Connect with us

The Dictatorship

The straightforward reason why Americans struggle to unionize the workforce

Published

on

The straightforward reason why Americans struggle to unionize the workforce

On this Labor Day, more than any in recent memory, there is widespread bipartisan support in Congress and across America for the right to be in a union.

Unions are as popular now as they have ever been and they’re even receiving support from Republicans in Congress like Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley. Yet the labor law that’s currently on the books — the Wagner Act of 1935 — isn’t strong enough to protect workers who want to unionize.

The basic problem is straightforward: Employers don’t want their workers to unionize and are generally willing to fire union supporters to stop a union drive. That means that trying to form a union means risking your job, which is a risk that most workers rationally don’t want to take. That’s especially true when the law is too weak to provide recourse to pro-union workers who do get fired.

The share of workers who are in a union is below what it was before we had any labor laws.

The combination of hostile managers and weak labor laws equals very low unionization rates — in fact, the share of workers who are in a union is below what it was before we had any labor laws. These low union rates account for a great deal of the economic and political inequality that plagues American life.

Building a labor law that actually enables workers to form unions requires a lot more than tinkering with the existing systems. Regardless of party, lawmakers who are serious about making sure workers have a clear path to joining a union need to support reforms more fundamental than any we’ve seen since the New Deal.

These changes would take a two-step approach to tackling the root problems with organizing a union. First, make it easier for workers to unionize and win a collective bargaining agreement even if their employers oppose those efforts, and second, reduce the incentives for employers to fight union organizing drives in the first place.

To accomplish the first goal, Congress must increase penalties on employers that fire pro-union workers, limit employers’ ability to engage in union busting, and change the rules of collective bargaining to make it more likely that workers can win a contract. Many of these proposals are contained in the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Actwhich passed the House twice when Democrats last controlled the chamber, but has languished in the Senate.

Passing the PRO Act is just the start, however. One powerful idea would be to “flip the default.” Rather than assuming (as we do under current law) that workers want to be nonunion, we could start with the equally plausible assumption that workers want to be union. In such a system, we’d still hold union elections. But, like in politics where voters choose between representatives, workers would vote on which union they want to represent them not whether they want representation. And to ensure real freedom of choice, workers could run organizing campaigns to get rid of union representation altogether — if that’s what they prefer.

Labor law can also help reduce the reasons employers oppose unionization in the first place by changing the way unions and employers bargain contracts. Currently, workers in the U.S. who want to form a union must do so at their individual workplace or their individual employer. For example, if McDonald’s workers want a union, they’d have to organize one at a single McDonald’s restaurant. But if that McDonald’s is the only fast-food restaurant in the area to be unionized, then it likely would need to pay its workers more in wages and benefits than its local competitors.

Finally — and here there may be less bipartisan agreement — we need to shore up unions’ ability to act politically.

But in many developed economies, unions organize and bargain across an entire industry, not individual businesses. In this sectoral bargaining regime, no firm in a market is disadvantaged by being union because every firm in the market is covered by the union contract. Thus, no firm needs to see their workers’ organizing as an existential threat to their ability to compete.

Labor law reform, moreover, can’t just be about private sector workers, especially given the critical role that public employees have played in the labor movement. Congress therefore needs to fix a loophole in our laws that President Donald Trump has exploited to weaken federal unions. Using what was supposed to be a narrow exception for workers on the front lines of national security, Trump has denied almost 1 million federal employees collective bargaining rights. Any new labor law reform should include a new and clearer exception that is limited to just those workers traditionally excluded from the federal sector collective bargaining system — those working for the CIA, NSA, DEA, subdivisions of the Defense Department and the Treasury, and other employees in the intelligence field.

Speaking of the president, earlier this year, Trump fired National Labor Relations Board member Gwynne Wilcox, a Joe Biden appointee, years before the end of her term. When Congress created the board in 1935, it assumed that the board would be an independent agency, but an NLRB populated by appointees serving at the pleasure of the president is a different animal. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority has consistently granted Trump the power to jettison the independence of agencies like the NLRB (defying decades-old precedent). New labor laws must address these implications. While it’s unclear what form a federal labor authority should take in this new context, future reform should consider alternatives — such as granting workers a private right to sue employers — so they’re not dependent on a politically biased agency.

