Tag: democracy

Options After Callais

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

What are the options for dealing with Callais’ decimation of Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act and Rucho’s determination that partisan redistricting claims are not justiciable in the federal courts?

Callais is already leading to the destruction of Black-majority congressional districts and to the destruction of any hope for a multi-racial democracy, especially in the South. Rucho has led to a battle to the bottom, in which state legislatures have begun redistricting congressional districts to the benefit of the majority party in those states’ legislatures.

There are three principal responses: federal anti-gerrymandering legislation, state anti-legislation, and proportional representation.

Federal Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation

Congress has the power, pursuant to Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, to enact laws governing the time, place, and manner of elections for Members of the House of Representatives. Democrats have repeatedly introduced bills in Congress that would prohibit states from engaging in partisan gerrymandering or redistricting and from redistricting congressional districts in mid-decade. The current bills are S. 2885 and H.R. 5449.

Those bills would prohibit any state from using “a redistricting plan to conduct an election that, when considered on a statewide basis, has been drawn with the intent or has the effect of materially favoring or disfavoring any political party.” They would establish criteria for deciding whether a districting plan was adopted for partisan reasons, would establish a private right of action with three-judge panels and a right to appeal to the D.C. Circuit, and would require each state to establish independent, non- partisan redistricting commissions.

The House passed, in 2022, the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which contained prohibitions against partisan congressional redistricting. But the bill died in the Senate because of a Republican filibuster.

Right now, the bills prohibiting partisan redistricting would meet a similar fate, and would be vetoed by Pres. Trump if the Senate amended the filibuster rules to let them pass. Republicans now believe that partisan redistricting is in their partisan best interests.

It is possible that Democrats in states with legislatures controlled by their party will be able to create enough new Democratic congressional seats to cancel out the new Republican congressional seats created by Republican state legislators. Only if the two parties realize that they are evenly disadvantaged by partisan redistricting will congressional Republicans probably agree to sponsor these bills.

State Anti-Gerrymandering Legislation

A number of states require redistricting to be done by independent commissions, provided that partisan redistricting claims are justiciable in those states’ courts, or otherwise prohibit or limit partisan redistricting. Florida, for example, has state constitutional provisions prohibiting maps “drawn with the intent to favor or disfavor a political party or an incumbent.”

Those provisions did not stop Florida Gov. DeSantis and the Republican- controlled state legislature from adopting new maps that, if adopted, would net 4 new seats for Republicans. A circuit court judge, on May 26, 2026, refused to issue a preliminary injunction because he concluded there was “insufficient evidence of impermissible intent.” That judge would have accepted the legislature’s denial that Donald Duck is a duck.

Proportional Representation

Another approach would be to abandon gerrymandering altogether, by providing for proportional representation on a state-wide basis. For example, assume that a state has 10 congressional districts and that Party A won 60% of the congressional vote state-wide, while Party B won 40% of the vote. In a proportional system, six of the state’s districts would be represented by politicians affiliated with Party A, and 40% by representatives from Party B.

In that system, the districts with the highest votes for Party A would have representatives from that party. That would eliminate the worst inequities of partisan gerrymandering. People would no longer see their votes wasted because of the drawing of district boundaries. That would incentivize each political party and each party’s voters to vote, regardless of the way the boundaries are drawn.

However, there is a real possibility that a proportional-representation scheme in a state with a large number of congressional districts, such as California or Texas, could be won by minor parties, which could further fracture the political system. Overall, however, this kind of scheme would reduce extreme partisanship and eliminate the current race to the bottom of racial gerrymandering.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

The Fifteenth Amendment and Callais

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

I wrote an article in the May issue of the Stand Up For Workers newsletter about the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais. I only briefly mentioned the Fifteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution in that piece.

The Callais majority decision effectively determined that Sec. 2 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, while claiming that it was merely “updat[ing]” the framework for determining whether Sec. 2 has been violated. That was a cynical exercise of the conservative majority’s power. The majority opinion would have been more intellectually honest if it had said what it was doing. The claim that it was just updating the Sec. 2 framework fooled no one.

Sec. 2 was enacted pursuant to both the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

The Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the states from “deny[ing] or abridg[ing]” the “right of citizens of the United States to vote” because of their “race.” In fact, the Fifteenth Amendment is the only provision in the Constitution that expressly prohibits racial discrimination.

Southern states diluted Black citizens’ votes by gerrymandering congressional districts as early as the 1870s. The Supreme Court in 1980 rejected a claim of racial dilution pursuant to Sec. 2 because the plaintiffs had not proven that the dilution scheme was done for a racial reason. Congress rejected that interpretation of Sec. 2.

In its 1982 amendments to the VRA, it expressly supported racial-dilution claims and provided that it is not necessary to prove discriminatory intent to prevail on such claims. Congress had the power to adopt the amended Sec. 2 pursuant to the Fifteenth Amendment, which grants Congress the “power to enforce this [amendment] by appropriate legislation.” The Supreme Court, in 1966, decided that “Congress may use any rational means to effectuate the constitutional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting.” The Callais majority concluded that that Fifteenth Amendment power is limited to efforts to end intentional racial discrimination in voting. The majority reasoned that redistricting for partisan reasons does not violate Sec. 2. But voting by Black voters in the South is highly partisan now, as it was in the 1870s and 1880s. Partisan redistricting is racial redistricting, especially in the South, where almost all Black individuals and relatively few white people vote for Democrats. Congress amended Sec. 2 because Southern state legislatures solemnly stated that they had no racial animus is drawing district lines.

That is nonsense. Of course they did, since they knew the penalties of being honest about their intent.

State legislatures are populated and advised by lawyers. State legislators are acutely aware of the importance of legislative district boundaries. They know where the district boundaries are located and know that Black voters in the South overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

The drawing of district boundaries is an intentional act. Sec. 2 was amended because evidence of racial results is evidence of racial intent. It is not necessary to find direct evidence of racial intent, since that intent is inferred from legislatures’ intentional decisions to create districts that result in racial discrimination.

Callais is written from the perspective of the white majority legal and political system in this country. Black citizens in the South – with the apparent exception of Justice Thomas – understand that racial discrimination is alive and well in their state legislatures. The Voting Rights Act was adopted to end that discrimination. As a result of Callais, that discrimination is alive and well.

It is ironic that as this country celebrates the 250th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the aftermath of the peculiar institution of slavery continues to rear its ugly head in the heart of this democracy. The Callais decision will destroy Black representation in most of the South, until and unless it is overturned or until Congress abolishes partisan gerrymandering or requires proportional representation for congressional districts.

*******

On June 2, 2026, by a vote of 6-3, a majority of the Supreme Court granted a motion for stay in Allen v. Milligan, after a three-judge panel in the Southern District of Alabama concluded that the Alabama state legislature had intentionally discriminated on the basis of race in creating a legislative map that included only one Black-majority congressional district.

