Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

A student-led working group calling for the abolition of university police amid ongoing complaints of hyperpolicing on campus is requesting greater community support and involvement in the groups advocacy.

The Georgetown University Police Department Abolition Working Group was established by the Georgetown University Student Association senators last October, according to GUSA Senator Makayla Jeffries (COL 23), who first organized the group. The working group is a subcommittee of the Policy and Advocacy Committee.

While the working group ultimately hopes to abolish GUPD, it is currently focusing on engaging with the university and educating the Georgetown community, according to GUSA Senator Ace Frazier (MSB 23), a member of the working group.

We really want to be entirely prepared because people dont really understand sometimes how abolition works, Frazier said in a phone interview with The Hoya. They think that its just immediately getting rid of and trying to force out whatever thing that youre against or thing you are trying to change, but in reality, it starts a lot more with preparing and building up whats going to replace that thing beforehand.

Calls for abolition come amid ongoing complaints of hyperpolicing, specifically from students of color who have shared experiences of unnecessary surveillance and excessive use of force from GUPD. Despite these experiences, there has only been one formal complaint against GUPD since 2014, which involved someone who was not a member of the Georgetown community.

Following the killing of George Floyd last summer, students also circulated a petition calling for the university to cease all relationships with police departments amid nationwide protests against police brutality in attempts to support Georgetowns Black community and combat racial injustice.

Recently, the working group has been researching preventative measures and alternatives to policing, including ways to protect communities through education and mental health support systems, according to Frazier.

We are really solidifying our own knowledge on the subject and what actions can be done by the university before making any direct acts to abolish or get rid of GUPD, Frazier said.

The working group is hoping to present a proposal to the university detailing alternative solutions to GUPD by April, according to Jeffries.

I ran for senator on the platform of abolishing the police because I think we should abolish the police, both in universities but also just generally, Jeffries said in a phone interview with The Hoya. I never want the university to feel like abolition is impossible because they lack the imagination.

GUPD is working to better engage with the Georgetown community and encourage an equitable environment, according to Associate Vice President for Public Safety and Chief of Police Jay Gruber.

The Georgetown University Police Department is committed to continuing to improve its processes and procedures, engaging with the campus community, and listening and responding to feedback to ensure there is no racial bias in its actions as it seeks to provide a safe campus, Gruber wrote in an email to The Hoya.

GUPD officers have been required to participate in training on reducing bias in policing, racial justice and community engagement since 2016, according to Gruber.

GUPD works 24/7, 365 days a year to protect the University from crime and numerous threats, and responds to thousands of calls each year to support students, faculty and staff who are in need, Gruber wrote. We also recognize that keeping the Georgetown community safe includes constantly working to eliminate structural racism and any form of bias in its operations.

No matter how much GUPD reforms, many students in the working group believe it is beyond repair. In addition, the working group is also advocating for expanding programs that already exist at the university, such as hiring transformative justice practitioners in health education services and providing a hotline for mental health crises, according to Jeffries.

Successful abolition depends on communities of care, and its not just about tearing down white supremacist systems, Jeffries said. It is also about, how can we depend on our community to mitigate harm?

To support mental health, the university launched HoyaWell, a new telehealth resource aiming to provide more virtual mental health services to students during the COVID-19 pandemic in January. The university also hired temporary mental health counselors last spring to offer free counseling services specifically to BIPOC survivors of sexual misconduct.

As students continue to raise concerns about GUPDs practices, the working group hopes the Georgetown community will recognize police violence goes beyond physical assault, according to Jeffries.

Just because a Black or Brown student on this campus has not been physically assaulted by GUPD, that doesnt mean that GUPD isnt actively enacting violence against Black and Brown people on this campus, Jeffries said. I feel like every time I hear a story about GUPD from someone that is Black and Brown, it is traumatic, and that is violent.

The working group is now calling for greater student and community involvement as it continues to advocate for reform, according to GroupMe messages.

Although abolition is a long-term project, establishing support systems and providing resources to the community is still important and necessary work, according to Jeffries.

I do not even know if I am going to see abolition at this university by the time I graduate, which is fine, Jeffries said. But at least for me, and I know for a lot of people in the working group, the work will never stop. The work for abolition, the work for getting resources for people, the work for building communities of care, that is never going to stop. We are all just in it for the long haul.

See the article here:

Student-Led Working Group to Abolish GUPD Calls for Greater Community Involvement - Georgetown University The Hoya

One of five Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel

Award

The Nobel Peace Prize is one of the five Nobel Prizes established by the will of Swedish industrialist, inventor and armaments (military weapons and equipment) manufacturer Alfred Nobel, along with the prizes in Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine and Literature. Since March 1901,[5] it has been awarded annually (with some exceptions) to those who have "done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".[6]

In accordance with Alfred Nobel's will, the recipient is selected by the Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member committee appointed by the Parliament of Norway. Since 2020 the prize is awarded in the Atrium of the University of Oslo, where it was also awarded 19471989; the Abel Prize is also awarded in the building.[7] The prize was previously awarded in Oslo City Hall (19902019), the Norwegian Nobel Institute (19051946), and the Parliament (19011904).

Due to its political nature, the Nobel Peace Prize has, for most of its history, been the subject of numerous controversies. The most recent prize for 2022 was awarded to human rights advocate Ales Bialiatski from Belarus, the Russian human rights organisation Memorial and the Ukrainian human rights organisation Centre for Civil Liberties.

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize shall be awarded to the person who in the preceding year "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses".[8] Alfred Nobel's will further specified that the prize be awarded by a committee of five people chosen by the Norwegian Parliament.[9][10]

Nobel died in 1896 and he did not leave an explanation for choosing peace as a prize category. As he was a trained chemical engineer, the categories for chemistry and physics were obvious choices. The reasoning behind the peace prize is less clear. According to the Norwegian Nobel Committee, his friendship with Bertha von Suttner, a peace activist and later recipient of the prize, profoundly influenced his decision to include peace as a category.[11] Some Nobel scholars suggest it was Nobel's way to compensate for developing destructive forces. His inventions included dynamite and ballistite, both of which were used violently during his lifetime. Ballistite was used in war[12] and the Irish Republican Brotherhood, an Irish nationalist organization, carried out dynamite attacks in the 1880s.[13] Nobel was also instrumental in turning Bofors from an iron and steel producer into an armaments company.

