Mediaboss Marketing

Workers' rights

Exclusive: group that helped elect lawmakers like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez embraces policy popular with leftwing leaders

The progressive organization Justice Democrats has adopted a four-day working week, a policy that has received praise from leading leftwing leaders like Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Justice Democrats, which has helped elect progressive lawmakers like Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, shifted to a four-day working week for its 20 employees starting last August on a six-month trial basis. In March, the group decided to extend the policy indefinitely after its employees reported the change allowed them to better manage the grueling nature of campaign work.

A big reason why we ultimately decided to do a four-day week indefinitely is because of how much we trust everyone in the organization to prioritize what they need to prioritize, said Alexandra Rojas, executive director of Justice Democrats. That extra space has, at least for us, improved productivity and peoples attitudes as they show up to work.

The shift comes as progressive leaders have embraced the idea of a shorter week, arguing that the 40-hour week established by the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 no longer reflects the reality of Americans working lives. In March, congressman Mark Takano of California reintroduced his bill to set the standard working week at 32 hours, and Sanders has now joined the cause.

Its time to reduce the work week to 32 hours with no loss in pay, Sanders wrote in a Guardian op-ed earlier this month. Its time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life. Its time to make sure that working people benefit from rapidly increasing technology, not just large corporations that are already doing phenomenally well.

Although few American companies have adopted a four-day working week, the idea is not novel. France has mandated a 35-hour work week since 2000, and some French politicians have called for lowering that threshold to 32 hours. Iceland has also seen success in its trials of a four-day, 35-hour working week. In comparison, Americans work an average of 43.1 hours per week, according to a 2022 Gallup survey.

Critics fear that the shift to a 32-hour week could increase employers labor costs and further decrease employee productivity at a time when American workers output has slumped. Data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows US productivity declined for three straight quarters last year, although labor output has still increased by nearly 500% overall since 1947.

But Justice Democrats employees said the switch to a 32-hour, Monday to Thursday schedule had made them more efficient and focused with their tasks.

Im highly productive during my work hours, and honestly I procrastinate less, said Becca Rast, a managing director at Justice Democrats. It allows me to have a tighter, more focused work schedule, which I really thrive under.

Trial studies of companies with 32-hour working weeks have shown similar results. One pilot program launched in the United Kingdom last year found that employees who worked fewer hours per week reported higher levels of job satisfaction while 23 participating companies witnessed an average revenue increase of 1.4%. When the program concluded, 56 out of 61 organizations said they would keep the policy in place at least temporarily.

The reduced stress levels among those with shorter working weeks can also help reduce employee burnout and turnover, ultimately making companies more productive in the long run. The UK pilot program found that 39% of employees with reduced working hours reported feeling less stressed, and 71% said they had reduced levels of burnout by the end of the trial.

Its really good for our health our mental health and our physical health, Rast said. When Im overworked and overrun with thinking about work, I am not able to actually show up for my team and make the kinds of change that were talking about. And so its been really healthy for me to be able to get there, and I see that for our whole team as well.

For Becca Rose, a senior strategist at Justice Democrats, the four-day week has given her the time and flexibility to address some chronic health conditions without feeling stretched thin by her other responsibilities at work and at home.

I need these extra eight hours in a week to be able to feel like I can both do my job and also manage some personal things that came up, Rose said. Those trials come up in life, whether its chronic health [issues] or something completely different. Those things come up for everyone. So what seems like a luxury quickly becomes something that feels very essential.

The switch has felt particularly necessary because of the grueling nature of campaign work, Justice Democrats staffers said. Particularly in the immediate run-up to an election, campaigns and their partner organizations are often expected to put in long hours with few days off to get their candidates across the finish line.

Especially for progressive challengers, because we have to launch so far out to be able to put up a competitive campaign [and] to build the infrastructure, a whole year of just go, go, go is not sustainable, said Supreet Kaur, candidate coordination manager for Justice Democrats.

Justice Democrats first started its four-day week policy last year at the close of the primary season, which is generally the organizations busiest time in the election cycle as they go toe to toe with more centrist Democratic candidates. Rojas acknowledged that it may be challenging to adjust the four-day working week to the demands of the primary season, but she still expressed a commitment to the policy, encouraging other progressive organizations to consider making the change as well.

Its better work. Its healthier workers, Rojas said. And when we think about our movement, everybody shows up better.

{{topLeft}}

{{bottomLeft}}

{{topRight}}

{{bottomRight}}

{{.}}

Read the original:
Progressive organization Justice Democrats adopts four-day work week - The Guardian

EXCLUSIVE: Former President Trump said Monday that former FBI Director James Comey and Democrats need to be held accountable for spending years investigating alleged collusion between Trump and Russia now that Special Counsel John Durham has released a report that says the Trump-Russia probe never should have been launched.