The Supreme Court decided in the same case in 2023 that Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully discriminated on the basis of race against Black residents of that state. The district court then held an 11-day trial in which 51 witnesses testified and almost 800 exhibits were exhibited into evidence. The district court concluded that the legislature acted with a discriminatory purpose and not for partisan reasons. The Supreme Court ignored that clear evidentiary record in allowing Alabama to hold an election with only one Black-majority district this year.

Written by Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Opinion: We Need Guardrails

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As a long-time resident of Colorado, I appreciate guardrails.

Let me give you an example.

When I drive from Denver to Winter Park, Granby and Steamboat Springs, Colorado, I need to go over Berthoud Pass on U.S. 40. I rely on guardrails on the eastern approach to Berthoud to protect against situations like a flat tire, driving when exhausted, or even an avalanche — all of which could plunge me hundreds of feet to the valley floor without that barrier.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “guardrail” as “a bar along the edge of something steep, such as stairs or a cliff, to prevent people from falling off.” But the term is also used metaphorically to refer to regulations or frameworks designed to ensure ethical conduct and prevent abuses of power.

Vice President Harris warned voters in 2024 that Donald Trump, if re-elected as president, would not have any effective guardrails. That prediction was accurate. In his first 16 months of this second term, Trump has operated without most of the institutional guardrails that have constrained his predecessors.

Trump populated his cabinet and his top-level advisors in his first term with those who had deep knowledge of the perils of acting thoughtlessly. This time, his primary criterion has been their loyalty to Trump. Cabinet meetings have become parodies, with person after person praising him, discussing the supposed wisdom of his decisions, competing with each other for his approval. The result, unsurprisingly, is that no one in the Executive Branch, with the exception of Fed. Chair Jerome Powell, is willing to second-guess his decisions.

The Congress has abdicated its institutional role as a co-equal branch of government. Senate and House Republicans have voted against five different War Powers resolutions against the increasingly unpopular war against Iran. Even Republicans who oppose endless wars have been quieted by the threat of primary election challenges.

Overall, the federal courts have been less deferential to Trump. The Supreme Court has used its shadow docket to grant Trump a series of stays in decisions concerning immigration and other matters.

But, Trump has had less success getting unfriendly countries to bend to his wishes. Iran, in particular, has fought Trump to a standstill in his war against that country, blocking the Strait of Hormuz until the U.S. lifts its blockade of Iranian ports. It has refused to meet with American envoys as long as the American blockade continues. “Since the Iranians are obviously negotiating very skillfully – or simply not negotiating,” German Chancellor Merz said, “a whole nation is being humiliated by the Iranian leadership.”

Trump has said that he doesn’t “need international law” and that his power is constrained by his “own morality.” That’s like relying on the sobriety of an alcoholic to keep that person from plunging hundreds of feet to his death from the Berthoud Pass road.

No president in American history, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon, has needed guardrails. Other presidents, even those who have made major changes to the federal government, have operated mostly within the law.

FDR, for example, got his programs adopted by Congress and appealed directly to the American people in support of his programs. When he made controversial proposals, such as to increase the number of Supreme Court justices after that court had ruled against New Deal programs, he tried to do that by legislation and retreated in the face of public opposition. Abraham Lincoln populated his cabinet with political rivals. Other presidents have filled their cabinets with powerful people with strong agendas, such as Alexander Hamilton, Frances Perkins and Henry Kissinger. No president other than Trump has needed or tolerated the level of pure sycophancy shown by Trump’s band of yes- people.

The ultimate guardrail, however, is the people.

People across the country have rebelled against ICE’s militarized, aggressive, and lawless war against immigrants. Millions have participated in No Kings rallies. Trump’s tariffs have delivered higher prices while manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. Public opinion polls show that voters have turned against Trump because of economic woes, increased inflation, and the war against Iran.

The ultimate check and balance in our constitutional order is the voter. If control of the House and/or the Senate passes the Democrats this November, the Congress will be able to perform its traditional role of guarding against autocratic power by the Executive Branch.

There are many ways in which a Democratic-controlled Congress can exercise that power. It almost certainly will launch investigations into the rampant corruption of the Trump administration and into the myriad and often illegal ways it has operated. It can use the power of the purse to reinstate agencies that have been abolished or gutted, such as U.S. AID and the Department of Education.

We need to do everything we can to get the people to restore the institutional guardrails that have been missed during the second Trump term. And, if a blue tsunami appears in six months, the Democrats will need to deliver.

It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that American democracy and the future of the world are on the line.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

These Critical Races May Hold The Key to Democratic Senate Majority

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

While much of the early speculation and conversation around the upcoming midterm elections has centered on whether Democrats can reclaim the House of Representatives, a quieter but increasingly plausible scenario is emerging: a shift in control of the U.S. Senate.

Recent polling trends, including declining approval ratings for Trump, have opened the door to a potential Democratic path to a Senate majority. Political analysts, including SU4W PAC consultant Bighorn Company, have identified a handful of key races that could determine the outcome.

For Democrats to take control, they would need to:

  • Flip at least 4 Republican-held seats
  • Win 2 of the 4 open Republican seats (Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa, North Carolina)
  • Hold Georgia where Senator Jon Ossoff is up for reelection

It is a challenging map, but not out of reach. Voter frustration over rising living costs, persistent inflation, immigration policies, and foreign policy decisions, including the Iran conflict and its economic ripple effects, has created a more competitive environment. Meanwhile, Republicans are preparing to defend their 53 to 47 majority, already signaling major investments in key battlegrounds including Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Ohio.

With most of these states politically divided, none of these races are guaranteed wins. However, several stand out as especially competitive.

Promising Democratic Opportunities For Success

Maine | Primary: June 9

Democrats are once again targeting longtime Republican Senator Susan Collins. This time, early polling suggests a real opening.  The decision on April 25 by Gov. Janet Mills to end her Senate bid can only improve their chances.  Both she and the other Democratic candidate, oyster farmer Graham Platner, were ahead of Collins in recent polling in this closely watched race. The issue now is whether Platner, running for his first time, can maintain his momentum against the long history of Collins bringing substantial federal dollars into the state, and the large funding national Republicans are certain to provide.

Still, Maine’s recent Democratic lean, including its support for Harris in 2024, makes it one of the Democrats’ best chances. 

Alaska | Primary: August 18

Mary Peltola, former holder of Alaska’s at-large House seat, is emerging as a formidable contender against Senator Dan Sullivan. A member of the Yup’ik tribe, Peltola has strong rural support and narrowly lost reelection in 2024. Recent polling shows her leading Sullivan by five points.  The limited number of undecided voters in the state increases the reliability of this polling.