It is unclear why Nobel wished the Peace Prize to be administered in Norway, which was ruled in union with Sweden at the time of Nobel's death. The Norwegian Nobel Committee speculates that Nobel may have considered Norway better suited to awarding the prize, as it did not have the same militaristic traditions as Sweden. It also notes that at the end of the 19th century, the Norwegian parliament had become closely involved in the Inter-Parliamentary Union's efforts to resolve conflicts through mediation and arbitration.[11]

The Norwegian Parliament appoints the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which selects the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

Each year, the Norwegian Nobel Committee specifically invites qualified people to submit nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.[14] The statutes of the Nobel Foundation specify categories of individuals who are eligible to make nominations for the Nobel Peace Prize.[15] These nominators are:

The working language of the Norwegian Nobel Committee is Norwegian; in addition to Norwegian the committee has traditionally received nominations in French, German and English, but today most nominations are submitted in either Norwegian or English. Nominations must usually be submitted to the committee by the beginning of February in the award year. Nominations by committee members can be submitted up to the date of the first Committee meeting after this deadline.[15]

In 2009, a record 205 nominations were received,[16] but the record was broken again in 2010 with 237 nominations; in 2011, the record was broken once again with 241 nominations.[17] The statutes of the Nobel Foundation do not allow information about nominations, considerations, or investigations relating to awarding the prize to be made public for at least 50 years after a prize has been awarded.[18] Over time, many individuals have become known as "Nobel Peace Prize Nominees", but this designation has no official standing, and means only that one of the thousands of eligible nominators suggested the person's name for consideration.[19] Indeed, in 1939, Adolf Hitler received a satirical nomination from a member of the Swedish parliament, mocking the (serious but unsuccessful) nomination of Neville Chamberlain.[20] Nominations from 1901 to 1967 have been released in a database.[21]

Nominations are considered by the Nobel Committee at a meeting where a shortlist of candidates for further review is created. This shortlist is then considered by permanent advisers to the Nobel institute, which consists of the institute's Director and the Research Director and a small number of Norwegian academics with expertise in subject areas relating to the prize. Advisers usually have some months to complete reports, which are then considered by the committee to select the laureate. The Committee seeks to achieve a unanimous decision, but this is not always possible. The Nobel Committee typically comes to a conclusion in mid-September, but occasionally the final decision has not been made until the last meeting before the official announcement at the beginning of October.[22]

The Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee presents the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway and the Norwegian royal family on 10 December each year (the anniversary of Nobel's death). The Peace Prize is the only Nobel Prize not presented in Stockholm. The Nobel laureate receives a diploma, a medal, and a document confirming the prize amount.[23] As of 2019[update], the prize was worth 9 million SEK. Since 1990, the ceremony has taken place at Oslo City Hall.

From 1947 to 1989, the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony was held in the Atrium of the University of Oslo Faculty of Law, a few hundred meters from Oslo City Hall. Between 1905 and 1946, the ceremony took place at the Norwegian Nobel Institute. From 1901 to 1904, the ceremony took place in the Storting (Parliament).[24]

As of October2022[update], the Peace Prize has been awarded to 110 individuals and 27 organizations. 18 women have won the Nobel Peace Prize, more than any other Nobel Prize. Only two recipients have won multiple Prizes: the International Committee of the Red Cross has won three times (1917, 1944, and 1963) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has won twice (1954 and 1981).[25] L c Th is the only person who refused to accept the Nobel Peace Prize.[26]

Some commentators have suggested that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded in politically motivated ways for more recent or immediate achievements,[27] or with the intention of encouraging future achievements.[27][28] Some commentators have suggested that to award a peace prize on the basis of the unquantifiable contemporary opinion is unjust or possibly erroneous, especially as many of the judges cannot themselves be said to be impartial observers.[29] Further criticism holds that the Nobel Peace Prize has become increasingly politicized, in which people are awarded for aspiration rather than accomplishment, which has allowed for the prize to be used for political effect but can cause perverse consequences due to the neglect of existing power politics.[30]

In 2011, a feature story in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten contended that major criticisms of the award were that the Norwegian Nobel Committee ought to recruit members from professional and international backgrounds, rather than retired members of parliament; that there is too little openness about the criteria that the committee uses when they choose a recipient of the prize; and that the adherence to Nobel's will should be more strict. In the article, Norwegian historian ivind Stenersen argues that Norway has been able to use the prize as an instrument for nation-building and furthering Norway's foreign policy and economic interests.[31]

In another 2011 Aftenposten opinion article, the grandson of one of Nobel's two brothers, Michael Nobel, also criticised what he believed to be the politicisation of the award, claiming that the Nobel Committee has not always acted in accordance with Nobel's will.[32]

Nobel Peace Prize controversies often reach beyond the academic community. Criticisms that have been leveled against some of the awards include allegations that they were politically motivated, premature, or guided by a faulty definition of what constitutes work for peace.[33] The awards given to Mikhail Gorbachev,[34] Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat,[35][36] L c Th, Henry Kissinger,[37] Jimmy Carter,[38] Barack Obama,[39][40][41][42] Abiy Ahmed,[43][44][45] and the European Union[46] have all been the subject of controversy.

Foreign Policy has listed Mahatma Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, U Thant, Vclav Havel, Ken Saro-Wiwa, Fazle Hasan Abed and Corazon Aquino as people who "never won the prize, but should have".[47][48]

The omission of Mahatma Gandhi has been particularly widely discussed, including in public statements by various members of the Nobel Committee.[49][50] The committee has confirmed that Gandhi was nominated in 1937, 1938, 1939, 1947, and, finally, a few days before his assassination in January 1948.[51] The omission has been publicly regretted by later members of the Nobel Committee.[49] Geir Lundestad, Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee in 2006 said, "The greatest omission in our 106-year history is undoubtedly that Mahatma Gandhi never received the Nobel Peace Prize. Gandhi could do without the Nobel Peace prize, whether Nobel committee can do without Gandhi is the question".[52] In 1948, following Gandhi's death, the Nobel Committee declined to award a prize on the ground that "there was no suitable living candidate" that year. Later, when the Dalai Lama was awarded the Peace Prize in 1989, the chairman of the committee said that this was "in part a tribute to the memory of Mahatma Gandhi".[53]

Read the original here:

Nobel Peace Prize - Wikipedia

1. Albanese government neuters ABCC ahead of abolition  The Australian Financial Review
2. Explained: How Labor's industrial relations reforms will profoundly affect every small business  SmartCompany
3. Secure Jobs and Better Pay in Budget  Mirage News
4. Labor puts flexible hours in the spotlight with new workplace laws  Sydney Morning Herald
5. Groups to benefit from new work reforms  news.com.au
6. View Full Coverage on Google News

See original here:

Albanese government neuters ABCC ahead of abolition - The Australian Financial Review

She's a force!

