the court that she received mixed messages from Twitter, according to the reports.

    Even if she didn’t explicitly accept an exit package that was proposed to her, McSweeney said she had been locked out of Twitter’s Dublin office and of the company’s IT system, the Irish Examiner reported. Twitter lawyers however reassured her in an e-mail that they knew she didn’t want to resign and that her access to the IT system would be restored, according to the Examiner report. But McSweeney told the court that she was still concretely unable to work, the outlet said.

    Musk, Twitter’s new owner, has fired thousands of employees across the globe since he took over the popular social network.

    An email that Musk sent to employees on November 16 asked them to click on “yes” if they wanted to continue working for Twitter; McSweeney didn’t respond to that email, according to the reports.

    The court injunction states that that email has no effect on McSweeney’s contract, but it doesn’t go as far as re-instating her in her job, as judges still have to take a final decision on her case, according to the reports.

    Giorgio Leali

    Source link

  • Ahead of Xi meeting, Biden calls out China

    Ahead of Xi meeting, Biden calls out China

    PHNOM PENH, Cambodia — U.S. President Joe Biden offered a full-throated American commitment to the nations of Southeast Asia on Saturday, pledging at a Cambodia summit to help stand against China’s growing dominance in the region — without mentioning the other superpower by name.

    Chinese President Xi Jinping wasn’t in the room at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, summit in Phnom Penh. But Xi hovered over the proceedings just two days before he and Biden are set to have their highly anticipated first face-to-face meeting at the G20 summit in Indonesia.

    The Biden White House has declared Xi’s nation its greatest economic and military rival of the next century and while the president never called out China directly, his message was squarely aimed at Beijing.

    “Together we will tackle the biggest issues of our time, from climate to health security to defend against significant threats to rules-based order and to threats against the rule of law,” Biden said. “We’ll build an Indo-Pacific that is free and open, stable and prosperous, resilient and secure.”

    The U.S. has long derided China’s violation of the international rules-based order — from trade to shipping to intellectual property — and Biden tried to emphasize his administration’s solidarity with a region American has too often overlooked.

    His work in Phnom Penh was meant to set a framework for his meeting with Xi — his first face-to-face with the Chinese leader since taking office — which is to be held Monday at the G20 summit of the world’s richest economies, this year being held in Indonesia on the island of Bali.

    Much of Biden’s agenda at ASEAN was to demonstrate resistance to Beijing.

    He was to push for better freedom of navigation on the South China Sea, where the U.S. believes the nations can fly and sail wherever international law allows. The U.S. had declared that China’s resistance to that freedom challenges the world’s rules-based order.

    Moreover, in an effort to crack down on unregulated fishing by China, the U.S. began an effort to use radio frequencies from commercial satellites to better track so-called dark shipping and illegal fishing. Biden also pledged to help the area’s infrastructure initiative — meant as a counter to China’s Belt and Road program — as well as to lead a regional response to the ongoing violence in Myanmar.

    But it is the Xi meeting that will be the main event for Biden’s week abroad, which comes right after his party showed surprising strength in the U.S. midterm elections, emboldening the president as he headed overseas. Biden will circumnavigate the globe, having made his first stop at a major climate conference in Egypt before arriving in Cambodia for a pair of weekend summits before going on to Indonesia.

    There has been skepticism among Asian states as to American commitment to the region over the last two decades. Former President Barack Obama took office with the much-ballyhooed declaration that the U.S. would “pivot to Asia,” but his administration was sidetracked by growing involvements in Middle Eastern wars.

    Donald Trump conducted a more inward-looking foreign policy and spent much of his time in office trying to broker a better trade deal with China, all the while praising Xi’s authoritarian instincts. Declaring China the United States’ biggest rival, Biden again tried to focus on Beijing but has had to devote an extraordinary amount of resources to helping Ukraine fend off Russia’s invasion.

    But this week is meant to refocus America on Asia — just as China, taking advantage of the vacuum left by America’s inattention, has continued to wield its power over the region.