North Carolina | Primary: May 12

Roy Cooper, the state’s Democratic governor, enters this race leading the polls, with numbers from April 29 giving him a 9-point lead over Republican Michael Whatley. High Point University polling found his lead at 50% to 42%, with 6% undecided. Even Whatley’s term as national Republican chair seems unlikely to overcome his never having held elected office. And in this climate, Trump’s endorsement may not help him.

Cooper’s strong track record, including a double-digit statewide win in 2024 despite Trump carrying the state, makes this one of the Democrats’ best pickup opportunities. Both parties are expected to invest heavily.

Toss-Up Races

New Hampshire | Primary: September 8

Had former Gov. Chris Sununu not reversed his decision against running and thrown his hat into the ring, this race would have been a strong likely Democrat win.  His name recognition and fundraising strength make Sununu a serious contender. With Trump’s strong endorsement, Sununu’s success may also show where Trump stands with voters.

Still, Democrat Chris Pappas brings his own advantages: four terms in Congress, strong fundraising, and broad appeal, particularly among younger voters. Early polling gives him a slight edge.

Ohio | Primary: May 5

Sherrod Brown’s previous loss was close, (by 3.6 points) and he remains a well-known figure in a deeply divided state. Early polling shows him competitive against Republican Jon Husted. Economic concerns, especially inflation and rising gasoline and other costs, could play a decisive role here, making Ohio one of the cycle’s most unpredictable races.

Nebraska | Primary: May 12

In a deeply Republican state, independent candidate Dan Osborn is taking an unusual path, and it may be working. Running outside the Democratic label, he is polling within one point of Republican Pete Ricketts. The Cook political report has shifted the race to favoring him.

A farmer with a strong pro-labor background, Osborn has built a coalition that cuts across traditional party lines.

Long Shot Opportunities

Texas | Runoff: May 12

Democrat James Tallarico could face either incumbent John Cornyn or state Attorney General Ken Paxton. Trump endorsee Paxton has also faced accusations of securities law violations. If Paxton wins the Republican nomination, analysts suggest his vulnerabilities, combined with broader political headwinds, could create an opening.

While still a long shot, this race is worth watching.

Iowa | Primary: June 2

With Senator Joni Ernst retiring, Iowa becomes a rare open-seat Democraticopportunity. Though the state has trended Republican, economic pressures, especially from unpredictable tariffs impacting many farmers, could shift voter sentiment. Democrats Josh Turek and Zach Wahls are competing for the nomination in what could become a competitive race, likely opposing Rep. Allison Hinson.

Florida | Primary: August 18

Florida has leaned Republican in recent years, but strong Democratic performances in recent special elections suggest potential volatility. With well-known Democratic whistleblower Alex Vindman in the race against incumbent De Santis appointee Ashley Moody, and an anti-Trump sentiment prevalent even in many southern states, some observers see a possible opening for the Democrats.

Democratic Vulnerability

Georgia | Primary: May 19

Senator Jon Ossoff is in a seat is critical to any Democratic path to the Senate majority. While Georgia has leaned Republican historically, polling recently reviewed by the New York Times found Ossoff  ahead by four to nine points.

A crowded Republican field could split opposition support, improving his chances, but this remains one of the most closely watched races of the cycle.

The bottom line?

If Democrats secure expected wins in places like Alaska and Maine, they would likely need just 2 more victories, such as in Ohio or New Hampshire, while holding Georgia, to take control of the Senate. It is a narrow path with little room for error. But with shifting political dynamics and a volatile electorate, the next 6 months will tell whether that possibility becomes reality.

Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member

Response to Louisiana v. Callais Decision

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

The conservative majority of the Supreme Court just completed a project by Chief Justice Roberts, waged for more than four decades, to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act, seriously harming representative democracy in this country.

First, a brief history lesson.

From 1619 to 1865, most African Americans in the U.S. were enslaved, with “no rights which the white man was bound to accept,” as stated in Dred Scott v. Sandford. After the end of the Civil War and the adoption of the 15th Amendment, Black individuals in the South were given and then deprived of voting rights. For nearly 90 years, African Americans were prevented from voting and subjected to Jim Crow laws in the former Confederate States. That ended, formally, in 1965, with the Voting Rights Act. But, John Roberts began working to eliminate the VRA’s protections as a young lawyer in 1982. He completed those efforts with his decision on April 29, 2026 in Louisiana v. Callais.

The VRA has two enforcement provisions in Sections 2 and 5. The pre-clearance language in Sec. 5 required legislatures in certain states, principally in the South, to clear any changes to voting procedures in advance with the U.S. Department of Justice. The Supreme Court decided in Shelby County v. Holder in 2013 that those pre-clearance provisions were no longer needed because “things had changed dramatically” since 1965 and “Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem [racial discrimination in voting] speaks to current conditions.”

It is true that the former restrictions against Black voters, such as poll taxes, had disappeared in those years, but racial discrimination in voting persisted. Those states, predictably, immediately began enacting voting restrictions against African American voters. Section 2 still offered the possibility of attacking legislative redistricting that adversely affected Black voters. For decades, Southern legislators have “packed” Black citizens into a few districts and “cracked” other African American voters into white majority districts. Roberts hollowed out Section 2, which was used in those voting dilution cases, in Callais.

The heart of the majority opinion in that decision is a new requirement for challenges to a redistricting scheme. The plaintiffs now need to show the new district lines are not done for partisan purposes. Since the vast majority of Black voters in the South are Democrats, districting to support the Republican party is therefore also done for racial reasons. Partisan redistricting is racial districting in the South.

The Louisiana secretary of state declared an “emergency” after Callais was handed down. The clear purpose of that declaration, declared three days before primary voting in that state was scheduled to begin, is to redistrict either or both of the congressional districts now represented by Black individuals in Louisiana. Up to twelve Black- represented districts now are in peril of racial dilution. In 2019, the Supreme Court decided, in Rucho v. Common Cause, that claims of partisan gerrymandering cannot be brought in federal court despite the fact that partisan gerrymandering is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

The First Amendment prohibits the government from taking an action based on the viewpoint of a speaker, especially when the speech is political and when the action harms the speaker. A person cannot be deprived of a business license because of that person’s speech, but that same person can be deprived of the right to have effective representation because of speech and association with others. The Supreme Court decided in Rucho not that such partisan gerrymandering was legal, but rather that it would not do anything about it. Callais will result in racial gerrymandering that will deprive Black voters in the South of representation by legislators who support their interests. Rucho deprives all voters of the right to be represented by people who support their interests.

The branch of the federal government that is not selected by the voters, populated by judges with life terms, has decided to destroy representative democracy in this country. It is thwarting the will of Congress. It is deciding these cases based on a fictional view of reality. It is exaggerating the partisan divide in the states by incentivizing Democratic legislators to redistrict to favor Democrats and Republican legislators to favor Republicans.