Angela Yvonne Davis was born on January 26, 1944, in Birmingham, Alabama, Biography reports. She grew up in Birminghams Dynamite Hill, a moniker given to the middle-class neighborhood because of the prevalence of African-American home bombings at the hands of the Ku Klux Klan. Davis father was a service station owner, and her mother Sallye was an educator and active member of the NAACP. Like many teens during those times, Davis became politicized at an early age, organizing interracial study groups as a teen that were later broken up by the police. She also was friends with some of the Black girls killed in the 1963 Birmingham church bombing.

She went on to attend Brandeis University in Massachusetts, studying philosophy under Marxist professor Herbert Marcuse. While attending graduate school at the University of California, Davis became known as an active member of the Black Panther Party and the Che-Lumumba Club, an all-Black branch of the Communist Party. Davis regularly ran into conflict because of her affiliation with the Communist Party. As a professor at the University of California, the schools administration fired her because of her association with communism, causing Davis to have to take the matter to court. When her contract expired in 1970, she left.

Davis would become a fierce political activist, putting her body on the line countless times over the decades for what she believed in. She not only fought against the racism of the times during the 60s and 70s, she continues her work as a resounding voice on injustices across the globe today. Davis is the author of several books, all of which you should read, including Angela Davis: An Autobiography (1974), Women, Race, and Class (1980), Women, Culture and Politics (1989), Are Prisons Obsolete? (2003), Abolition Democracy (2005), and The Meaning of Freedom (2012).

While Davis continues her scholarly work as an author and avid lecturer, there are still some people who may not know her full superhero origin story or those who dont understand the critical work shes still laboring in on our behalf. To help you out, here are 3 reasons you should learn more about Angela Davis, courtesy of the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture.

She is one of the original freedom fighters.

During the 1970s, Davis became a vocal supporter of three inmates at Soledad Prison in California. The three men, known as the Soledad Brothers despite having no relation, were John W. Clutchette, Fleeta Drumgo, and George Lester Jackson. The men were accused of killing a prison guard after several Black inmates were killed during another fight involving a separate guard. Despite the accusation, many believed the prisoners were being falsely accused and railroaded as a result of the political work being done within the prison.

During Jacksons trial in August 1970, an escape attempt was made, and multiple people were killed. Davis was subsequently accused of taking part in the event and charged with murder. Prosecutors at the time dredged up evidence showing that the guns were registered to Davis, spinning a narrative of a crossed lover's tale between Davis and Jackson. The allegations were later proved to be untrue, but Davis was forced into hiding and placed on the FBIs Most Wanted list. Davis ended up spending eighteen months in jail, which spurred a national Free Angela Davis campaign and the Angela Davis Legal Defense Committee. In support of Davis, many artists spoke out; John Lennon and Yoko Ono writing Angela, and the Rolling Stones writing their song Sweet Black Angel.

Davis has been an avid supporter of womens rights.

In 1983, Davis published the book Women, Race, and Class, a collection of 13 essays that examines the history of the struggle for equal rights for women, particularly Black and working-class women. In that book, Davis outlined the intersectionality between class, race, and gender.

In 1997, Davis came out during an interview as a lesbian, adding to the discourse around issues pertinent to the LGBTQ+ community. As a professor, Davis regularly taught courses examining the oppression of the Black, women, and LGBTQ+ communities. It is Davis voice and work that serves as the influence for much of the scholarly work today on anti-racist feminism.

A summary statement on the book Women, Race, and Class, from publisher Penguin Random House reads, Angela Davis provides a powerful history of the social and political influence of whiteness and elitism in feminism, from abolitionist days to the present, and demonstrates how the racist and classist biases of its leaders inevitably hampered any collective ambitions. While Black women were aided by some activists like Sarah and Angelina Grimke and the suffrage cause found unwavering support in Frederick Douglass, many women played on the fears of white supremacists for political gain rather than take an intersectional approach to liberation. Here, Davis not only contextualizes the legacy and pitfalls of civil and womens rights activists, but also discusses Communist women, the murder of Emmitt Till, and Margaret Sangers racism. Davis shows readers how the inequalities between Black and white women influence the contemporary issues of rape, reproductive freedom, housework, and childcare in this bold and indispensable work.

In 2017, Davis served as a featured speaker and honorary co-chair at the Womens March on Washington.

She is an advocate for prison reform.

Davis is the founder of Critical Resistance, a national organization working to dismantle the prison-industrial complex. A statement on the website describes the organization's definition of the prison industrial complex and its commitment to abolishing it. In 2018, Critical Resistance celebrated 20 years of advocacy.

The prison industrial complex (PIC) is a term used to describe the overlapping interests of government and industry that use surveillance, policing, and imprisonment as solutions to economic, social, and political problems. Here's more from the site's statement:

"Through its reach and impact, the PIC helps and maintains the authority of people who get their power through racial, economic, and other privileges. There are many ways this power is collected and maintained through the PIC, including creating mass media images that keep alive stereotypes of people of color, poor people, queer people, immigrants, youth, and other oppressed communities as criminal, delinquent, or deviant. This power is also maintained by earning huge profits for private companies that deal with prisons and police forces; helping earn political gains for tough on crime politicians; increasing the influence of prison guard and police unions; and eliminating social and political dissent by oppressed communities that make demands for self-determination and reorganization of power in the US.

PIC abolition is a political vision with the goal of eliminating imprisonment, policing, and surveillance and creating lasting alternatives to punishment and imprisonment.