    Biden declared that the ten nations that make up ASEAN are “the heart of my administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy” and that his time in office — which included hosting the leaders in Washington earlier this year — begins “a new era in our cooperation.” He did, though, mistakenly identify the host country as “Colombia” while offering thanks at the beginning of his speech.

    “We will build a better future, a better future we all say we want to see,” Biden said.

    Biden was only the second U.S. president to set foot in Cambodia, after Obama visited in 2012. And like Obama did then, the president on Saturday made no public remarks about Cambodia’s dark history or the United States’ role in the nation’s tortured past.

    In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon authorized a secret carpet-bombing campaign in Cambodia to cut off North Vietnam’s move toward South Vietnam. The U.S. also backed a coup that led, in part, to the rise of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, a bloodthirsty guerrilla group that went on to orchestrate a genocide that resulted in the deaths of more than 1.5 million people between 1975 and 1979.

    One of the regime’s infamous Killing Fields, where nearly 20,000 Cambodians were executed and thrown in mass graves, lies just a few miles outside the center of Phnom Penh. There, a memorial featuring thousands of skulls sits as a vivid reminder of the atrocities committed just a few generations ago. White House aides said that Biden had no scheduled plans to visit.

    As is customary, Biden met with the host country’s leader at the start of the summit. Prime Minister Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge commander, has ruled Cambodia for decades with next to no tolerance for dissent. Opposition leaders have been jailed and killed, and his administration has been accused of widespread corruption, according to human rights groups.

    Jake Sullivan, Biden’s national security adviser, said Biden would “engage across the board in service of America’s interests and to advance America’s strategic position and our values.” He said Biden was meeting with Hun Sen because he was the leader of the host country. 

    U.S. officials said Biden urged the Cambodian leader to make a greater commitment to democracy and “reopen civic and political space” ahead of the country’s next elections.

    Jonathan Lemire

    Source link

  • China’s Xi tightens grip on power, gets unprecedented third term

    China’s Xi tightens grip on power, gets unprecedented third term

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Sunday secured an unprecedented third term as general secretary of China’s Communist Party, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency.

    The appointment comes after a week-long party congress during which the 69-year-old leader tightened his grip over the country, making him possibly the world’s most powerful individual, according to some analysts. And it paves the way for him to get another five-year term as the country’s president at the annual legislative session in March and to continue his confrontational line with the West.

    Beijing has grown increasingly aggressive on both the military and economic fronts while cozying up to a warmongering Russia.

    At 69, Xi has has surpassed the informal retirement age of 68 and could be in a position for life-long rule. In 2018, Xi scrapped the presidential two-term limit, allowing him to rule indefinitely.

    In a dramatic scene on Saturday during the highly choreographed meeting, former Chinese President Hu Jintao was unexpectedly escorted out of the closing ceremony of the Communist party congress, in what was seen by some as a sign of Hu deterring health and by others as a symbolic scene of Xi’s strengthened powers.

    Xi also retained his title as head of the military.

    He appointed to the party’s Politburo Standing Committee, China’s top governing body, officials who analysts say are his proteges and allies. Among them they mention for example Wang Huning, described as the ideologue who has shaped Xi’s nationalist views; Cai Qi, whose ties with Xi go back over two decades; and Ding Xuexiang, a close Xi aide who often travels with the president.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin sent a congratulatory message to Xi on his third term, the Kremlin said. Putin told the Chinese president that he looked forward to further developing the “comprehensive relationship and strategic alliance between our two states.”

    German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is planning a trip to China next month and is set to be the first Western leader to greet Xi as the newly re-appointed leader. EU leaders at a meeting on Friday discussed the bloc’s line over China.

    While Scholz insisted that the EU must remain a beacon of global trade, even with China, others such as outgoing Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi said that many leaders during the discussion stressed that “we must not repeat the fact that we have been indifferent, indulgent, superficial in our relations with Russia.”

    And they also stressed that “those that look like business ties … are part of an overall direction of the Chinese system, so they must be treated as such,” Draghi added.

    Jacopo Barigazzi

    Source link