The conservative justices on the Supreme Court are now politicians in black robes. That could destroy the Court, or representative democracy, and maybe both. If the voters do not elect a Democratic majority in the House and the Senate in 2026, and if that majority does not effectively address this issue, Black legislators and representative democracy will be in mortal danger.

Help us move the needle forward in getting democracy back into Congress during the midterm elections with by making a donation of any amount to the Stand Up For Workers PAC.

Written By Barry Roseman, SU4W Board Member

Trump’s War On Iran Will Add to American Workers’ Economic Woes

Posted on by Alayya Arrison

American workers, already whipsawed by the effects of Trump’s capricious tariffs and other uncertainties of the economy, are likely to be the group most adversely impacted by the war against Iran according to labor economists and other economic analysts. 

Such effects include:

1. Jobs, Hiring, and Economic Stability

While direct job losses are hard to predict, the indirect effects are clearer and concerning. If the conflict drags on, consumer spending may fall, businesses may slow hiring, and layoffs could follow.

A major disruption is already underway: the near shutdown of oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical passage for roughly 20% of global petroleum shipments. Oil prices jumped nearly 10% after the conflict began, raising costs across industries from shipping to manufacturing.

This threatens a fragile recovery in U.S. manufacturing. Rising input costs for energy, materials, and transportation are already surging at their fastest pace in years. As production becomes more expensive, companies may scale back operations, cut hours, or reduce their workforce.

Supply chain vulnerabilities extend beyond oil. For example, a prolonged closure of the Strait could choke off a significant portion of the world’s helium supply—critical for semiconductors, medical equipment like MRI machines, and defense technologies—putting additional jobs at risk.

At the same time, the growing reliance on digital infrastructure leaves businesses exposed to cyberattacks. Iran and its allies have historically used cyber warfare in response to military conflict, and disruptions could halt business operations, threatening jobs across sectors.

2. Rising Costs for Everyday Life

Workers will also feel the impact at home, especially through rising energy and food costs.

Gasoline and diesel prices are expected to climb, along with electricity costs driven by higher natural gas prices. These increases hit lower-income workers hardest, particularly those with long commutes, as more of their income is diverted to basic transportation.

Food prices (already a strain) could rise further. Higher fuel costs increase the price of transporting goods, while disruptions to fertilizer supplies (much of which originates from the Persian Gulf) could reduce agricultural output. The result: higher grocery bills and tighter household budgets.

3. Long-Term Outlook for Workers

Unlike past wars, this conflict may not produce a significant boost in employment. Advances in technology like drones and automation reduce the need for human labor even during wartime production.

History offers a cautionary note: labor shortages can sometimes strengthen workers’ bargaining power, but they can also accelerate automation, ultimately reducing jobs.

Meanwhile, financial markets are already reacting. Rising energy prices and uncertainty have triggered declines in major stock indexes. If the conflict continues, economists warn of a broader slowdown. Businesses may pull back on hiring or cut jobs altogether, raising the risk of a recession.

As one economist put it, without a clear exit strategy, the economic effects of this conflict could be long-lasting, leaving American workers to bear much of the burden.

 

Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member

Oregon Campaign for Just Cause

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

On November 3, 2026, Oregon voters may have the opportunity to approve a fundamental revision in the employment laws of that state. That revision would reverse a doctrine that has been adopted in all but one American state, and that has been used to destroy labor unions, weaken the protections adopted by the Congress and the Oregon legislature, and impair the respect that American workers receive for the work they perform.

The doctrine has a name: employment at will. It was first articulated in a treatise on employment rights in 1877, written by a railroad lawyer, and it was soon adopted as part of the legal regime supporting the Industrial Revolution. The doctrine claims that every employment for an indefinite period of time – that is, virtually every job in America – can be terminated at the will of the employer, without a reason, at any time, with no right to recover damages. The prior rule was that every “hiring” would be for a period of one year.

The new doctrine of employment at will has been rejected by every other industrialized nation. In the U.S., only Montana and Puerto Rico require that every contract of employment can be terminated only for just cause. Under this doctrine, employees have no protection from being fired for arbitrary reasons, without any prior warning or prior discipline, even if they have worked effectively for their employers for years. Some employers have established policies and procedures that seem to promise fair treatment, but then state that those provisions are not contractual and cannot be the basis for a lawsuit.

According to a recent national survey of workers:

  • 69% of workers said their employment was terminated for no reason or for what they claimed to be an unfair reason
  • 75% of workers were fired without warning or any opportunity to improve their work performance

Workers routinely accept demeaning, unsafe or even dangerous working conditions to avoid being disciplined or fired:

  • 59% of workers have skipped work breaks
  • 57% of them have worked overtime when they would have preferred not to work
  • 44% of workers have put up with verbal abuse from a manager or supervisor
  • 35% of workers have worked under dangerous or unsafe conditions
  • 33% of them accepted less pay than what was owed to them

This affects the health and safety of workers. In order to avoid being disciplined:

  • 66% of workers have worked while sick or injured
  • 47% of them postponed medical care
  • 45% of them neglected important family responsibilities or events

Oregon Initiative 36, if adopted by the voters, would eliminate the doctrine of at will, and would restore the respect that Oregon workers deserve. It would require that all Oregon employees, other than seasonal employees and employees hired for a specific term, would have four rights:

A property right to employment. All Oregon employers could impose disciplinary procedures or discharge only based on (a) just cause and due process, and providing (b) a severance payment. Employers would need to provide notice and adequate training on work rules, apply those work rules reasonably and consistently, perform a sufficient and fair investigation, and discipline employees appropriately and proportionately.

A right to good faith notice. Employers would need to notify employees before disciplining or discharging them, inform them of the nature of the investigation and of the alleged facts, and complete any investigation within a reasonable amount of time.

A right to association. Employees would be entitled to representation before being required to answer questions. Interviews generally will be conducted during working hours.

A right to security. Employees will be entitled to severance pay from the date of hire, unless for a seasonal layoff.

A right to remedy. Employees shall have a private right of action to seek relief and compensation for severe disciplinary action without just cause, and to seek just compensation severance, including prevailing plaintiff attorney fees.

The proponents for Oregon Initiative 36 are now working to gather no less than 156,231 petition signatures to get that measure on the November 2026 ballot. Working with their allies in the labor union movement, Jobs with Justice, the National Employment Law Project, the Democratic Party of Oregon, Democratic Socialists of America and Democratic Socialists of America, they will be circulating petitions at events in Oregon and doing other canvassing in the next four months. That will include the No Kings marches on March 28, the Portland Rose Festival, sports events, county fairs, farmers’ markets, and every place that people come to gather and to enjoy the spring and early summer weather.

This initiative will have strong bipartisan support. Just-cause policies are supported by 66% of all workers, including by:

  • 61% of Republican workers
  • 66% of Democratic workers
  • 72% of independent workers

This point is worth repeating. We are living in a time of intense political polarization in the United States. 64% of voters feel that the American political system is too politically divided to solve the nation’s problems. 80% of all adults feel that members of the opposite political party not only disagree about plans and policies, but cannot agree on basic facts.