From where we are now, sometimes we cant really imagine what abolition is going to look like. Abolition isnt just about getting rid of buildings full of cages. Its also about undoing the society we live in because the PIC both feeds on and maintains oppression and inequalities through punishment, violence, and controlling millions of people. Because the PIC is not an isolated system, abolition is a broad strategy. An abolitionist vision means that we must build models today that can represent how we want to live in the future. It means developing practical strategies for taking small steps that move us toward making our dreams real and that lead us all to believe that things really could be different. It means living this vision in our daily lives.

Abolition is both a practical organizing tool and a long-term goal.

Thank you for all of your work Ms. Davis. Because of you, we can.

3 good reasons you should learn more about Angela Davis. Photo Courtesy of Djeneba Aduayom/TIME

Read the original post:

3 Good Reasons You Should Learn More About Angela Davis - Because of Them We Can

In recent years, thanks to the strong political will of Uzbekistan President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, a completely new system of ensuring human rights and freedoms has been created in our country on the basis of large-scale reforms carried out to glorify human dignity and comprehensively protect their interests.

At the same time, the work on improving national legislation, bringing it into line with international standards, reforming agriculture and other sectors, the widespread application of market principles, mechanization of industry and decent payment were key factors in prevention of child and forced labor in our country.

One of the achievements of Uzbekistan over the past five years is the complete abolition of forced labor.

If we look at the results of the International Labor Organization's Third Party Monitoring report from 2019, it shows that since 2013 Uzbekistan has been achieving a gradual progress in eradication of forced labor. For instance, in 2015-2016, Cotton Campaign forced labor was 14 percent. From year to year this figure gradually decreased to 4 percent in 2020 and 1 percent in 2021.

Moreover, the government intensified law enforcement efforts in 2019. The number of staff of the Labor Inspectorate contributing to compliance during the harvest doubled from 200 to 400. The Labor Inspectorate investigated 1,282 forced labor cases during the 2019 cotton harvest.

Furthermore, ILO monitors confirmed that wages had increased compared to the previous harvest, which was another effective mechanism to eradicate the issue. Generally, cotton pickers received their wages on time and in full.

There is no exaggeration to say that the abolition of the global boycott against Uzbek cotton by the International Coalition Cotton Campaign was a vivid example of the effectiveness of large-scale reforms.

Legal and institutional reforms against forced labor

Uzbekistan has ratified 19 conventions and one protocol of the International Labor Organization with the aim of complementing the norms of international law into our national legislation.

According to Convention No. 29 of the International Labor Organization, forced labor is any work or service that people are forced to do against their will, under threat of punishment. In 2014, Uzbekistan became the first country in Central Asia to ratify Protocol No. 29 of the International Labor Organization on Forced Labor.

The national legislature system of Uzbekistan fully complies with international standards. Article No. 7 of the Labor Code of Uzbekistan defines forced labor as coercion to perform work under threat of any punishment.

The presidential decree "On additional measures to further improve the system of combating human trafficking and forced labor" issued July 30, 2019, has created a new system of coordination of stale bodies activities in the field of combating human trafficking and forced labor to increase the image of our country in the international arena.

The authority of Uzbekistan paid great attention to institutional reforms as well. According to the decree, the national commission and the national rapporteur institute on combating human trafficking and forced labor were established. Also, subcommissions were established to fight against human trafficking and forced labor.

In order to eliminate forced labor, legislation introduced norms that strengthen administrative liability and criminal liability.

One of the most effective measures was the implementation of criminal responsibility for the use of child labor and forced labor. In order to reform agriculture by reducing state participation in the cotton sector, the system of mandatory volumes of harvested cotton has been abolished.

Measures taken to combat forced labor

Monitoring of forced labor prevention is continued. In particular, for the first time since 2019, monitoring was conducted with full human rights defenders. In 2021, 17 independent observers were provided with badges to ensure unimpeded access to cotton fields.

At the same time, the international Labor Organizations Third Party Monitoring, National Monitoring by the Federation of Trade Unions, Monitoring of the Labor Inspectorate were conducted simultaneously.

Parliamentary oversight by senators and local deputies involving journalists and bloggers was set Representatives of civil society institutions and human rights activists were also widely involved in the monitoring.

The Uzbekistan media reported actively on forced labor issues in 2019. Journalists and bloggers were encouraged by the government to cover forced labor cases critically. The state labor inspectors have also started to investigate complaints about forced labor.

As a result of monitoring, administrative liability for forced labor was implemented against 259 people in 2019 (132 people during the cotton season), 103 people in 2020 (41 during cotton season) and 75 people in 2021 (five during cotton season).

It should be noted that thanks to the strong political will of the president of Uzbekistan, as well as the extensive work carried out with the active participation of representatives of civil society together with the International Labor Organization and tripartite partners of the National Commission on Combating Forced Labor, such successes have been achieved.

Touching upon future plans, the International Labor Organization announced in Uzbekistan its final conclusion in 2021 that during the cotton harvest season, systematic child labor and forced labor were not used at all, as well as monitoring works m this direction were completely transferred to the Uzbek side.

Earlier, Uzbekistans achievements in ending forced labor were noted by the US State Department. As a result, the international community highly appreciated the reforms carried out in this direction in our country.

While these results provide an opportunity to ensure human rights and develop the industry, particularly the cotton and textile industries, on the other hand, it lays a greater responsibility to maintain the achieved results which requires consistent continuation of systematic work in the field.

Now it is necessary not only to combat forced labor, but also to constantly monitor the creation of decent working conditions in all areas. In this regard, any incoming appeals and messages from social networks in the field of labor relations will not be ignored.

On June 25, 2020, a Global Report on Trafficking in Persons covering the situation in 192 countries was published. During the Trafficking in Persons Report launch ceremony, Mike Pompeo, then head of the US State Department, highlighted in his speech the great efforts of Uzbekistan in solving this problem are setting new standards for the countries of the region.

Despite the end of its boycott, Uzbekistan remained in the second tier in global reports such as Global Report on Trafficking in Persons (US State Department) and the Worst Forms of Child Labor (US Department of Labor).

One of the main recommendations in these reports is to monitor the forced labor and decent working conditions in other sectors of this economy -- silk production, construction, textile and catering

In this regard, it is important to improve the positions in the international community, to pay attention to expanding cooperation between Uzbekistan and the International Labor Organization.

