You are here

Labor

Labor Logo

A man traveled cross-country to interview homeless people. This is what he learned.

  • "I’m a very sad man now that she’s gone," Leroy explained. He'd been at his wife's side the moment she died of a heart attack. "I wish I could have saved her."
  • Related: 10 things everyone should know about what it’s really like to live on the streets

Robbie Couch, Upworthy

http://i.upworthy.com/nugget/58c02c77e03a4d0019000088/attachments/homeless1-7155e1ed1054c25de5c993296d3ded4e.jpg Photo courtesy of Justin Doering/Fifty Sandwiches.

March 9, 2017 | Leroy, a U.S. veteran, said he'd been doing well staying sober up until that tragedy struck a few months ago. Now he's back on the streets of New Orleans, once again battling alcoholism and homelessness.

Leroy, a U.S. veteran, said he'd been doing well staying sober up until that tragedy struck a few months ago. Now he's back on the streets of New Orleans, once again battling alcoholism and homelessness.

"I don’t have anything from her, no pictures, nothing," he said. "[Her] landlord set everything out on the sidewalk and thieves took it all."

Robbie Couch <http://www.upworthy.com/robbie-couch>: I'm a wandering writer with Michigan roots, an irrational fear of birds, and the belief that the world is slowly becoming a better place. You’ll probably spot my name next to stories about LGBTQ news and pop culture happenings.

Full story … 

Related:

http://evergreenedigest.org/sites/default/files/Subscribe%20logo%20with%2011%20Yr%20Banner.jpgTo stay on top of important articles like these, sign up here to receive the latest updates from all reader supported Evergreene Digest.

 

 


http://evergreenedigest.org/sites/default/files/Homeless%20Person%20on%20Street%20in%20Cold%20Weather.jpg 10 things everyone should know about what it’s really like to live on the streets, Evelyn Nieves, AlterNet  / Salon 

  • Since the recession, San Francisco's wealth gap has become a yawning chasm. The city's homeless tell their stories. 
  • Related: America Keeps People Poor On Purpose

 

 
 

Special Project | Welcome to the Revolution: Law and Order and the Last Great Strike in America ~ Ahmed White

 

http://prospect.org/sites/default/files/styles/longform_cover_image/public/ap955555990903_banner.jpeg?itok=wwDP-bNR

Described by University of California Press

http://evergreenedigest.org/sites/default/files/I%20Want%20You.jpg If you like reading this article, consider joining the crew of all reader-supported Evergreene Digest by contributing the equivalent of a cafe latte a month--using the donation button above—so we can bring you more just like it.

 

 

 




 

February 17, 2017 | Several weeks into Donald Trump’s presidency, millions of Americans have skipped work, walked off their jobs, or otherwise demonstrated in protest of his policies. Many others are planning to do so in the weeks ahead. For those of us who study strikes and protests, these developments are at once thrilling and portentous, particularly in light of the peculiar place that strikes occupy in our country’s history. For most of American history since the late Nineteenth Century, it was quite a normal thing for people to go out on strike. In 1937, for instance, over 7 percent of American workers went out on strike; in 1946, that number reached 10 percent. Even as recently as 1970, almost six million men and women spent some time out on strike. But recently strikes have been exceedingly uncommon with only a handful each year. Even most union members have never been on strike.

http://content.ucpress.edu/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/9780520285613.jpgWhy are strikes so uncommon? The reasons are complicated, but one important thing stands out. The strikes of the 1930s and 1940s, especially, were extremely effective. They built the modern labor movement, upheld the New Deal against reactionary attacks, and ensured the foundations of the postwar political system. But precisely because they were so effective, the strikes were the targets of relentless counterattack by powerful business interests and their allies in government. At first, the dominant response to strikes in this period was a rather simple and venerable one. Strikes were considered presumptively illegitimate and often met with naked force, only crudely justified by law. Put into practice, this approach left probably 200 workers dead in the 1930s alone. However, later in that decade, even as some of the most violent strikes were still unfolding, the approach to strikes was rebuilt around the notion that, while the right was guaranteed by federal law and the U.S. Constitution, it was far from absolute and had to yield if strikers were violent or coercive. Although superficially reasonable, the real import of this new approach was to make the kinds of strikes that promised to be effective also the most costly for strikers and most likely to be found unlawful. And not because only disorderly strikes could be effective, but because even the anticipation of coercion or violence on the part of strikers was enough to justify arresting them, firing them, enjoining their picket lines, and using lawful force against them. Nor was the fact that strikers might have been provoked to act in these ways much of an excuse. The most notable example of this new approach can be found in one of the most tragic episodes in the history of protest: the 1937 “Little Steel” Strike, in which steel companies and their allies killed at least sixteen strikers in order to break a strike which they had caused, and yet paid almost no penalty for doing so. So it was that the repression of strikes was brought in line with modern notions of law and order.

Ahmed White is a Professor of Law at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His scholarship centers on the intersection of labor and criminal law and on the concept of rule of law.

Full story … 

http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PlsShareArrow5.png

 

Not So Spineless: Paul Ryan Plans To Use Trump’s Chaos To Destroy Medicare, Medicaid And Social Security

http://evergreenedigest.org/sites/default/files/Politics%20Banner.jpg

There is a spineless, cowardly puppet in Washington. But his name isn’t Paul Ryan. It’s Donald Trump, the man who appears willing to betray millions of Americans who voted for him by standing aside, and providing a cover of chaos, while Ryan guts the vital programs they depend on.

Linda Benesch & Alex LawsonSocial Security Works / Huffington Post

https://www.paypal.com/en_US/i/btn/btn_donateCC_LG.gif Producing in-depth, thoughtful journalism for a better world is expensive – but supporting us isn’t. If you value ad-free independent journalism, consider supporting Evergreene Digest today.

In earnest,

Dave & the Crew



 

http://evergreenedigest.org/sites/default/files/Trump%20%26%20Ryan.jpgDonald Trump’s reign of chaos is very useful for Paul Ryan. (Zach Gibson / Getty Images) 

02/02/2017 | Paul Ryan always gets more credit than he deserves. During Ryan’s time as House Budget Committee chair, DC pundits lavished praise and attention on him, portraying him as a sensible budget wonk pushing “serious” policy ideas. In fact, he has always been a far-right, highly ideological politician with one goal: Slash taxes for the super-rich and corporations, and pay for it by destroying Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Now that Ryan is Speaker of the House and Donald Trump is president, DC conventional wisdom is settling on a new image of Ryan: A spineless coward unwilling to condemn Trump’s outrageous actions. That’s a much less flattering image than his very serious budget wonk persona, but it’s still far more than Ryan deserves. It takes for granted that deep in his heart, Ryan opposes Trump’s behavior and that if only the Speaker could find the courage, he would disavow the president.

Linda Benesch, Communications Director, Social Security Works

 

Alex Lawson, Executive Director, Social Security Works

Full story … 

Related:

'Spectacular Betrayal' as Trump Hands Economy 'Back Over to Wall Street' Deirdre Fulton, Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/default/files/styles/cd_large/public/headlines/wall-st-flag.jpeg?itok=_L_cvE3U

Executive orders seen as "a cave-in to the power of Wall Street and the financial lobby." (Photo: Dave Center/flickr/cc)

"Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs seems to be taking over financial regulation in the United States, trying to make it easier for them and other big banks like Wells Fargo to steal from their customers and destabilize the economy." —Lisa Donner, Americans for Financial Reform

'The Wall Street bankers against whom Trump ran are making policy now,' says Public Citizen

http://everydayfeminism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PlsShareArrow5.png

 

 

 

 

Section(s): 

Pages