"I, and much more importantly, then American public have been victims of this long-running and treasonous charade started by the Democrats started by Comey," Trump told Fox News Digital. "There must be a heavy price to pay for putting our country through this."

Durham's report found that the Department of Justice and FBI "failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law" when it launched the Trump-Russia investigation.

In an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital, Trump said the activities surrounding the FBI's original Trump-Russia investigation were "a total disgrace," and said "public anger over this report is at a level that I have not seen before."

READ DURHAMS REPORT ON THE ORIGINS OF THE FBIS RUSSIAN COLLUSION PROBE

Former President Donald Trump said the Durham report is a "total disgrace" for the Justice Department. ((Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images))

"This report took a long time because John Durham is a very thorough investigator," Trump said. "But the result is unequivocal and an absolute disaster in terms of justice."

Trump added that "the national security implications of what they did are very grave."

"It turned out to be a giant and very dangerous hoax," he said, adding that he would have "further comment in the near future."

Durhams report was released Monday afternoon after his years-long investigation into the origins of the FBIs original investigation, known as "Crossfire Hurricane." That investigation looked into whether the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election, and his report spanned more than 300 pages.

DESPITE ACQUITTAL, DURHAM TRIAL OF SUSSMANN ADDED TO EVIDENCE CLINTON CAMPAIGN PLOTTED TO TIE TRUMP TO RUSSIA

Special Counsel John Durham released his final report on the Trump-Russia probe on Monday. (Photo by Ron Sachs/Consolidated News Pictures/Getty Images)

"Based on the review of Crossfire Hurricane and related intelligence activities, we conclude that the Department and the FBI failed to uphold their mission of strict fidelity to the law in connection with certain events and activities described in this report," the report said.

DURHAM PROBE: FBI OFFERED CHRISTOPHER STEELE $1 MILLION TO CORROBORATE TRUMP ALLEGATIONS IN DOSSIER

Durham added that his investigation also revealed that "senior FBI personnel displayed a serious lack of analytical rigor towards the information that they received, especially information received from politically-affiliated persons and entities."

"This information in part triggered and sustained Crossfire Hurricane and contributed to the subsequent need for Special Counsel Muellers investigation," the report states. "In particular, there was significant reliance on investigative leads provided or funded (directly or indirectly) by Trump's political opponents."

The leadership of James Comey, former director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was questioned in Special Counsel John Durham's report on the Trump-Russia probe. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

"The Department did not adequately examine or question these materials and the motivations of those providing them, even when at about the same time the Director the FBI and others learned of significant and potentially contrary intelligence," the report states.

Durham is referring to past FBI leadership in his report specifically former FBI Director James Comey and former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.

Durham's report "does not recommend any wholesale changes in the guidelines and policies that the Department and the FBI now have in place to ensure proper conduct and accountability in how counterintelligence activities are carried out."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In a statement to Fox News Digital reacting to Durham's report, the FBI said:

"The conduct in 2016 and 2017 that Special Counsel Durham examined was the reason that current FBI leadership already implemented dozens of corrective actions, which have now been in place for some time. Had those reforms been in place in 2016, the missteps identified in the report could have been prevented," the FBI said. "This report reinforces the importance of ensuring the FBI continues to do its work with the rigor, objectivity, and professionalism the American people deserve and rightly expect."

Read more from the original source:
Trump says there 'must be a heavy price to pay' for Comey, Democrats after release of Durham report - Fox News

Signage at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) headquarters in Washington, D.C.

Andrew Kelly | Reuters

WASHINGTON More than 140 current and former Democratic lawmakers filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court on Monday to defend the country's leading consumer protection agency from challenges to its regulatory authority.

The brief led by Democrats Sen. Sherrod Brown, of Ohio, and Rep. Maxine Waters, of California relates to the case Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, which challenges the constitutionality of the agency and would undermine its funding and mandated authorities.

Brown chairs the Senate Banking Committee, while Waters is the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee.

Upholding an appeals court decision that undermined the agency's funding mechanism "would place at risk a funding model that has been used since the early Republic, which now applies to the [Office of the Comptroller of the Currency] and a host of other crucial federal programs," the lawmakers wrote.

Democratic House Minority Leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, both of New York, along with Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., are among 144 current and former members of Congress who signed on to the brief.

Ten consumer advocacy organizations also filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court this month in support of the CFPB.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case in February, four months after a federal appeals court panel unanimously ruled that the CFPB's funding method was unconstitutional.

Congress decided to fund the CFPB, which was created by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act after the 2008 financial crisis, from the Federal Reserve out of "needed independence from unpredictable annual funding cycles," according to the brief.