In September 2021 in cooperation with International Labor Organization, Uzbekistan Decent Work Country Program for 2021-2025 was adopted

The main focus of the program is on the principles of decent work, reduction of informal employment and issues of social protection in accordance with international standards.

It should be noted that in cooperation with the International Labor Organization, the analysis of working conditions in other sectors of the economy, as well as cases of forced labor are being studied.

According to a study conducted by the International Labor Organization in the field of silk in 2021, there are no cases of systematic involvement in forced labor in the silk industry, children are not involved in the cultivation of silkworms. Many consider the eating conditions in the workplace to be good or acceptable, and only 1 percent are known to be dissatisfied with the quality of the food. Three-quarters of the workers had employment contracts and were satisfied with the amount of wages.

Currently, these studies are being conducted in the field of construction. We are confident that the quality statistics obtained during the study on working conditions, including forced labor, will be a good source of information for the further development of effective policies in these sectors.

---

Nozim Khusanov is Uzbekistans minister of employment and labor relations and is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Combating Forced Labor

By Korea Herald (khnews@heraldcorp.com)

Read more:

Eradication of forced labor -- striking example of political will - The Korea Herald

The Federal Government has submitted its plan to dissolve the powers of the Australian Building and Construction Commission (ABCC) originally set up to regulate building industry participants involved in Commonwealth-funded building work.

The Government has proposed to amend the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work 2016 (Building Code 2016) by the end of the year (Amended Code).

The consequence? In short, situations of coercion, unlawful entry, and unlawful picketing will no longer be regulated by the ABCC. Litigation previously initiated by the ABCC will be handed over to the Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO). Any dispute relating to union conduct will be referred to the FWO and may be subject to delays.

What is, or rather, what was the Building Code?

The Building Code was enacted in 2016 by the then Liberal-National Party Government to govern the standards of conduct for all building industry participants that seek to be, or are, involved in Commonwealth-funded building work. The Building Code 2016 created the ABCC as a Commission to regulate conduct relating to, among other things, the tender requirements, subcontractor compliance, Workplace Relations Management Plans, standards of conduct on site, right of entry, and dispute settlement requirements.

Prior to the current Labor Governments proposal, any building contractor or building industry participant who tendered for or expressed interest in Commonwealth funding building work was referred to as a code covered entity (Code Covered Entity). Any Code Covered Entity who failed to meet the requirements prescribed by the Building Code 2016 would be excluded from tendering for Commonwealth-funded building work for up to one year.

The likely impact of Labor's proposed Amended Code

Compliance

The Amended Code provides that a Code Covered Entity will not need to comply with the previous rules and regulations prescribed by the Building Code 2016. As discussed below, there will be two exceptions, which relate to the engagement of non-citizens and non-residents, and domestically sourced building material.

Unions are back

The industry should be prepared to see a potential increase in union activity on construction sites as the Amended Code removes the policing of union militancy by the ABCC. Such activity could cause costs, delays, and disruption to infrastructure projects.

Disputes done differently

Construction disputes previously brought by the ABCC focused on instances where construction unions, and their officials, have targeted contractors, subcontractors, and workers with unlawful industrial tactics to bully, coerce, and intimidate them into signing up to union deals.

Rather than rely on the ABCC to investigate this conduct, it will be the FWO, and health and safety regulators job to enforce the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and safety matters in the building and construction industry. A Code Covered Entity will need to avail themselves of the protections of the Fair Work Act regarding matters such as Right of Entry and unlawful industrial action and file a claim with the FWO of their own volition.

Resourcing of the FWO and its prosecution of construction matters will be dealt with in Octobers budget; however, the Federal Labor Government has confirmed that the FWO will not receive as much funding as the ABCC because it will not be commencing as many prosecutions.

What remains?

A Code Covered Entity will need to continue to comply with two obligations including:

The Amended Code also adds a new provision to preserve any exemptions given by the ABCC for essential service providers and essential infrastructure services prior to the Amendment Codes commencement and preserves the effects of any exclusion sanctions.

What is removed?

A Code Covered Entity is no longer required to:

The Amended Code also removes the Commissions role under the Building Code 2016 in relation to granting exemptions and recommending exclusion sanctions.

Key takeaways

Contractors should keep a close eye out for the passing of the Bill through Parliament later this year.

While the ABCC remains in play, the Commission continues to launch fresh court actions against unions. A fortnight after the Amended Code was proposed, the Commission commenced legal action against the Construction Forestry Maritime Mining and Energy Union. However, the FWO has declined to answer whether it plans to continue, assess, or end the ongoing matters.

Here is the original post:

Intrusion impending: what contractors need to know about proposed abolition of the ABCC - Lexology

Family abolition seems like a timely idea but what are we even abolishing here, anyway?

In his series of novels The Dancers at the End of Time (1972-76), the science fiction author Michael Moorcock described a fantastical historical endgame for the human species, a polymorphously perverse utopia in which everyone what few individuals still remain on a planet that has for millennia witnessed nothing genuinely new has the power to remake the world and themselves however they choose. Ethics, morality, no longer exist: there are only aesthetic standards, good or bad taste. No-one needs anything, people can (genuinely) change sex or size or even (superficially) species at the drop of a thought, and no-one need permanently die. In the opening chapters of the first book, the central character, Jherek Carnelian, who is described as one of the few individuals now living who was born naturally (rather than being created in some other way), has casual sex with both of his biological parents.

The Dancers at the End of Time describes a world of limitless fantasy and freedom from need. This world also, basically, sucks. Everyone is always bored, living only for the petty jealousies they pursue with one another motivated solely by whatever personalities they have chosen to inhabit, or which aliens or time-travellers whove been unlucky enough to crash-land in their era one of them wants for their personal zoo. No-one can imagine anything new: all they can do is play, pointlessly, with whatever forms have washed up in their world from the past. There is, in short, no natality: the new beginning that Hannah Arendt emphasised (in 1958s The Human Condition) was the basis of our hope in the future, inherent in the birth and raising of new human beings. At one point, when the Dancers are informed by a doom-mongering alien that the universe itself is about to end, they can only respond to the news with delight: finally, someone has stumbled upon a great new bit.