Nearly half of adults feel that members of the opposing political party are “downright evil.” In this climate, it is remarkable that nearly identical percentages of workers from both political parties support just-cause policies. In fact, support for this pro-worker measure is strongest among independents, not by political partisans! Those policies are supported by two-thirds of all workers!

You can donate funds to support this effort at www.OUJC.org/Give. Donations are not tax-deductible. We encourage you to support this important initiative.

Written By Barry Roseman, Stand Up For Workers Board Member

MAGA Strategy Appears Aimed at Overturning Defeat In Midterm Elections

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

As the November elections draw closer, statements and actions of the White House administration, along with pending legislation it has been pushing, offer clues as to the steps Trump supporters are contemplating as they seek to prevent the unfavorable results polls are predicting. A few mid-term losses could cost them their control of both houses of Congress.

Pres. Trump made a point, in his State of the Union address, to urge Congress to pass H.R. 7296, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, also called the SAVE Act. That bill would requires that states take affirmative steps to ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote, including requiring documentary proof of citizenship; and establishing a program to identify individuals who are not U.S. citizens. Individuals seeking to vote in federal elections would be required to present an eligible photo identification document. The bill provides for criminal penalties for violations.

Most Americans do not have easy access to citizenship documents or photo IDs. Tens of millions of Americans lack ready access to election officials, during office hours. This bill, if enacted, would create a new poll tax that would disenfranchise those voters.

Another such legislative effort to restrict voting appears in H.R. 7300, the so-called “Make Elections Great Again Act.” Like the “SAVE” proposal, this bill would require photographic identification of would-be voters; and would require states to maintain voter registration forms. It repeals various existing voting support statutes, and substitutes the stricter barriers to participation.

These bills have no realistic chance of passing the Senate if Democrats filibuster them. Sen. John Cronyn, the Senate majority leader, opposes amending the filibuster rules to enable these bills to pass. That is because he knows that, if the Senate would do so, Democrats would be able to repeal these bills and to pass the much more progressive John Lewis Voting Rights without having to worry about a Republican filibuster.

Sen. Cornyn has threatened to force Democratic Senators to do a “talking filibuster,” that is, to take the floor of the Senate and to talk the bills to death. Senate Democrats are willing to take him up on that challenge, since virtually all of them oppose these bill.

In addition, the White House has taken actions that appear aimed at skewing or discrediting the results of the November elections should the election result in loss of that majority. First, the administration recently, for no readily apparent reason, successfully sought a judicial warrant requiring civilian election officials in Fulton County, Georgia, to turn over to the F.B.I. all ballots and tabulation materials relating to the 2020 presidential election. Despite repeated audits of these election returns showing that the White House occupant lost that election, he continues to repeat his lies claiming that he won.

Possession of the actual ballots used for that election will at this point not be likely to impact that result now five years in the past. But carrying out this seizure action will serve well as a dry run for taking similar actions in select districts this fall, should his favored candidates there lose. It should be a simple matter in that case, should the courts permit it, to seize the actual ballots used and, having exclusive access to them, take what steps are necessary to substitute a favorable, untrue result in favor of the chosen candidate.

This potential for preparing a strategy for replacing actual ballots with fabricated alternative papers favoring MAGA candidates offers a plausible rationale for the seizure of the 2020 ballots, which otherwise appears to have no realistic purpose.

In addition to this bizarre ballot seizure (which was supervised, in person, both by the director of national intelligence, whose functions are limited by law to international issues; and by the president himself), recent developments in the anti-immigrant campaign present additional aspects of the administration’s ongoing policy initiatives that could be used towards the same election-derailment end. As has been amply demonstrated in Minneapolis (as well as Los Angeles, Chicago and other locales) the administration now has at its beck and call a paramilitary organization, complete with uniforms, firearms, teargas, masks and badges, to implement its goals by force. These federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“I.C.E.”) agents, have shown a nearly complete lack of compassion, courtesy, professionalism or respect for the rights of other Americans or even any other humans, to say nothing of the rule of law.

These agents’ inclination towards unjustifiable violence has cost the lives of at least two U.S. citizens protesting in Minneapolis. Perhaps more troubling, their actions are chillingly reminiscent of another group, the SA or Sturmabteilung, which was active in assisting in the Nazi takeover of the German government in the 1930s. While arguably more extreme than the I.C.E. agents’ conduct, the SA harassed and attacked demonstrators opposing the Nazis, and killed a number of them.

These mask-wearing, law-breaking ICE agents, who are reportedly being assigned as security for American athletes at the winter Olympic games in Italy, could just as well be deployed broadly around the nation, to “guard” polling places in the fall elections. At the very least, their presence could be counted on to dissuade many voters who are aware of ICE’s reputation for violence even against citizens, sometimes leading to death; or who are leery of being seized and deported. Indeed, no less a figure than former adviser to the chief executive, and prominent MAGA activist Steve Bannon, as well as presidential spokesperson Karoline Leavitt, have been quoted saying that this use of the I.C.E. armed force is already under serious consideration. And the chief executive has stated publicly that “Republicans” should take over managing the election process come November.

The documented absence of serious voting irregularities in the U.S. means that the true motivation for these initiatives must lie elsewhere, and given the Republican fear of losses in November, restricting turnout of Democratic voters seems like a realistic possibility.

Under the U.S. Constitution, elections are to be managed by the states, meaning that these enactments could be subject to legal challenge if adopted. Moreover, despite favorable votes in the House, to get either or both of these bills passed in the Senate, Republicans would have to amend the filibuster rules, which, given Democratic opposition, it appears they will not attempt to do. Since 46 of the 47 Senate Democrats oppose both bills, the Democrats may be able to talk both bills to death; but the threat remains.

The fall elections are far away, and Republicans still have time to win back voters the traditional way, with positive responses to the most crucial issues, such as affordability and correcting the abuses of the immigration crackdown, However, their focus appears rather to be on changing the outcome by making burdening the process and reducing the numbers of voters. With the tools noted, including the ability to seize critical documentation at the heart of the election, and the powerful I.C.E. armed force, at its disposal, it is easy to see how the administration could anticipate overcoming even the serious opposition of many American voters to its policies and practices.

As encouraged as they may be by recent negative survey results for the White House occupant and his agenda, opponents of these attempts at distorting the upcoming elections must remain vigilant about protecting the true safeguards built into the process as it exists, including the freedom and independence of state and local election authorities. This vigilance must include continuing monitoring of efforts to tinker with the process, and to make changes likely to intimidate or discourage voters, including imposing federal requirements on, and restricting the autonomy of, local authorities. Such changes must be resisted vigorously by public statements and demonstrations, and by lawsuits if need be. While victory in a few districts in November could mean such opponents regain the majority, it requires only a similarly small number of victories to keep the present “Republican” majority in power.