Though the CFPB bypasses the annual appropriations process, its director is required to justify its budget to the House biannually, the lawmakers wrote, and Congress set an annual cap on the agency's budget at a "modest" level using a portion of Federal Reserve earnings.

In the October ruling, Judge Cory Wilson, a member of the three-judge panel on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, called the funding mechanism a "scheme" that is "unique across the myriad independent executive agencies across the federal government."

The Biden administration appealed the 5th Circuit's decision to the Supreme Court, but a final decision could be delayed until June 2024 to hear other arguments in the case. In the brief, lawmakers concluded succinctly that "The judgment should be reversed."

See the original post here:
More than 140 Democrats defend CFPB in case before Supreme Court that threatens agency's existence - CNBC

The result, according to both environmental officials and carbon capture experts, is that many of the projects are likely to face either serious delays while waiting for safety assessments or worse be waved through with less than thorough scrutiny.

The EPA did not respond to questions about the safety of carbon storage and the size of the agencys program to monitor it.

Some climate activists whove long claimed that carbon capture is merely a way to perpetuate a fossil-fuel economy say the lack of regulatory apparatus is a sign of rushed decision-making. And they say it could put low-income residents and communities of color at risk, despite the Biden administrations pledges to address historical disparities in how environmental burdens are distributed.

For the most part leadership in both parties is aligned around trying to deploy as much [carbon capture] as possible, despite what the potential environmental justice impacts will be and despite considerable concerns about the technology and accountability, safety and security concerns, said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at the progressive consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Even government officials trying to get these projects to fruition are a little unsure about how this will play out given the lack of bodies behind the relevant desks.

Its tricky because this happened in a way that we werent super prepared for in a federal policy perspective, said Shuchi Talati, who until last April was chief of staff in the Energy Departments Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, which is handling billions of dollars for carbon capture grants and subsidies. I hesitate to call it a bottleneck. Its just going to take some time.

Funding a technology thats unproven at scale may be a massive gamble, though its one that only the U.S. government has the wherewithal to make, said Samantha Gross, who was director for international climate and clean energy at the Energy Departments Office of International Affairs during the Obama administration.

Theres some risk associated with the investment, but I think its a risk thats totally worth taking, said Gross, who now directs the Energy Security and Climate Initiative at the Brookings Institution. You want to take some risk thats the point. Its a technology that we need.

The money Congress approved is staggering. The bipartisan infrastructure law funded $6.5 billion for technology to capture carbon, pull it from the air or store it underground, another $3.5 billion for carbon capture demonstration projects and $2.1 billion to build pipelines to transport CO2. All that would go into an industry that research firm Allied Market Research estimates as having only $2.1 billion in global market capitalization.

Those are just the direct subsidies. Just as importantly, the Democrat-passed Inflation Reduction Act strengthened a key tax credit that expanded carbon captures viability across many sectors, including cement and steel.

The technology is advertised as being able to scrub carbon dioxide and other pollutants from industrial processes before they can reach the atmosphere and trap the heat raising the Earths temperature.

Carbon capture may be the only real way to cut emissions at heavy industry sites, where switching to renewable energy is not yet an option. But while the underlying technology has been used for years, it has yet to take off at a huge scale. Only 13 commercial carbon capture sites are in operation in the U.S., said Jessie Stolark, executive director of the Carbon Capture Coalition, a group of oil and gas, tech, environmental and policy groups that back the technology.

Read more from the original source:
Democrats bet billions on carbon capture, but the government isn't ready - POLITICO

The Red Room of Doom. Thats the nickname one House Democrat gave the state Senate this past session. Others joked that the chamber with its red wallpaper, carpet and ceiling was where progressive bills went to die.

While Democrats held a near super majority at the Colorado legislature this session, closely divided committees in the state Senate frequently blocked or watered down some of the progressive priorities.

And that inspired one supporter of some of those policies to wonder why why didnt such big Democratic majorities translate into bigger margins on Senate committees in particular?

Alex Nelson, a public school teacher in Denver, is passionate about affordable housing. He visited the state capitol this spring to back several Democratic housing bills and testify in committee.

Nelson sees the impact that the lack of affordable housing has on schools, with students and families being priced out and having to move away, and also people choosing to have fewer children.

Housing costs, costs of living are so high that we see diminishing enrollment every single year, which is leading to closure, consolidation, all sorts of things like that.

The issue also affects teachers.

Friends in the teaching profession have a hard time accessing affordable housing, Nelson said. A couple of my friends have left the state because of housing costs.

Given how many people are struggling with housing, Nelson said he was surprised when measures like a proposal to allow local communities to enact rent control narrowly died in a Senate committee. It failed on a 4-3 vote.

I was thinking just about how many bills in the Colorado Senate came down to a single vote of either passage or failure, said Nelson. The situation led him to wonder, why those committees had only a single vote majority when the members on the floor held almost two thirds (of the seats)? Is that a decision made by leadership?

On seven out of the state Senates ten committees this year, Democrats only had a one-vote advantage. Those narrow margins made it possible for a single moderate member to side with Republicans to vote down a bill, or to demand significant changes in order to win passage.

Nelson was on the right track with his question about who decides the committee makeup; that power rests in the hands of Democratic Senate Majority Leader Dominick Moreno. He appoints lawmakers to committees and decides on each panels size and political split.

The committee makeup is dictated by the political makeup of the chamber as a whole, he said. The rule says that the committee makeup has to be in rough proportion to the number of seats you occupy in the Senate chamber.

But because its only a rough proportion, Moreno still has leeway on each committee. Moreno acknowledges he could have given Democrats a bigger advantage on some committees, but said he doesnt have enough members to pad out all of them and that lawmakers individual expertise played a significant role in his choices.

The situation put a spotlight on several of the Senates more moderate members, like Democrat Dylan Roberts. Roberts, who was the key no vote on the rent control bill, was a swing vote on three different committees.

I reminded bill sponsors who were frustrated at my position that I didn't make the committee assignments, said Roberts. I didn't make the makeup of the committees. I was assigned to those committees, and I'm just doing my job. I got sent here by my district, not by a political party and not by a political philosophy.

Roberts lives in Avon and represents a mountain district where Democrats hold a less than seven point advantage, according to redistricting maps. He said he scrutinizes every piece of legislation.

The goal is collaboration and trying to make bills better. But there were several policies where I just couldn't get there.

Republican lawmakers said they were more than happy the Senate acted as a moderating force.

We haven't killed that many bills, said GOP Sen. Perry Will in the final weeks of session, But some of the bills that need to go away, it went away. I think it's great and I think it's much needed.

On the House side, where committees were much more steeply tilted in Democrats favor, Republicans said they were grateful that the Senate at times blocked policies they lacked the power to stop.

There were Democrats that destroyed bills that would not be good for Colorado. It's a teamwork effort here, said Republican Rep. Ron Weinberg who passed many bipartisan bills this session.

Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen said even though the GOP is at a disadvantage he thinks they are still punching above our weight to kill bad policy ideas. We are actually trying to hold the ideals of freedom for individuals to live the lives they want to live and the way they want to live them.

The narrow committee splits didnt just result in more moderate Senators voting down progressive bills; in many cases, they were able to get concessions and amendments in exchange for their support.

For progressives, the Senate results were a source of frustration throughout the session. They argue that Democrats surprising success last November the party picked up legislative seats in a year many analysts expected them to lose some show that they have a mandate to make big moves.

Voters are wanting something bigger and bolder. And we tried and that's not what's happening, said Democratic Representative Lorena Garcia who is in her first year at the Capitol. Garcia believes voters elected Democrats to do more this year on housing and criminal justice, in particular. But several key bills on those topics were defeated.

However, Moreno defended the committee makeup as a good reflection of the Senates general views. He notes that even when progressive bills did get to the Senate floor, they still didnt have the votes to pass.

For instance, a bill to make it harder for landlords to evict people on month to month leases lingered on the calendar and ultimately ran out of time, in part because it lacked the support to move forward. The Senate also gutted a bill that would have prevented prosecutions of 10 to 12-year-olds, except in homicide cases. And when a proposal to allow local communities to set up supervised sites for safe drug use came up in a Senate committee, three Democrats joined Republicans in voting it down.

All of the policies managed to pass the House before hitting roadblocks in the Senate.

And it wasn't always progressive policies that struggled in the Senate. The governor's Land Use bill, which was sponsored by Moreno, also died in that chamber. The Senate watered down the bill significantly, setting up a showdown with the House, which passed a more robust version. In the end, the bill was dropped in the final hours of session for lack of Senate votes.

Yes, we have a historic majority, said Moreno. It doesn't mean that we have a super majority of progressive members. It means that everyone votes their own conscience in their own district.

Senate defenders also note that some progressive bills didnt even gain traction in the House. A proposed statewide assault weapons ban failed in its first committee after three Democrats joined Republicans to defeat it. The House also handily rejected a measure to mandate more predictable schedules for restaurant and retail workers.

Progressive Democrats say they plan to try again with many of these ideas next session.

And as for Alex Nelson, the teacher who started us looking into this issue he said hes glad to learn more about how the legislature works, and is optimistic some of the housing proposals he supports will see more success down the road.

I tried to remind myself that these things take time and that the first go isn't always gonna be the one that gets you exactly what you want, he said,

Read this article:
Democrats may control the legislature, but the 'Red Room of Doom ... - Colorado Public Radio