Reading Dancers, I am glad to have what I happen to: a young family, who I care for, and work on behalf of. Its not always easy, and its not always ideal. But it gives my life meaning and it gives me a kind of hope in the future: maybe my kids could be a bit better, a bit happier, than me. It makes me feel like I matter, in a way that Im not sure anything else would. Certainly nothing else ever really worked before I remember feeling utterly superfluous before I became a father.

But maybe Ive got it all wrong. Maybe this ideal of a meaningful family life is just the reflection of an ideology of work, to which I am addicted; of the patriarchal values, which were formed to serve the interests of white Europeans like me as we set about attempting to dominate the rest of the world; of my selfish, destructive desire to force my kids to be, in some sense, like me to inherit whatever it is I happen to be doing with my life. Maybe these sick desires are propping up an institution primarily responsible for the oppression of racialised minorities, the repression of sexual minorities, and abuse. Maybe things dont have to be this way.

This, at any rate, is the provocative thought voiced by the writer Sophie Lewis in her 2019 book Full Surrogacy Now: that we should abolish the family.

As to what Lewis meant by this, of course, it wasnt exactly clear. Did she really mean we should abolish the family, get rid of it altogether? Or do we need to somehow expand it, reform it, instead? Full Surrogacy Now gave few answers but then, that book was mostly a careful piece of human geography about surrogacy in the global south: the family abolition stuff was really confined to a bit of polemic at either end.

For all this, however, family abolition has seemed like a timely idea and not just because people nowadays love the thought of abolishing things (prisons, the police, work, and so on). From 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to the nuclear family coming into question, as the powers-that-be arranged their policy response by assuming that it was the default. Aside from excluding people who did not fit comfortably into any sort of nuclear model (famously, for a while non-cohabiting couples were technically banned from having sex), as lockdowns and other forms of isolation wore on, it gradually became apparent, to anyone who had to bring up kids in this sort of context, that two human adults are simply not enough for any human child: that we all need non-nuclear connections to thrive.

I was therefore excited when I found out that Lewis has now published a new, short book, Abolish the Family: A Manifesto for Liberation and Care (2022) elaborating on her earlier claims. Unfortunately, Im not sure it delivers on its promise. The work is punchy and accessible, and includes a useful survey of the history of family abolitionist ideas, from Plato to Marx to Shulamith Firestone to the Black feminist tradition and more (although I would quibble that all of her examples were really family abolitionists in the way that Lewis is). But as a critic, I couldnt really read its argument as demonstrating anything other than the fact that not only can we not really conceive of what Lewis calls family abolition even if we could, it wouldnt really be something we should want.

One obvious question is: what are we even abolishing here, anyway? Obviously we can talk about the nuclear family, and say we need to abolish, or reform that (fine). But as Lewis herself points out, most people dont really live in nuclear families. Family already is a lot more extensive than that even American sitcoms recognise this, as the family turns out to be your friends (as on Friends, 1994-2004) or the people you work with (as on The Office, 2005-13), or the people you drink with in a bar (Cheers, 1982-93). Are we doing away with all of that as well?

Early on, Lewis defines the family as being identical with the fact that care is privatized in our society. A neat-enough definition, and one which communicates a clear sense of the familys purpose. We have this institution in our society, the family, and we think it makes our lives meaningful (I suffer through my job as my familys breadwinner; I exhaust myself to the point of a breakdown because I need to care for my son) because care in our society is privatized, not socialized.

But then the question is: well, what does this mean? As a guy whose largest monthly expense is currently nursery bills, I think: it sure would be a good thing if care werent privatized anymore. If I didnt have to pay a private company so much to care for my children, if early-years care were subsidised a lot more effectively by the state, then ironically enough I could actually work a whole lot less, and see my kids a whole lot more. And then if were wishing for things, well: maybe I (and my partner) shouldnt have to work at all. Maybe if we have young children, we really should be paid by the state to have enough money to raise them properly regardless of whether were working or not. At least one in four children in the UK are currently growing up in poverty if nothing else, such a policy would help to change that. This would be something like the socialization of care. But it would also maintain the family as an institution (in fact, it would probably help reinforce it). So it cant possibly be what Lewis has in mind (indeed, it could end up sounding rather like Bonk for Britain, and other nativist pro-family policies pursued by governments in, for instance, Hungary and Poland).

What seems closer is the idea that we should abolish the private home. At one point, Lewis indicates that she believes the institution of the family is working to prevent the world as a whole from being somewhere we can call home. She also nods favourably to the utopian socialist Charles Fouriers idea that we might live in more extended family-style communities, which would involve having public canteens instead of private kitchens, and raising children in communal crches. Sounds great (although a bit of privacy is nice as well): canteen food can be tasty, I dont always want to have to plan my own meals, and it is easier to look after children when theyre playing with kids their own age. Throw in a communal laundry too, and I think we could be on to a winner.

But the problem for Lewis is that this would still involve something like the family. It would just be (arguably) a better sort of family. For Lewis, the family is in some sense the product of things that are essentially bad: racism, colonialism, imperialism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, private property. This helps her to dismiss it (if the family has come from all these things, who would want it?). But for all this, she must admit that the family also serves, and has served, a very real material need. We wouldnt need to privatize care, if we didnt also need to be cared for.

Hegel, for instance, recognises in the Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1820) that the family has evolved in the way that it has, because to grow up to be a psychologically healthy, autonomous individual, everyone needs to have ready access to a source of particular, unconditional love early on (this, in fact, is necessary for us to engage productively with the world beyond the home). There is, of course, no necessary reason why this need must be fulfilled by our biological parents (although it is often both convenient and preferable for all concerned if it is). But we still need, ideally, to receive primary care from consistent figures, with whom we are able to form strong, loving bonds: just as we need the ground to remain steady, if were ever going to learn to walk. The same goes for elder care as well, even if thats not so much about psychological development. Again, biology need not be the overriding factor here (though it might still be one of them). But it is undignified to force an ailing person to be looked after by a stream of different nurses who never have time to develop any sort of bond with them and it should be no coincidence that often, when an older person is consistently looked after by the same person over time, they might ultimately come to see them as a daughter or a son.