Stratagems like those noted above could be all that is needed to prevent victory by the administration’s opponents. Failure to act to oppose and block those stratagems by any and all means may lead to the loss, permanently, of the key core mechanism of democratic government for this beloved country.

Written by Paul Merry, Stand Up For Workers Board Member

The ICE Surge In Minneapolis: COMING TO A CITY NEAR YOU!

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

It was a casual meeting.

At my health club in the beginning of February, a manager from one of Minneapolis’s major construction firms told me his company runs 22 crews across the metro. The day before, only four workers showed up. Four out of more than a hundred! Not because of weather. Not because of illness. Not because these workers were illegal. Because these workers were hiding in their homes too afraid of being swept up in the federal government’s immigration surge to go to work.

Their fear was not imagined. Thousands of immigrants have been detained in the Twin Cities since the start of Operation Metro Surge, and the vast majority should never have been taken in the first place. According to the University of Minnesota, roughly 75% were released because they were either U.S. citizens or have perfectly legal immigration status. Yet the damage is already done: the fear spread to everyone—documented and undocumented workers alike.

The economic fallout is visible across Minneapolis. Construction sites have slowed dramatically as migrant tradespeople, including those with legal status, stay home to avoid encounters with federal agents. Unions and contractors report that job-site visits by ICE have worsened an already tight labor market and delayed projects across the region. The broader workforce impact is staggering. A joint study by North Star Policy Action and the W.E. Upjohn Institute found that Twin Cities workers lost $106 million in wages between early January and mid-February. During that same period, the number of employees working in the metro fell, the number of operating business locations dropped and hours worked declined nearly 2%.

Small businesses—especially those serving immigrant communities—have been hit hardest.

One North Minneapolis grocer reported losing 90% of his business as both workers and customers stayed home, terrified that a routine errand could end in detention. His workforce shrank from 70 employees to 19. This is what happens when a federal crackdown treats an entire community as suspect. It doesn’t just target the undocumented. It freezes whole neighborhoods. It empties job sites. It drains paychecks. It punishes families who have every legal right to be here.

I’ve lived in Minneapolis since 1980. I know this city. I know its workers. I know its heart. What’s happening now is not who we are, and the people paying the price are the ones who have built, cleaned, cooked, cared for, and sustained this community for decades.

And this could be coming to a city near you!

Written By Jim Kaster, Board Chair of Stand Up For Workers

Report from the Occupied City of Minneapolis: The Chilling Impact of ICE Operations

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

I am on the ground in Minneapolis, witnessing a city transformed by fear and uncertainty.

The killing of Renee Good occurred just minutes from my home and Alex Pretti just a few blocks further—a vivid reminder of the pervasive violence that now shadows even the most familiar corners of this beautiful, loving community. I have lived in this city since 1980. We pride ourselves on being a progressive, welcoming place, where diversity is celebrated and kindness is the norm. Today, that sense of safety and belonging feels far away.

The atmosphere here is heavy with anxiety. Many residents, particularly those from Hispanic backgrounds, are afraid to leave their homes, even for essential tasks like buying food. I am one of those old-fashioned people who still receive a daily paper at my door. Just this week I received a heartfelt letter from the Hispanic couple who delivers my newspaper, apologizing for missed deliveries out of fear for their safety. Their words echo the sentiments of countless others, including workers, students, and worshippers who now avoid workplaces, businesses, schools, and churches. The threat of ICE operations has cast a long, dark shadow over everyday life here, prompting many to stay indoors and isolate themselves from the community that we all love.

The local economy is also visibly suffering. Minority-owned businesses, once vibrant centers of commerce and culture, are now struggling as customers and employees alike stay away.  Widespread stories of raids and detentions have sent shockwaves through the business community, leading to reduced economic activity and loss of income for families dependent on these establishments. The ripple effect extends to schools and churches, where attendance has plummeted, further eroding the social fabric of our city.The current climate in Minneapolis evokes troubling historical parallels. The fear, the suspicion, the sense of being watched and hunted. These are not memories from another time and place, but realities faced by our community today. The indiscriminate nature of the operations here leaves no one untouched, and the psychological toll is immeasurable. It is unspeakable that such conditions exist in a city known for its openness and progressive values.

As if the social and economic challenges were not enough, Minneapolis is now gripped by the bitter cold of winter. The national news reported last night that the city streets were quiet.  Well, no kidding. It was 4 below zero. We are used to the cold, but combine that with ICE, and the effect on the community is unbearable.

Minneapolis is enduring an occupation of fear and uncertainty, its people held captive not just by ICE operations but by a loss of trust, security, a safe home and a stable workplace. Good people are afraid, and the damage to our community—socially, economically, and emotionally—is profound. It breaks my heart to see what is happening here.

Reliable reports place the percentage of undocumented immigrants in Minnesota at 1.5 percent. That’s right, 1.5 percent. Despite that low number, we are being targeted.  Minneapolis is a politically progressive city, the first district in the country to elect a Muslim representative to Congress. The relationship between our politics and the target on our back is unmistakable, and that should make us all consider where we are and what we need to do.

Written By James Kaster, Founder and Chair of Stand Up For Workers and Partner at Nichols Kaster in Minneapolis.

Candidate Spotlight: Chris Pappas

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

Democrat Chris Pappas, a candidate for the U.S. Senate for the New Hampshire seat being vacated by Sen. Jean Shaheen, has had an impressive political career thus far.

He has kept to a moderate path on many issues, but his voting record on legislation supported by the Stand Up for Workers PAC and his near-100% rating by the AFL-CIO, along with his strong odds of success in the upcoming elections, make him an attractive candidate for the PAC.

The young Harvard College graduate was elected to the New Hampshire House of Representatives in 2002 at 22, the youngest person elected to that body, serving two terms before winning election as Hillsborough County treasurer, as which he served until 2010. He was elected to the New Hampshire Executive Council in 2012. He won re-election in 2014 and 2016, was first elected to Congress in 2019, and re-elected three times since. And, he is also the first openly gay representative elected by New Hampshire.

Before entering politics, Pappas helped manage a family-owned Manchester restaurant called the Puritan Backroom, a popular visiting spot for presidential candidates campaigning in the early-primary state. (His grandfather also invented chicken tenders at the Puritan in 1974.) He and his husband live in Manchester, the state’s largest city.

Pappas represents New Hampshire’s First District, which covers principally the eastern half of the state, but which doesn’t include many of the communities which line the state’s southern border with Massachusetts, where many liberal leaning tax refugees from that state are thought to live. Perhaps in part due to the fairly rural demographics of his district, Pappas has been careful to pursue a moderate course during his time thus far in the House. He was ranked the most bi-partisan Democrat in the House in 2023 by the Lugar Center. He has, unsurprisingly, a strong record on supporting gay rights, and actively advocated for restoring federal subsidies to make health insurance premiums affordable for many Americans, including many workers not receiving employment-related health insurance.