Finally — and here there may be less bipartisan agreement — we need to shore up unions’ ability to act politically. Without unions working as political actors, American workers would not be protected by minimum wage and overtime laws, antidiscrimination laws, or health and safety laws, nor would they enjoy the legal right to time off from work for family and medical emergencies. Unions secure these bread-and-butter protections for American workers through collective bargaining, yes, but also through electoral politics. And in a political system awash in corporate money, it is shortsighted to think that unions can do their job exclusively through collective bargaining.

As Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote more than 60 years agothe political activity of unions is “activity indissolubly relating to the immediate economic and social concerns that are the raison d’etre of unions.”

Across party lines, Americans support unions. If Democrats in Congress continue to stand up for labor rights, then it would only take a handful of Republicans to create the majorities needed to pass the reforms outlined in this piece. If Republicans are serious about supporting workers and their unions, then they need to stand up and address the root causes of the current system’s failures. For years, lawmakers on both sides have promised to fight for the working class. But words are not enough. Now is the time for action.

Sharon Block

Sharon Block is a professor of practice at Harvard Law School, and the executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy. She is a former member of the National Labor Relations Board.

Benjamin Sachs

Benjamin Sachs is the Kestnbaum Professor of Labor and Industry at Harvard Law School.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

What Trump’s threat against Iran’s desalination plants means for Mideast

Published

on

What Trump’s threat against Iran’s desalination plants means for Mideast

U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday threatened to target Iran’s energy infrastructure, including the country’s desalination plants. Such a move — and Iran’s possible targeting of the plants of its Gulf Arab neighbors — could have devastating impacts across the water-starved Middle East.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump said if a deal to end the war isn’t reached “shortly” and the Strait of Hormuzwhere much oil passes via tankers, is not immediately reopened, “we will conclude our lovely ‘stay’ in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their Electric Generating Plants, Oil Wells and Kharg Island (and possibly all desalinization plants!), which we have purposefully not yet ‘touched.’”

The biggest danger, analysts warn, may not be what Trump could do to Iran, but how Tehran could retaliate. Iran relies on desalination for a small share of its water supply while Gulf Arab states depend on it for the vast majority.

Hundreds of desalination plants sit along the Persian Gulf coast, putting individual systems that supply water to millions within range of Iranian missile or drone strikes. Without them, major cities — such as Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates or Doha, Qatar’s capital — could not sustain their current populations.

“Desalination facilities are oftentimes necessary for the survival of the civilian population and intentional destruction of those types of facilities is a war crime,” said Niku Jafarnia, a researcher at Human Rights Watch.

While less reliant on desalination, Iran’s water situation is dire

See how desalination works. (AP Animation: Panagiotis Mouzakis)

After a fifth year of extreme drought, some Iranian media reports say reservoirs supplying Tehran, the country’s capital, are below 10% capacity. Satellite pictures analyzed by The Associated Press also show reservoirs noticeably depleted. The country still draws most of its water from rivers, reservoirs and depleted underground aquifers.

Israeli airstrikes on March 7 on oil depots surrounding Tehran produced heavy smoke and acid rain. Experts warned the fallout could contaminate soil and parts of the city’s water supply.

“Attacking water facilities, even one, could end up being harmful to the population in such a severe water scarcity context,” Jafarnia said.

Before the war that Israel and the United States launched on Feb. 28, Iran had been racing to expand desalination along its southern coast and pump some of the water inland, but infrastructure constraints, energy costs and international sanctions have sharply limited scalability.

Across the Gulf, many desalination plants are tied to power stations

The Mina Al-Ahmadi oil refinery operates in Kuwait, March 20, 2026. (AP Photo, File)

The Mina Al-Ahmadi oil refinery operates in Kuwait, March 20, 2026. (AP Photo, File)

In Kuwait, about 90% of drinking water comes from desalination, along with roughly 86% in Oman and about 70% in Saudi Arabia. The technology removes salt from seawater — most commonly by pushing it through ultrafine membranes in a process known as reverse osmosis — to produce the freshwater that sustains cities, hotels, industry and some agriculture across one of the world’s driest regions.

Even where the plants are connected to national grids with backup supply routes, disruptions can cascade across interconnected systems, said David Michel, senior fellow for water security at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“It’s an asymmetrical tactic,” he said. “Iran doesn’t have the same capacity to strike back … But it does have this possibility to impose costs on the Gulf countries to push them to intervene or call for a cessation of hostilities.”

Desalination plants have multiple stages — intake systems, treatment facilities, energy supplies — and damage to any part of that chain can interrupt production, according to Ed Cullinane, Mideast editor at Global Water Intelligence, a publisher serving the water industry.