Lewis, I suppose, would want to resist that thought, since she thinks we should now learn to talk in the looser language of kith ties (comrade, neighbour, friend) as opposed to kin ones. But I guess I just cant really see the point. Even if, as Lewis emphasises, there is nothing natural in nature (nature is dynamic, and always changing, and we are a part of that process of change), it remains natural to us to use the language of family, just so long as we both need, and enjoy, family-type bonds. Lewis speaks of a love that might exist, or thrive, beyond the family. But while I know directly both the love of my family, and love for my friends, Lewis never gives this different type of love any sort of real, satisfactory definition. Indeed, towards the end of the book she even talks of it as a nothing. A glorious and abundant nothing, for sure. But a nothing regardless.

At the risk of sounding glib: I cant feed my kids on nothing. The family might be bad or unsatisfactory in all sorts of ways the nuclear family certainly isnt really working, as an institution, for most actual families right now. But we need the family, because it fulfils a particular set of needs. These needs are not things that can be, simply, wished away. And we all have had, or will have, those needs at some point in our lives. Abolish the Family is a timely provocation. But the real work must be to reform the family, to make it work for us today.

Here is the original post:

What Does It Mean To 'Abolish the Family'? - ArtReview

The reality remains that in practice it is almost impossible for States to impose capital punishment while meeting their obligations to respect the human rights of those convicted, said Special Rapporteur and UN expert on torture, Alice Edwards, and Morris Tidball-Binz, the UN expert investigating extrajudicial and arbitrary executions.

They were reflecting on the relationship between the death penalty and the absolute prohibition against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment,

The said that abolishing the death penalty was the only viable path for all countries.

The death row phenomenon has long been characterized as a form of inhuman treatment, as has the near total isolation of those convicted of capital crimes who are then held in unlawful solitary confinement, they maintained.

Yet, many States continue to impose the death penalty for non-violent crimes such as blasphemy, adultery, and drug-related offences.

Under international law, those all fail the most serious crime standard for applying capital punishment.

The also flagged as deeply worrying, a growing trend of imposing the death penalty on those exercising their right to peaceful political protest.

And increasingly, methods of execution have been found to be incompatible with the obligation to refrain from torture and ill-treatment, or from inflicting severe pain and suffering.

Despite the fact that more than 170 States having repealed the death penalty or adopted moratoriums, last year witnessed a reported 20 per cent increase in the number of government-sanctioned executions.

States that retain the death penalty are urged to scrupulously apply exceptions for persons with intellectual disabilities, pregnant women, and children, as required by various instruments including article six of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Special Rapporteurs said.

All States are invited to consider ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aimed at abolition of the death penalty, they added, noting that the Protocol currently has 40 signatories and 90 States parties.

Special Rapporteurs are appointed by the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council to examine and report back on a specific human rights theme or a country situation. The positions are honorary and the experts are not paid for their work.

See original here:

UN experts call for complete abolition of death penalty as 'only viable path' - UN News

Although social justice issues seem to be losing momentum in Iowa City, a reproductive justice rally on Sunday focused on inclusivity and called for us to do our part.

I attended a protest on the University of Iowa Pentacrest to discuss the ongoing fight for reproductive rights in Iowa on Sunday. At this community meeting, organizers and activists alike shared a similar sentiment: We are tired.

Students, professionals, parents and guardians, religious leaders, politicians, and organizers in town understand the everyday stress and strain life brings. Even so, spending time on community initiatives isnt a choice we all make lightly, especially with other tasks to accomplish each day.

We push ourselves to the brink of exhaustion because of the terrifying reality every U.S. citizen faces: If we dont stand up now, there might not be a chance to fight in the future.

The overturn of Roe v. Wade was about more than abortion access. The 1973 decision protected rights to medical privacy, which is of large concern to people of color, queer folks, and trans and nonbinary community members.

Support for pro-choice ideology and abortion access, conversations on disability advocacy, inclusion of gender-noncomforming people, and the importance of voting were all highlighted at the event.

As history shows us, we have to do this work as a movement, said Amanda Remington, director of Corridor Community Action Network. Reproductive justice is not an isolated issue. If we allow fascists to expand their denial of reproductive freedom to larger masses, it will not stop there.

Remington highlighted how we all must stop focusing on our pet issues. This fight isnt just for abortion access and health care for anyone with a uterus. Its abolition work, its political work, its social work, and its sexuality and gender representation.

Most strikingly, religious leaders were invited to speak at the rally about faiths role in the fight for bodily autonomy and other human rights issues.

My faith calls me to vote for people who will protect reproductive choice and bodily autonomy, said Rev. Meg Wagner, a missioner for congregational development, transitions, and reconciliation for the Iowa Episcopal Church.

As a follower of Jesus, my faith calls for me to vote for people who will look out for the poor, stand up for the vulnerable, advocate for those who are not seen and heard, and who will protect the dignity of every human being just like Jesus did, Wagner said.

In a community like Iowa City so focused on reactionary justice work, we must maintain high protest turnout, push back constantly against non-allied politicians, and show up at the polls to reach any anti-system, non-compliant goals.

This issue is reflective of the summer protesting that took place in 2020. Although abolitionist movements existed before 2020 and continue today, the wide scale response in cities across the U.S. including Iowa City have dwindled.

We cant allow our community to fall victim to only responding when someone is harmed by the system, whether thats police brutality or lack of health care access and other social services. We must act now before harm is done. There can be no freedoms for one group without freedom for all. Justice does not exist in a vacuum.

The next election is Nov. 8. Show up to vote, to protest, to share your experience, and to connect with others. The time is now. Take advantage before more lives are put on the line.

Columns reflect the opinions of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board, The Daily Iowan, or other organizations in which the author may be involved.

Link:

Opinion | Social justice work must continue - UI The Daily Iowan

The World Socialist Web Site calls on workers at the Mercedes plant in Ludwigsfelde: Take the fight for your jobs into your own hands, place no trust in the IG Metall union and its representatives in the plant!

Establish a rank-and-file action committee!

Instead of blackmail and division between the different workforces, act together at all sites to defend jobs, wages and social gains!

Spread this call via Facebook, WhatsApp, etc., as well as with flyers!

Starting in 2028, Mercedes-Benz plans to launch a new electric van. The new model is to be produced exclusively in Eastern Europe. The company is using the switch to electric mobility to launch a general attack on wages and jobs. Automotive companies operate internationally and play off workers at different locations against each other in search of the cheapest labour to maximize their profits. Mercedes-Benz is no exception.

Production in Ludwigsfelde is to be discontinued at the end of the decade. This threatens the loss of all 2,200 jobs here. Production of the chassis-cab versions of the Sprinter van is to be relocated from Ludwigsfelde to Dsseldorf, where the full-body models are already manufactured.

Mercedes van business is already highly profitable. Finance daily Handelsblatt reported on September 9, 2022 that in the first half of the year, the Stuttgart-based company achieved an operating return of 9.4 percent on sales of 7.8 billion euros and 190,000 vehicles sold.

None of this is benefiting the workers, who have produced the profit but will continue to be bled dry.

As the representatives of IG Metall made clear at the factory meeting in September, the union is trying at all costs to prevent a joint struggle by workers at all sites. When they talk about safeguarding locations, they mean rationalization measures and social cuts. When they talk about competitiveness, they mean job cuts. They consider plant closures to be unavoidable and play off employees at different plants against each other.

The fact that workers can only lose with such a strategy recently became clear at Ford, where IG Metall and the works council organized a bidding war between the plants in Saarlouis and Almussafes, Spain. Acting in the interests of the companies, the works council representatives in Germany and Spain submitted offers of sweeping wage cuts and concessions on working conditions. They competed to offer the company the most exploitative conditions.

In the end, the workers at both sites lost out. The plant in Saarlouis, which lost the bidding war, is to be closed by 2025 at the latest. But the plant in Almussafes is now also facing closure: Ford has withdrawn its previous announcement that it would manufacture electric vehicles there from 2025.

The first thing that any worker who seriously wants to fight must understand is the foul double game played by IG Metall and its local plant officials. While feigning concern at union meetings, they work closely with management, support its profit plans and play a key role in pushing through layoffs and plant closures. Defending jobs requires a separate path from that of the unions, one that places the interests of the workers higher than the profit interests of the company.

It is necessary to create rank-and-file committees independent of the union officials at all sites, which will then take joint action to defend jobs and wages. This is the only way to prevent management and the union from negotiating either shutdowns, massive job cuts or drastic regressions in conditions at one plant after another behind the backs of the workforce.

Central to this is focusing on the common interests of all workers at all sites, rather than bowing to corporate interests.

The rank-and-file committees advance a program of international workers solidarity to oppose the orgy of enrichment of the corporate top management. This is the only way to prevent a handful of super-rich executives and shareholders from deciding the future and well-being of workers and their families.

You are not alone. Fellow workers in Dsseldorfunlike the works council representatives theredo not see themselves as winners in the current reorganization of production. They have bled in the past and know that defeats at one location are defeats for all Mercedes-Benz employees. The same applies to colleagues at other locations such as Stuttgart, Sindelfingen, Rastatt and so on.

In Eastern Europe, tooin Hungary, Romania and Polandworkers have been bitterly squeezed and would welcome a hand extended to them in solidarity to improve their working conditions and wages.

But it is not only in Germany and Europe that you have allies. All over the world, resistance is growing against ever more brutal forms of exploitation, against mass layoffs, plant closures and social attacks. Just recently, Mercedes workers at the largest plant outside Germany, in So Paulo, Brazil, went on strike because 3,600 of 9,000 jobs are set to be eliminated.

Added to this are the consequences of the war against Russia in Ukraine. Never before has the danger of a third, nuclear world war been as great as it is today. The great powersincluding Germanyare using the Ukraine war to massively increase armaments spending to secure their own imperialist interests. We workers are being made to pay for it.

This is the case in every country in the world. Workers everywhere face the same problems. They are suffering from rising energy costs, which are skyrocketing because of the sanctions against Russia, and from galloping inflation.

Protests and labour disputes are on the rise all over the world. In the process, workers are confronted not only with governments and corporations, but also with unions that want to stifle and hold down this wave of resistance. Increasingly, therefore, workers are deciding to organize independently in rank-and-file committees.

The defence of jobs, wages and social standards goes hand in hand with the struggle against the threat of war and also against the policy of allowing COVID-19 to run wild, which is now threatening another surge of the disease in winter, with all its consequences.

The WSWS calls on Mercedes workers in Ludwigsfelde and all other locations to self-confidently take the fight for the defence of jobs into their own hands and refuse any longer to be dominated by IG Metall and the works council. Establishing a rank-and-file committee is the first step. The way forward is to join forces with fellow workers in Eastern Europe and also in the USA, Brazil, Mexico and the rest of the world.

The time could hardly be more opportune. Workers around the world are coming into conflict with the trade unions and forming independent rank-and-file committees.

We support you in building a rank-and-file committee in Ludwigsfelde and in networking with other rank-and-file committees worldwide. The point is to discuss in a circle of trustworthy colleagues what is necessary to defend all plants and jobs.

The first thing to do is to break through the division of workers fostered by the unions pitting of each site against the others. A common struggle requires contacting workers from the other German Mercedes-Benz sites, as well as international sites such as in Hungary, Romania, Poland, Brazil, Mexico, etc., and linking up with workers from other plants, all of whom face similar conditions and similar tasks.

The WSWS supports the International Workers Alliance of Rank-and-File Committees (IWA-RFC), established to facilitate such international networking. Since its inception, this alliance has been gaining support worldwide.

In the US in particular, workers in the auto industry have formed strike and rank-and-file committees independent of the corrupt unions. There, socialist Will Lehman is running for president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. He is winning enormous support with his demands for the abolition of the union bureaucracy, the return of power to the rank and file and for the international unity of the working class.

Workers must stand together! The rank-and-file committees build on the great tradition of workers struggles and confidently project workers strength onto the field of battle. Do not be intimidated! Managers and works council representatives do not build vehicles. You, the workers, create all the value. The shareholders, the managers, the union officials and the works council representatives are the beneficiaries of your work.

It is important to take action now. We say to workers at all sites: support, spread and share this call. Contact us via WhatsApp +491633378340.

Stay informed. Sign up to our Autoworker Newsletter.

See the original post here:

Rank-and-file action committees independent of IG Metall union needed to defend all jobs at all sites - WSWS