Most significantly for the PAC, Pappas has a 99% lifetime rating from the AFL- CIO. He has voted for, among other bills, Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act, the Paycheck Fairness Act, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act, and the Raise the Wage Act. Pappas has drawn arguably the greatest criticism for his support of the Laken Riley Act. This act, which arose from the killing in Georgia of a woman named Laken Riley by an undocumented immigrant, requires that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency detain certain non-citizen aliens without bail during their immigration proceedings. This detention requirement applies to any individual who “… is charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, shoplifting, or assault of a law enforcement officer … or any crime that results in death or serious bodily injury to another person.”

These requirements apply irrespective of whether there was any process, such as investigation or trial, involved. Many national civil rights organizations opposed the bill, including the Center for Constitutional Rights, the League of Women Voters, the NAACP Legal Defense, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Recently, Pappas has called for Kristi Noem, the Secretary of Homeland Security, to resign or to be impeached. He has stated that ICE is “out of control, violating due process, the public trust, and standards of law enforcement.” On January 22, 2026, two days before Alex Pretti was murdered in Minneapolis, he introduced a bill that would redirect almost $75 billion in federal funding away from ICE and to local law enforcement, supporting the hiring of 200,000 more law enforcement officers. Pappas is well ahead of all comers in fundraising in the Senate race, having raised $4,284,014 and holding $2,612,761 on hand. This compares with $33,218 raised and $18,329 on hand for his sole Democratic competitor in the September 8 primary, Karishma Manzur; and $968,538 raised and $802,763 on hand for the Republican Scott Brown. (These numbers are as of end of September 2025. Numbers were not available for the second Republican, John E. Sununu, who served in the U.S. Senate from 2003 to 2009.)

Pappas’ only primary challenger, Karishma Manzur, describes herself as a doctoral degree holding medical science researcher, science writer and community volunteer, who also sits on the New Hampshire Democratic Party Rules Committee. She has included her support for workers’ rights prominently in her campaign materials, and she has called for the abolition of ICE following the killing of two demonstrators by ICE agents in Minneapolis.

The most recent polling, by Granite State Polling, from January 19, 2026, which tested Pappas against Brown, showed Pappas with a ten-point lead, 52% to Brown’s 42%. Pappas led also in the other pairing against Sununu on the same date, whom he bested by 50% to 45%. Other polling, from December 2025, shows Pappas ahead of these two competing candidates by slightly narrower, but comparable, margins. Kamala Harris defeated Donald Trump in both of New Hampshire’s congressional districts in 2024. The Cook Political Report and Inside Elections both rate New Hampshire as “leaning Democratic” coming up to the fall elections.

Assuming he succeeds in the Democratic primary on September 8th, Pappas will be vying in the general against either carpetbagger Scott Brown, former Senator from Massachusetts and ambassador to New Zealand in Trump’s first term; or John Sununu, son of a successful former governor and himself a prior holder of a New Hampshire Senate seat. Brown’s populist positions, including one of the key votes that ended the United States ban on assault weapons, earned him the opprobrium of many Massachusetts progressives. His affecting of a barn coat and pickup truck, though, won him support from the (admittedly small) right leaning constituencies in Massachusetts, and will likely sell well to the more rural New Hampshire electorate. But, there is also ample anti-Massachusetts sentiment in the state to cost Brown votes.

Sununu may represent a more serious challenge to Pappas, with his strong name recognition and long family history of public service to the state as well as his prior holding of a Senate seat. In addition, Trump recently endorsed Sununu’s candidacy. Sununu’s fundraising success thus far, though, has not been demonstrated, and his campaign also appears to have generated limited buzz.

Pappas is regarded by commentators as the front-runner for the seat. Given his strong record of favoring workers’ rights, the retrograde views of his Trump-leaning opponent Brown (and the historically solid Republican Sununu), and given the importance of winning control of the Senate for Democrats, our PAC may decide to support his candidacy.

Written by Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member

Interested in supporting the PAC as we prepare for the upcoming election cycle? Learn more and donate here.

 

Year In Review: Trump’s 2025 Record on Employee Rights

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

Year In Review: Trump’s 2025 Record on Employee Rights

If you care about labor and employment law issues, you should down a stiff drink and then contemplate this incomplete list of Trump’s destruction of those rights during the first ten months of his second term: 

Employment discrimination 

  • Trump revoked Executive Order 11246, issued by Pres. Lyndon Johnson in 1965, which prohibits employment discrimination by federal government contractors. 
  • He instructed the Department of Justice to ensure that federal contractors and other private parties do not promote Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (“DEI”) programs, without defining just what is a DEI program. 
  • Elimination of DEI programs has resulted in a decline in the hiring of employees of color and of women, and it has increased the incidence of discrimination and bias in the workplace. 
  • He issued several executive orders claiming that there are only two genders and targeting trans people for unequal treatment in a variety of areas, including in the military, in prisons and in passports. 
  • He removed two commissioners and the general counsel of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) without cause. 
  • The EEOC, under its new leadership, has dismissed all of its discrimination cases alleging bias against trans people, removed a rule that said that abortion-related restrictions constitute pregnancy discrimination, and has filed cases involving employees’ religious observances, with a particular focus on “eradicating anti-Christian bias.” 
  • The EEOC has dismissed cases alleging disparate-impact discrimination, that is, where a facially neutral practice has a disproportionately adverse effect on a protected class of employees. 
  • The EEOC has claimed that programs designed to train, mentor or sponsor employees because of their sex, race or national origin are discriminatory. 

U.S. Department of Labor 

  • Trump reduced the minimum wage for employees of federal contractors. 
  • The U.S. Department of Labor (“USDOL”) has proposed abolishing more than 60 regulations, including: 
  • Eliminating federal minimum wage and overtime protections for home health care workers. 
  • Providing that disabled employees can be paid a sub-minimum wage, depriving them of the same minimum wages enjoyed by other employees. 
  • Eliminating anti-retaliation protections for migratory farmworkers. 
  • Rescinding a rule that requires employers to provide seat belts in employer-provided transportation for farmworkers. 
  • Rescinding a rule that requires employers to provide adequate lighting at construction sites. 
  • Limiting the scope of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s general safety rule, that applies whenever no specific safety rule is in place. 
  • Stripping Mine Safety and Health Administration district managers of their authority to require mine owners to submit plans for ventilation and to prevent roof collapses in coal mines. 
  • The USDOL has stated that it will not enforce a Biden rule on when a worker is an independent contractor, and has stated that it will revise that rule in a deregulatory direction. 
  • The USDOL has informed an appellate court that it is considering revising a Biden rule that substantially increased coverage of the overtime provisions for salaried employees. 
  • The Trump administration has moved from expansive federal oversight of employment of minors to targeted enforcement and employer-led compliance of federal child labor laws. 
  • Trump has proposed repealing a USDOL policy that restricts 16- and 17-year-old employees from using powered patient lifting devices in nursing homes. 

National Labor Relations Board 

  • He removed the general counsel and one of the members of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), leaving only two members of that five-member board. 
  • As a result, the Board does not have a quorum and is not able to adjudicate cases, including complaints that employers have committed unfair employment practices. 
  • Trump effectively eliminated the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (“FMCS”), an agency that assisted in assisting employers and labor unions in the collective bargaining process. 

Federal Employees’ Rights 

  • Trump fired the chairwoman of the Federal Labor Relations Agency (“FLRA”), an agency that adjudicates disputes between federal agencies and labor unions. 
  • Trump excluded more than 1 million employees in more than 30 federal agencies from union representation. 
  • Trump fired the chair of the Merits Standards Protection Board (“MSPB”), a federal agency that hears appeals of federal employees’ disputes.  Combined with the resignation of another member, that action deprived the MSPB of a quorum for more than eight months. 
  • MSPB hearing officers, their numbers trimmed by budget cuts, are dealing with an overwhelming number of appeals, resulting in delays in resolving their cases.  
  • Trump revoked the federal labor-management forum program, which had enabled federal agencies and their employees to collaborate with each other. 
  • Trump attempted to narrow a Biden executive order that had required federal contractors to sign project labor agreements with subcontractors and associated unions. 
  • Trump fired the head of the Office of Special Counsel, an agency that is supposed to protect federal whistleblowers.  He then nominated Paul Ingrassia to fill that position. 
  • Ingrassia withdrew his nomination because, incredibly, he told a group of fellow Republicans in a text chain that the MLK, Jr., holiday should be “tossed into the seventh circle of hell” and that he has “a Nazi streak.” 

Layoffs of Federal Employees 

  • About 300,000 federal employees have been laid off. 
  • Trump accomplished this by stripping some federal employees of their federal protections, fired probationary employes, urged employees to resign, shut down agencies, implemented reductions in force, and claimed to layoff employees during the shutdown of the federal government. 
  • These layoffs are being contested in the courts, and many have been reversed.  The shutdown-related layoffs have been reversed by statute. 

Written By Barry Roseman, Secretary of the SU4W Board

Candidate Spotlight: Jon Ossoff

Posted on by Stand Up for Workers Action

Senior U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff of Georgia is one of the first senate candidates  the SU4W PAC supported and is currently being considered for support again as he runs for re-election. 

In his last election in 2020, Ossoff, along with junior Sen. Raphael Warnock, set new “firsts” for Georgia, as Ossoff was the first Jewish candidate, and Warnock the first African-American, to be elected to the U.S. Senate from the state.  Ossoff, whose race has been called the most expensive in U.S. history, defeated Republican incumbent David Perdue in a January runoff election after no candidate won a majority in the general election.  Ossoff’s and Warnock’s victories gave Democrats control of the Senate. At thirty-eight years of age he is currently the youngest senator in office.

Ossoff graduated from Georgetown University‘s Walsh School of Foreign Service with a Bachelor of Science in culture and politics, and earned a Master of Science degree in international political economy from the London School of Economics in 2013. Elements of Ossoff’s background of interest to worker advocates include his serving as intern for civil rights leader and U.S. Representative John Lewis. From 2007 to 2012 he served as legislative assistant for foreign affairs and defense policy for U.S. representative Hank Johnson.

From 2013 to 2021, Ossoff was the managing director and chief executive officer of Insight: The World Investigates (TWI), a London-based investigative television production company that works with reporters to create documentaries about corruption in foreign countries. The firm produced BBC investigations about ISIS war crimes and death squads in East Africa. He invested a previously received inheritance of an unknown amount to the TWI venture.

Ossoff ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 2017.  Though he lost, The New York Times reported that he “produced probably the strongest Democratic turnout in an off-year election in at least a decade“, “brought a surprising number of irregular young and nonwhite voters to the polls,” and nearly doubled youth turnout in the 6th district from the 2014 midterm election, in a district where Republicans far outnumber Democrats.

Ossoff won the support of our PAC by his pledge respecting federal judicial appointments, that if elected he would vote to approve only judicial nominees who have stated their openness to and support of the rights of workers; and by his avowals of commitment to endorsing and promoting legislation that broadens or strengthens worker rights.  Along with SU4W PAC’s endorsement, in the 2020 race he also won the endorsement of the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund.

As senator, Ossoff has been active in a variety of areas, but pro-worker legislation has not appeared to be a major focus for him.  He initiated the Solar Energy Manufacturing for America Act, which was passed by the senate in 2022, and which held the promise of more manufacturing jobs.  It was incorporated into the Infrastructure and Jobs Act.  He also sought more control over the U.S. postmaster general in the wake of a mail service meltdown.  Earlier this year the Associated Press noted Ossoff’s bipartisan work with Republicans, advancing the interests of Georgia’s farmers and military bases.

Ossoff voted for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, and has supported legislation that significantly benefited workers along with others, including the Affordable Care Act and the Equality Act, which would prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation.  He has also called for the repeal of “wasteful, anti-competitive special interest subsidies that make it hard for entrepreneurs to raise capital …  [and] create jobs … .”  He describes his support for the LGBTQ community as “unwavering” and supports comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship for immigrants not currently documented.

In 2022, he blocked a proposed titanium mine in the Okefenokee Swamp after the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service warned of severe potential damage to the wildlife refuge. The mine was proposed by Twin Pines Minerals LLC in 2018.

Alongside his votes supporting workers, however, Ossoff’s Senate record also appears to include at least one less-than-supportive item.  The United Farm Workers and the S.E.I.U. union report that he joined forces with a Republican, Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina,  to introduce a bill delaying a five-percent wage increase for H-2A Visa workers for nine months. A March 2022 statement from Tillis announced that Ossoff had joined him in sponsoring the legislation to support farmers.  Ossoff, who the unions note also supported legislation raising the federal minimum wage to fifteen dollars, denies favoring wage cuts for farm workers and points out that he has been a champion for paid leave and for the right to join a union.  Agriculture represents more than five percent of  Georgia’s economy, so it may not be surprising that Ossoff joined in that bill, and it may be that this bipartisan step explains why in one recent poll of voters, Ossoff was supported by some twenty percent of Georgia Republicans.

In the final analysis, living in a democratic system of government calls for pragmatism and compromise.  While Ossoff may not prioritize workers’ rights as highly as advocates may wish, his record overall is almost certainly preferable to the Republican candidate (whoever that turns out to be) for the seat.

Written By Paul Merry, SU4W Board Member