“None of these assets are any more protected than any of the municipal areas that are currently being hit by ballistic missiles or drones,” Cullinane said.

Two women from the Iranian Red Crescent Society stand as a thick plume of smoke from a U.S.-Israeli strike on an oil storage facility late Saturday rises into the sky in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

Two women from the Iranian Red Crescent Society stand as a thick plume of smoke from a U.S.-Israeli strike on an oil storage facility late Saturday rises into the sky in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 8, 2026. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi, File)

The Gulf produces about a third of the world’s crude exports and energy revenues underpin national economies. Fighting has already halted tanker traffic through key shipping routes and disrupted port activity, forcing some producers to curb exports as storage tanks fill.

“Everyone thinks of Saudi Arabia and their neighbors as petrostates. But I call them saltwater kingdoms. They’re human-made fossil-fueled water superpowers,” said Michael Christopher Low, director of the Middle East Center at the University of Utah. “It’s both a monumental achievement of the 20th century and a certain kind of vulnerability.”

Trump’s comments came as the conflict intensified, with Tehran striking a key water and electrical plant in Kuwait and an oil refinery in Israel coming under attack, while U.S. and Israeli forces launched a new wave of strikes on Iran.

US and Gulf governments have long recognized the risk

Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike in Dahiyeh, Beirut's southern suburbs, March 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, File)

Smoke rises from an Israeli airstrike in Dahiyeh, Beirut’s southern suburbs, March 9, 2026. (AP Photo/Hassan Ammar, File)

A 2010 CIA analysis warned that attacks on desalination facilities could trigger national crises in several Gulf states, and prolonged outages could last months if critical equipment were destroyed. More than 90% of the Gulf’s desalinated water comes from just 56 plants, the report stated, and “each of these critical plants is extremely vulnerable to sabotage or military action.”

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have invested in pipeline networks, storage reservoirs and other redundancies designed to cushion short-term disruptions. But smaller states such as Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait have fewer backup supplies.

Desalination has expanded in part because climate change is intensifying drought across the region. The plants themselves are highly energy-intensive and emit massive amounts of carbon, while their coastal locations make them vulnerable to extreme weather and rising seas.

Past Mideast conflicts have seen attacks on desalination plants

Workers walk in an area at a degassing station in Zubair oil field, whose operations have being reduced due to the Mideast war triggered by the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, near Basra, Iraq, March 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Leo Correa, File)

Workers walk in an area at a degassing station in Zubair oil field, whose operations have being reduced due to the Mideast war triggered by the U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran, near Basra, Iraq, March 28, 2026. (AP Photo/Leo Correa, File)

During Iraq’s 1990-1991 invasion of Kuwait, retreating Iraqi forces sabotaged power stations and desalination facilities, said Low, from the University of Utah, while millions of barrels of crude oil were deliberately released into the Persian Gulf, which threatened seawater intake pipes used by desalination plants across the region.

Workers rushed to deploy protective booms around the intake valves of major facilities but the destruction left Kuwait largely without fresh water and dependent on emergency water imports. Full recovery took years.

In recent years, Yemen’s Iran-backed Houthi rebels have targeted Saudi desalination facilities as tensions escalated.

International humanitarian law, including provisions of the Geneva Conventions, prohibit targeting civilian infrastructure indispensable to the survival of the population, including drinking water facilities.

___

Follow Annika Hammerschlag on Instagram @ahammergram.

___

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Comer’s excuses for DOJ fall flat as he concedes it ‘botched’ Epstein files

Published

on

Comer’s excuses for DOJ fall flat as he concedes it ‘botched’ Epstein files

“Botched.” That was apparently House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer’s, R-Ky., assessment of the Justice Department’s handling, or mishandling, of the Epstein files under President Donald Trump. Comer made his critical comments to BLN on Monday night, awkwardly enough, during an attempt to defend the administration from criticism.

Comer also cast some blame on Jeffrey Epstein’s victims for delaying the release of files related to the late sex criminal, suggesting that class action lawsuits and victims’ demands for redactions have caused holdups, despite a federal law and congressional subpoena requiring the release of the vast majority of files related to Epstein.

This explanation doesn’t account for the department withholding documents detailing sexual assault allegations against Trump and other wealthy Epstein associates (all of whom have denied any wrongdoing). Comer’s excuse also doesn’t seem to explain a heavily redacted document that details a 2015 probe by the Drug Enforcement Administration into whether Epstein and others used drugs in connection with a prostitution ring. And of course, it doesn’t account for the inadequate redactions that exposed many victims’ names and personal details when some documents were initially released.

When BLN’s Jake Tapper noted the Trump administration has not released the files as mandated and has redacted names of individuals in Epstein’s inner circle, the chairman was seemingly forced to concede.

“Well, I think the Justice Department has botched this,” Comer said. “I don’t think anyone in America — Republican or, you know, avid Trump supporter — would defend the way that this has been rolled out.”

Some might say “botched” is too generous a characterization, given it suggests there was, at some point, a meaningful attempt to meet public expectations and comply with the law.

I can also think of more than a few Republicans who have defended and continue to defend the way the administration has handled the Epstein files, including TrumpAttorney General Pam Bondi and House Speaker Mike JohnsonR-La.

Comer himself has repeatedly thanked the administration for its “commitment to transparency.”

But Comer’s comment Monday was a prime example of the honesty that slips out of the chairman when he’s trying to defend Trump and his allies while discussing Epstein. Another example came in early March, when he said the DOJ in Trump’s first term moved to kill a 2019 state probe into Epstein’s New Mexico ranch.

“The federal government asked New Mexico to stop their investigation, I believe back in 2019, of that ranch,” Comer told Fox News. “So there’s just so many questions about how the government failed the victims and how government failed in trying to prosecute Epstein sooner. I mean, this whole thing doesn’t make sense.”

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Hegseth’s unprecedented embrace of Christian nationalism sparks backlash

Published

on

Hegseth’s unprecedented embrace of Christian nationalism sparks backlash

Toward the end of Monday’s briefing, a reporter reminded White House press secretary Caroline Leavitt that Pope Leo XIVin remarks delivered on Palm Sunday, said God “does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war.” Citing a Bible passage, the pontiff added, “Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen: Your hands are full of blood.”

Asked for her reaction, Leavitt replied“I don’t think there’s anything wrong with our military leaders or with the president calling on the American people to pray for our service members and those who are serving our country overseas.”

Part of the problem, of course, is that no prominent political figures have argued there is something wrong with praying for service members. But the other element to this is some are going far further than simply calling on the public to pray for U.S. troops.

Take Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for example. The Washington Post reported earlier this week:

[L]ongtime norms are being upended by the proselytizing Christian campaign of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, say multiple former high-ranking military officials and experts on religion and law. Rather than boosting cohesion through a more universal spiritual uplift, they say, the new approach violates the Constitution and undermines the bonds of mutual respect between troops that are essential, especially in wartime.

The scope of the beleaguered Pentagon chief’s embrace of Christian nationalism is quite broad. In recent months, Hegseth has:

At an event last week, Hegseth took matters to a new level when he prayed for U.S. troops to inflict “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy. … We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.”

In case this isn’t obvious, Hegseth is as free as every other American to worship, or not, as he pleases. His religiosity is his own business.

But as has become clear in recent weeks, the defense secretary isn’t just exercising his faith in line with his conscience, he’s also erasing the First Amendment’s church-state line and incorporating Christian nationalism into his wartime message in ways without precedent in the American tradition.

Retired Army Col. Larry Wilkerson, who served as chief of staff to Colin Powell during Powell’s tenures as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state, told the Post, “The American military has had a remarkable ride of equanimity and fairness and justice and all manner of good adjectives with regard to religion. It’s done this in a way that’s really remarkable — until now.”

The New Republic’s Greg Sargent had a related report this week:

If Hegseth truly believes his war on Iran is unfolding in accordance with his conception of biblical law — the highest authority of all — then that explains why he treats all those niggling secular constraints as unbinding on him. Maximum violence and killing of the enemy — who cry out to God but, unlike Hegseth, don’t get an answer back from Him — are affirmatively good.

‘It’s not the way somebody who claims to be a person of God — a religious person — should think,’ [Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly of Arizona]who has flown many combat missions himself, told me. War, he added, ‘is a morally and ethically complicated thing for any person. Any serious warfighter struggles with it.’ If we don’t wrestle with this, Kelly said, we’ll ‘start to lose ourselves.’

Looking ahead, there are limited options to curtail the defense secretary’s public advocacy of Christian nationalism — Donald Trump could intervene, though that seems exceedingly unlikely — but Hegseth’s critics are not powerless. On the contrary, some of the Pentagon chief’s policies related to religious promotion have already sparked litigationwhich opens the door to possible court-imposed limits. Watch this space.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending