Category Archives: Freedom

The Republican health-care bill stood in a legislative Catch-22 late Wednesday, held hostage to demands that the White House and Republican leaders wish that they could grant but insist that they cannot.

The captors in this instance are the members of the House Freedom Caucus, the group of roughly three dozen conservative hard-liners who have tried to bend the GOP bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act toward the right and have now coalesced around one major demand that the American Health Care Act, as the GOP bill is titled, must repeal more of the ACAs insurance mandatesto truly lower premiums.

That is not a particularly controversial stance among Republicans. Almost all GOP members conservatives, moderates and otherwise would like to undo more off the ACAs essential health benefits, a litany of services that insurance plans are required to cover by law. They include things such as emergency-room visits and hospital stays, but they also include mental health, maternity, preventive care and prescription drug coverage that not all people will necessarily utilize.

Democrats argue that without the requirements, many Americans would be forced to buy bare-bones plans that would leave huge gaps in coverage and expose them to severe financial risk. But most Republicans say that requiring insurers to cover all those benefits is a major factor in driving up premiums and that if consumers want to buy bare-bones plans, they should be able to buy bare-bones plans.

But the policy debate is not the issue. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is the issue.

That is the federal law that lays out the procedure congressional Republican leaders are using to pass the American Health Care Act the reconciliation process that will ultimately allow them to pass the bill without Democratic votes. And that law dictates that not just anything can be passed by reconciliation; matters that are extraneous to the budgetary nature of the bill are excluded.

House leaders, including Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), are insisting that any provisions rolling back the ACAs essential health benefits are indeed extraneous. And not only are they extraneous, Ryan argued Wednesday, but if the House adds them to the bill, the Senate couldnt just strip them out it could no longer consider it as a privileged reconciliation bill needing only a simple, Republican majority to pass.

Look, our whole thing is we dont want to load up our bill in such a way that it doesnt even get considered in the Senate, Ryan told radio host Hugh Hewitt on Wednesday morning. Then weve lost our one chance with this one tool we have, reconciliation. It doesnt last long. But if the Senate can add things to the bill, then were all for that.

That, according to several Freedom Caucus members and GOP aides, is exactly what Ryan and White House officials including Vice President Pence have offered the Freedom Caucus: acommitment that the Senate will seek to add a repeal of the essential health benefits to the House bill once it arrives in that chamber. If at that point the Senate parliamentarian rules that the provision is extraneous, it will simply be dropped and the rest of the bill will remain.

[Whats next for the Obamacare replacement bill]

As Ryan put it to Hewitt: We want to beta-test these ideas in the Senate we want that. . . . But the last thing we want to do is load our bill up and they dont even get a chance to do that.

That argument has convinced one conservative hard-liner. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who is not a Freedom Caucus member, said Wednesday that he would support the bill based on a firm, firm commitment from the majority leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, that he will offer a managers amendment to strike out the mandates that are written into Obamacare.

Freedom Caucus members, however, arent taking yes for an answer. Their position, rooted in the wishes of their conservative activist base and years of mounting distrust of GOP leaders, is that the repeal of essential health benefits must be included in the House bill they are unwilling to take on faith that it will be pursued in the Senate. And they flatly do not accept the argument that it would be procedurally fatal to the legislation.

They have made clear that is their belief, Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said Tuesday. But I have talked to senators who say that not only has it not been adjudicated, but it hasnt even really been presented in a meaningful way, so that narrative is simply not a narrative based on fact. Its based on conjecture and belief which I think its a deeply held belief for them, but its not based on fact.

And that is where the dispute stands: The White House and GOP congressional leaders have told the Freedom Caucus that meeting their demands would essentially kill the American Health Care Act before it is born, but the Freedom Caucus, egged on by several conservative Republican senators, refuses to believe that is the case.

The decision on what is permissible in a reconciliation bill and what House provisions would be fatal lies in the hands of the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough. Numerous Freedom Caucus members subscribe to an argument, most prominently advanced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), that even if MacDonough were to rule against repealing the insurance mandates, she could be overruled by Pence, who is the president of the Senate.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) stoked Freedom Caucus doubts even further in a Wednesday interview with the Washington Examiner in which he cited personal conversations with MacDonough that he said undermined the leadership claims: What I understood her to be saying is that theres no reason why an Obamacare repeal bill necessarily could not have provisions repealing the health insurance regulations.

What matters is how its done, how its written up, he added. There are ways its written up that perhaps make it not subject to passage through reconciliation, but there are other ways you could write it that might make it work.

Several House and Senate aides said this week that provisions under consideration in the House have been routinely presented to the Senate parliamentarians office for review to make sure the legislation passes muster under reconciliation rules, and they said they were confident that including a broader repeal of insurance mandates would render the AHCA ineligible for reconciliation.

Senate leaders, meanwhile, generally dismissed the idea that Pence could unilaterally decide to override the Senate budget rules. While the rules governing the reconciliation process originated as the Byrd rule, after former senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), they have since 1990 been incorporated into the Budget Act itself meaning it cannot simply be overturned by changing the Senate rules.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), vice chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, said Wednesday that overruling the parliamentarian on a Byrd ruling would virtually guarantee that the GOP health-care law would be challenged in court.

The vice president, and even 51 senators without the vice president, cant decide what the law says, Blunt said. If you want to for sure wind up in court, the way to do it is to decide that weve redefined the law.

Conservatives could promise to ignore that law, he added, but doing so would only lead to disappointment: It is always a mistake to try to convince people do something you cant possibly do.

Kelsey Snell contributed to this report.

The rest is here:

What the Freedom Caucus wants in the GOP health-care bill, and why it's not getting it - Washington Post

WASHINGTON As House Republicans scramble for votes on their health care overhaul, GOP leaders are betting that a visit from President Donald Trump on Tuesday will help close the deal on the legislation and House Freedom Caucus leaders are swearing it will not.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) emerged from the groups weekly meeting late Monday night to tell reporters he was confident House leaders did not have the votes to pass their Affordable Care Act rewrite and that, even with pressure from Trump, conservatives would not waver.

This is not a decision made on personalities, Meadows said. Its made on policy.

Meadows said that, without the changes the Freedom Caucus has demanded, it would be very difficult, if not impossible for leaders to find the votes to pass their health care bill.

This is a defining moment for our nation, but its also a defining moment for the Freedom Caucus, Meadows said.

Bill Clark via Getty Images

While Meadows was cagey about an exact whip count as well as whether some members of the group might waver if Trump applied all the pressure at his disposal other Freedom Caucus members were confident that conservatives controlled their own destiny.

Reporters staking out the Freedom Caucus meeting Monday night couldnt help but notice that the group of nearly 40 conservatives had not taken an official position against the Republican legislation, a potential signal that the caucus was split and opposition might not be as monolithic as some members wanted to present. But members assured reporters that leaders didnt have the votes.

We took a position weeks ago. Our position has not changed, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said.

They dont have the votes to pass it, Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) said.

Asked if there were enough members opposed in the Freedom Caucus alone to sink the bill meaning there were at least 21 in the group who would vote against the bill Amash said that was absolutely the case.

And there are others outside of the Freedom Caucus not voting for it as well, Amash added.

GOP leaders made their own moves late Monday night, releasing a managers amendment that would assuage some concerns of less hard-line conservatives and GOP moderates. Republican leaders, as promised, added language for the optional block-granting of Medicaid, as well as optional Medicaid work requirements. At the same time, in a nod to moderates, the amendment would add funding to help individuals with high health care costs, though it does not explicitly detail how much money would go to that endeavor and is indecipherable from the legislative language.

A section-by-section analysis from one of the committees with jurisdiction over the legislation says the amendment would provide the financing for additional support for those with high health care costs before the bill goes to the Senate. In effect, Republicans are saying the House has to pass the bill to find out what exactly is in it.

Republicans also added language to win over reluctant New York Republicans. The language which were referring to as The Buffalo Buyout would prevent New York from requiring rural counties to kick in to cover Medicaid costs.

The late backroom changes and deal sweeteners undermine Speaker Paul Ryans promise of an open legislative process, but even with the slapdash lawmaking, leaders continue to project confidence with regard to the bill. Late Monday, on Fox News, Speaker Ryan (R-Wis.) once again expressed confidence that Republicans would pass their health care legislation this week, and leaders are hopeful that Trumps appearance before House Republicans Tuesday morning will push them over the top.

But without the coverage changes to lower premiums that Freedom Caucus members have been demanding, conservatives think the legislation is doomed.

Asked what would happen Monday night if leadership didnt make the changes they wanted, Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) simply said, That means that the bill is going to fail.

And was Labrador confident of that?

Im confident of that. Yes.

See the original post here:

Freedom Caucus Squares Off With GOP Leadership As Health Care Vote Nears - Huffington Post

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS IN LOUISVILLE IN MARCH 2017Trump visits Louisville: What you missed | 0:59

President Donald Trump visited Louisville on Monday. Here's what you missed. Rachel Aretakis/Wochit

1 of 5

President Donald Trump held a campaign-style rally in a packed Freedom Hall on Monday night.

2 of 5

President Donald Trump talks about trade during his campaign-style rally at Freedom Hall in Louisville on Monday night.

3 of 5

During a campaign-style rally at Freedom Hall on Monday night President Donald Trump talks about keeping his campaign promises

4 of 5

The crowds came out before President Trump's speech at Freedom Hall. Marty Pearl/Special to C-J

5 of 5

Trump visits Louisville: What you missed

Donald Trump's opening remarks at Freedom Hall in Louisville

Trump on trade

President Trump talks about keeping his campaign promises at rally in Freedom Hall

Trump fans and foes outside Freedom Hall

Comedian and Donald Trump impersonator Dustin Gold interacts with Trump supporters before a visit by Pres. Donald Trump to the Kentucky Exposition Center's Freedom Hall on Monday. March 20, 2017(Photo: Alton Strupp/CJ)Buy Photo

Hundreds of protesters on Monday waved signs and gave fiery speeches at the gates to Freedom Hall ahead President Donald Trump's visit to tout his plan to replace Obamacare, booing as Air Force One passed overhead for landing.

But theirnumbers were dwarfed by the long lines of thousands of Trump supporters wearing red Make AmericaGreat Again hats that snaked around the fairgroundshours before Trump appeared. Many scorned the demonstrators, calling them snowflakes.

At the end of the night, as Trump supporters flooded out of the area, police went from blocking a group of chanting protesters from entering the front of Freedom Hall to protecting them from a ring of jeering Trump supporters who chanted USA! and hurled insults.

They need to get over it, said rallygoer Bonnie Rhome. Accept that he is the president.

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

The protests, spearheaded by the liberal group Indivisible Kentucky, have become a fixture at such events, including the recent visit by Vice President Mike Pence to build support for effort to "repeal and replace" the Affordable Care Act.

Many, holding signs such as one reading Republicare will kill poor, elderly and sick people and Stop the lunacy, said they wanted Obamacare fixed, not replaced by something that might further drive up costs.

RALLY COVERAGE:President Trump comes to Louisville on high-profile day

READ MORE: Fivetakeaways from President Trump's visit to Louisville

Im totally against it, said George Bodina, a Navy veteran who held a handmade sign portraying Trump with a Pinocchio nose. He said Kentucky has benefited from the Affordable Care Act.

Speakers from groups such as Black Lives Matter, Parents for Social Justice and Stand Up Louisville highlighted issues ranging from police shootings to immigrant rights to efforts to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. Democratic State Rep Jim Wayne told the crowd he thought Trump had a personality disorder and was not equipped to lead this great nation.

The crowds came out before President Trump's speech at Freedom Hall. Marty Pearl/Special to C-J

Supporters waiting in line nearby wore Trump T-shirts, including one that readFinally someone with balls. They took selfies with a Trump impersonator and listened to classic rock. They bought buttons reading, Deplorable Lives Matter, and one man wore a pin knocking CNN as the Communist News Network. A coal miner from Eastern Kentucky wore his helmet and said he was there to thank Trump. Some said they were pleased with Trumps brash and unapologetic style.

Im tired of paying taxes for people who dont work, said William Bizer, a retiree from Southern Indiana.

RELATED: Sen. Paul says he's a 'no' on GOP plan to replace Obamacare

SEE ALSO:Trump to nominate Thapar to serve on U.S. Court of Appeals

Donna Duke, a housekeeper from Breckinridge County, Kentucky,said she made too much to qualify for Obamacare subsidies but still cant afford a health plan, so shegoes without insurance and her diabetes medication.

They said you have to have it and then dont make it affordable, she said.

Kentucky has emerged as a battleground state in the effort to repeal the federal health care law.

Mainly thanks to an expansion of Medicaid, more than 500,000 Kentuckians gained health coverage after Obamacare was implemented by former Gov. Steve Beshear, who has been outspoken in his support for Obamacare since Trump was elected.

The Republican plan backed by Trump already is controversial within the GOP, with some arguing it doesn't go far enough to fully repeal the law. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is among those. On Monday,he said in Louisville that he would not vote for the plan, which he called "Obamacare Lite."

Reporter Chris Kenning can be reached at 502-582-4697 or ckenning@courier-journal.com

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: http://cjky.it/2ntftMU

Excerpt from:

Donald Trump protesters, supporters flock to Freedom Hall - The Courier-Journal

Moshe Kahlon. (photo credit:MARC ISRAEL SELLEM)

Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon said on Tuesday that he would not allow any injury to be done to the freedom of the press, but that a new law giving greater authority to the government over broadcasting regulation would be advanced.

Kahlon was speaking at a conference of The Marker financial newspaper, against the background of severe coalition strains regarding the new public broadcaster the Israel Broadcasting Cooperation.

The finance minister said that despite various reports, he was unaware of any new deal between himself and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who is seeking to shutter the IBC before it even starts operations on April 30, a step Kahlon opposes on budgetary grounds.

I spoke with Netanyahu on Thursday and we agreed to establish the cooperation and advance the communications law, since then I dont know about anything else, said Kahlon at the conference.

We stand by what we committed to, there is an agreement and legislation will arrive. We wont allow any harm to be done to democracy, to freedom of expression, or freedom of the press.

One of Netanyahus main claims against the IBC is that it would not have sufficient regulatory oversight, so he has insisted that the coalition advance legislation to create a unified state regulatory body for news broadcasting which would come under the authority of the Communications Ministry.

Concerns have been raised by opposition parties that the law would politicize the regulation of news broadcasting and harm the freedom of the press.

Since the Thursday agreement mentioned by Kahlon however, Netanyahu subsequently said he had changed his mind and was totally against the IBC beginning operations.

Efforts are underway between various Likud ministers, MKs and advisors with Kahlons aides to find a compromise, variously reported to include merging the old Israel Broadcasting Authority with the IBC, and firing IBC director Eldad Koblentz and chairman Gil Omer who Netanyahu opposes.

Kahlon said however he was unaware of any demand to fire the pair.

Another spanner thrown into the works of any possible agreement was the announcement by the IBC on Monday that the journalist Geula Even-Saar would present its main nightly news broadcast.

Even-Saar is the wife of former Likud minister, MK, party darling, and potential Netanyahu rival Gideon Saar.

Saar stepped away from politics back in 2014 but has not left the Likud party and is frequently mentioned by Likud officials as a possible replacement for Netanyahu at some point in the future.

I have no doubt that the heads of the IBC sat for several months, checked, examined, and arrived at the conclusion that yesterday they needed to make this appointment, said Kahlon sardonically.

A totally professional decision, I cant intervene on professional decisions, he added with a large smile on his face.

Channel 10 reported that close associations of Netanyahu have objected strongly to Even-Saars appointment, and said that the timing had been deliberate so as to further raise the ire of the prime minister.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Read the original:

Minister: Freedom of press won't be harmed, broadcast law moving forward - Jerusalem Post Israel News

How much are you enjoying the creativity of the Corn Nation community? I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your captions and last weeks edition was no exception. That image is of DeMornay Pierson-El talking a little smack during the Oregon v Nebraska game early in the 2016 season.

What was your favorite guess as to what he was saying? Winner revealed below the image.

The winner is bfroning2 with:

DPE "DUCK SEASON!" DUCK " WABBIT SEASON!" DPE "WABBIT SEASON!" DUCK "DUCK SEASoh shit, he got me."

Runner-up: hands15 (Authors note - Is that you DeMornay??)

Do you think we should go for 2 next time we score?

Congrats bfroning! You are entered in our drawing this summer for a copy of Through These Gates and any other prizes I can round up.

This weeks image is FREEDOM!!! What do you think our poor Cowboy friend is thinking right now? What about Freedom?

Give us your best captions Corn Nation! Come back often and rec the captions you like best. The winner will be the one with the most recs when I total them up Monday.

More here:

Create a Caption: Running Away from Freedom - Corn Nation

When in August 2015 Michael Lane was made redundant from his job testing computer software, he needed to find work. A keen cyclist, Lane had noted the rapid rise in the number of bike couriers on the roads near his home in south London. Many of these riders wore the uniforms of app-based fooddelivery companies that enable customers to order burgers and pad thais using their smartphones.

Lane, whose curly, shoulder-length hair is pulled away from his eyes with an elastic band and whose earlobes are stretched by black plugs, was tempted by the chance to escape office life. So in November that year he signed up as a courier for Take Eat Easy, a Belgian-owned food delivery start-up. There was no interview or assessment of Lanes cycling ability. I remember in our onboarding, one applicant was late because they couldnt find the building. Itamused me to think that this wasnt a big negative when being offered a job delivering things around London, Lane tells me over a cup of black coffee at a branch of Leon, the chain where he often used to pick up super-food salads to despatch to customers.

In June last year, eight months in to his new life as a cycle courier, Lane also began to work for UberEats, part of the American car-hailing company Uber. He was lured by its higher rates and it was just as well. Within weeks, Take Eat Easy ran out of money and ceased trading. A blog post by the companys co-founder Adrien Roose marked the closure: On-demand delivery is dead. Long live on-demand delivery.

The offer from UberEats proved too good to be true, Lane says. At the start, it was offering up to 20 an hour for deliveries. Then the company changed its payment structure so that riders received a fee per delivery, and his hourly earnings fell substantially as a result. Lane now sees the early lucrative shifts as a cynical attempt by UberEats to lure couriers away from the competition.

They wanted to destroy Deliveroo, he says, speaking softly with a Shropshire accent, referring to the fast-growing British food delivery firm.

UberEats says that the incentives were meant to be only temporary and were communicated as such. The company insists that its couriers still make between 9 and 10 an hour on average. But the couriers and logistics branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain says the hourly rate falls by at least 2 once insurance, cycle repairs and all-weather clothing are factored in.

It was not just the reduction in wages that angered Lane. He was dismayed by UberEatss lack of support for its couriers when, for instance, there was a problem with an order: There is a call-centre number . . . but all they will do is tell you to keep calling the customer and wait 15 minutes before cancelling the delivery. Moreover, he says, the company would deactivate couriers accounts, stopping their work, without warning or reason. (The response from UberEats is: We take any decision to deactivate a courier very seriously and this is always done as a last resort following a breach of our partner terms. Courier partners are always made aware of this decision.)

Lane, who is 28 and single, and has no children, knows that he is better off than his co-workers with dependants. I dont know how people manage with children on this wage, he says. Nonetheless, he has had to reduce his expenditure, budgeting carefully for everything. I drastically cut down on social activities so most of my money goes on food shopping and bills.

***

Michael Lanes move into the food delivery business was a dispiriting introduction to the gig economy, the term used to describe a workplace dominated by digital labour platforms such as Uber, Deliveroo, Freelancer, Fiverr and TaskRabbit, on which independent workers are matched with jobs or rather, tasks and gigs: everything from deliveries to cleaning and graphic design work. For the workers, the flexibility and the lack of barriers to entry are appealing. They can just log on to an app on their phone and start working.

Estimates of the number of gig workers vary. The term has been used to describe everyone from a freelance consultant to a person letting out a room on Airbnb. Recent research by McKinsey Global Institute found that 20 to 30 per cent of the working-age population in the United States and the European Union, or up to 162 million people, engage in independent work. If you look solely at those using on-demand, online work platforms for paid gigs, it is far smaller just 6 per cent of the independent workers surveyed. However, the report said, this is a trend that cannot be ignored.

Digital platforms are transforming independent work, building on the ubiquity of mobile devices, the enormous pools of workers and customers they can reach, and the ability to harness rich real-time information to make more efficient matches, the report said.

But is it a positive trend? Some argue that the platforms liberate those who use them, giving them an opportunity to be their own boss. Others criticise the digital companies for making work more precarious and for mislabelling workers as self-employed thereby shirking their duty to pay tax, decent wages and benefits.

If Lane was sick or if he got knocked off his bike, for instance, he would receive no compensation for time away from work. UberEats (like the Uber car service) is attractive to workers, he says, because they can start work at any time. But you would make virtually no money unless you worked peak hours at lunchtime and evening.

Some claim that the much-vaunted flexibility of the gig economy isnt always what it seems. When my colleague Izabella Kaminska tried working as a Deliveroo courier, she found that workers were expected to work mandatory shifts and could not opt out without a penalty. She was also told she would need to give notice if she was on holiday and expecting to skip the shifts. (Deliveroo maintains that the work is flexible.)

As Hillary Clinton put it in 2015: This on-demand or so-called gig economy is creating exciting economies and unleashing innovation. But it is also raising hard questions about workplace protections and what a good job will look like in the future.

In October, Theresa May ordered a review of workers rights in Britains gig economy, saying she wanted to be certain that employment regulation and practices are keeping pace with the changing world of work. Matthew Taylor, the chief executive of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) and former chief of policy to Tony Blair, has been given the job of leading the review.

Taylor is wary of the doom-mongers talking down the gig economys strengths, which he says are a high participation rate and flexibility. The growth in self-employment, he told me, is driven not only by employers imposing new work arrangements but also by workers seeking autonomy and a good work-life balance.

What we want is a labour market which is productive and suits employees and employers, Taylor argues. Its a complex issue: Some people like piecework. You can decide on the intensity of your work. What doesnt work is if you cant earn the minimum wage. You dont want to incentivise behaviours that are not economically productive or fair to workers: we dont want to reduce innovation and flexibility.

Yet, for all the attention the gig economy has received, some argue that the only thing new is the name. Hannah Reed, the Trades Union Congress senior policy officer for employment rights, says: These casual working terms are an extension of old practices, just accelerated by technology.

***

The company that is the lightning rod or poster child, depending on your point of view for the on-demand economy is Uber. The ride-hailing app, which was launched seven years ago in California, is privately owned and was recently valued at $68.5bn. Since 2009 it has established operations in almost 550 cities worldwide, disrupting the taxi business and attracting sharp criticism and protests from established cab drivers, who complain that Uber is pushing down fares while avoiding costly taxes and regulations.

Last month Travis Kalanick, its chief executive, apologised after he was filmed arguing with an Uber driver who complained about his earnings. You know what, some people dont like to take responsibility for their own shit, Kalanick told the driver. They blame everything in their life on somebody else. Good luck!

Uber has also drawn protests, including court action, from its drivers. In October, an employment tribunal in London found that its drivers were workers and had been mislabelled as self-employed; consequently, the drivers were entitled to rights including the minimum wage and paid holiday. The tribunal ruling said that Uber had been resorting in its documentation to fictions, twisted language and even brand new terminology. The notion that Uber in London is a mosaic of 30,000 small businesses linked by a common platform is to our mind faintly ridiculous, the judges said.

This dispute was one of a number of tussles around the world between Uber and various courts and regulators, trying to determine whether drivers for the firm were employed or self-employed. In the UK, employment law offers another category: that of worker, the one in which the tribunal placed Uber drivers. Workers enjoy some employment rights, such as holiday pay, and the right to receive the minimum wage, but lack others, such as the right to claim unfair dismissal and redundancy settlements.

Annie Powell, an employment solicitor at the specialist law firm Leigh Day, who worked on behalf of the GMB trade union on the case, says that Uber is one of many firms operating in the gig economy that are not complying with the law. Lots of companies appear to be mislabelling their staff as self-employed and denying them their rights, she told me.

The tribunal decision has emboldened others, including Deliveroo riders, to mount legal challenges to their status as independent contractors.

Uber said it will appeal the UK employment tribunal ruling, asserting that its drivers should not be classed as self-employed. Jo Bertram, the companys regional general manager in the UK, says: Tens of thousands of people in London drive with Uber precisely because they want to be self-employed and their own boss. The overwhelming majority of drivers who use the Uber app want to keep the freedom and flexibility of being able to drive when and where they want.

Before the ruling, Uber published its own survey, together with the market research firm ORB International, based on interviews with 1,000 licensed private hire drivers across the UK who use the Uber app. More than three-quarters of the drivers said that being self-employed and able to choose their own hours was preferable to having the perks of employment, such as holiday pay. According to the survey, 94 per cent of drivers said they joined Uber because I wanted to be my own boss and choose my own hours. Just 6 per cent said they joined because I couldnt find other work.

Steve Rowe, a 66-year-old part-time Uber driver in London, is concerned about the implications of the employment tribunal ruling. I was dumbfounded by the case, he says. Self-employment has been normal for private hire firms. Minicab companies put customers in touch with drivers, just the same as Uber.

Having been a self-employed businessman for decades, Rowe took time out of the workforce to look after his three children after his wifes death. Today he drives for Uber part-time while juggling various creative projects. His fear is that the ruling will force the tech firm to put its prices up, which, in turn, will reduce demand.

But Asif Hanif, 45, an Uber driver who is a GMB member, welcomed the ruling, which he sees as important not just for his peers at the ride-hailing app, but for the broader gig economy, too. Why should we have to turn to tax credits when a company is abusing the workforce?

As in the food delivery business, the drivers and the tech firms that pay them disagree on how much they earn. Hanif says that drivers can earn less than the minimum wage, once Uber has taken its commission and he has paid for his car insurance, fuel and other running expenses.

Uber insists that the average payment is 16 an hour after its service fee. Maria Ludkin, a GMB legal director, says this does not represent the position for the hundreds of drivers we represent. Hanif, who has two young children and is on tax credits, says the temptation for drivers is to work long hours. This is risky behaviour for drivers and passengers and it puts workers in a bubble, cut off from their families and society.

The Uber decision has also highlighted the vexed issue of how to define self-employment. Citizens Advice, the charity that advocates on welfare and consumer matters, has produced research indicating that up to 460,000 people could be falsely classified as self-employed when their status should be that of employee or worker. And as such, the government is missing out on tax and employer national insurance contributions. The discrepancy was addressed in the spring Budget in the Chancellors proposed increases to National Insurance contributions for the self-employed.Philip Hammond subsequently dropped the plans following an outcry from Conservative MPs.

Matthew Taylor of the RSA says that probing employment status, particularly at a time of austerity, is important because of the cost to the public purse. If an average worker moves from being employed to self-employed, doing the same work on the same remuneration, it costs the Exchequer up to 3,000 a year in lost revenue.

***

While aspects of the gig economy can be traced to the past, one that is new is the clever technology. Consumer gratification can be met instantly by workers with smartphones: downloading an app, as Michael Lane discovered, was all it took to start work. Yet he also found the tech that matches couriers with hungry customers and setsthe rate and routes, in effect replacing the old radio-controller role, to be alienating. It meant that he rarely met or spoke to colleagues. There was no staff room in which to let off steam or chat about the spring sunshine, no ongoing relationship with a line manager.

In a normal courier company . . . people both love and hate their controllers, he said, and either way there was at least a human connection. If the tech went wrong, there was nowhere to vent, he says. Couriers just had to deal with it.

As Julian Sayarer, a former bike courier whose book, Messengers, recounts his experiences in the industry, says: Where once sacking a worker was a very loaded move, the new, clinical deactivation seems quite clear evidence of the perils of app-based employment without any human ties.

Amy Wrzesniewski, a professor of organisational behaviour at the Yale School of Management, says that gig workers are more susceptible to anxiety than employees. Organisations are a good home base for parking peoples anxiety, she says. Membership of an organisation tethers people. She worries that, with faceless technology, workers divest from the relational investment and are cast adrift.

Cathy ONeil, the author of Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy, believes that tech brings both advantages and disadvantages for workers. It can be clarifying if its fair and consistent. Or it could be a way of distancing responsibility. Algorithms, she notes, can be like the hand of God. Its a tool of power. They are built to optimise results for the company . . . If they cause suffering for the workers, they are often ignored. The mistakes that get corrected are the ones that cost the company.

In August, after two months of working for UberEats, Lane left though leaving just involves not logging on to the app. He moved to become a courier at Gophr, an on-demand delivery service aimed at business clients that allows cyclists, motorcyclists and van drivers to log in for work over their smartphone. Though the app is similar to UberEats and Take Eat Easy, Lane was heartened by the companys responsiveness to couriers concerns and problems.

Seb Robert, Gophrs founder, says that it has been his ambition to do right by couriers in what we viewed as a very exploitative industry. This is a noble aim, but the company has not met its goal of paying its couriers the London Living Wage of 9.75 an hour. The problem, Robert says, is that the industry is fiercely competitive and most customers are unconcerned about the couriers wages. Their primary motivation when finding a courier service is getting the cheapest price. They tend not to think too much about the quality of the service, much less the couriers quality of life.

So, though in many ways this is a great time to be a consumer, with access to cheap on-demand services, it may not be so great for the people doing the work. Asif Hanif, the Uber driver, thinks that consumers expectations are too high; cab journeys, which were once a luxury, are now cheap.

Robert said that Gophr called nearly 700 companies that were London Living Wage-accredited to find out if they would like to use a courier service that paid fair rates to its delivery workers. A handful of firms signed up, including one large corporation that had made the Living Wage a priority for 2016. It requested one job a day so that it could fulfil the Living Wage requirements. Five months later, it stopped using Gophrs services. Were not that expensive in general, but would certainly come out more expensive for companies who do hundreds of jobs a day, Robert says.

Jason Moyer-Lee, the general secretary of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, believes that companies can be persuaded to pay a bit more. My experience has been that when it is put to customers that they are complicit in exploitative labour practices, they often do care.

Even if that ever happens on a large scale, it is unlikely to occur overnight. And the likes of Lane cannot afford to wait. When I caught up with him again in January, I discovered he had moved to a courier company that pays a daily rather than a piece or hourly rate, because he could not bear the anxiety over the fluctuations in his earnings. He does not think the work will be sustainable unless the law changes soon in favour of gig economy workers, leading to better wages and holiday pay. If I end up sick or injured Ihave no protection, he says. I wouldnt be able to afford to live.

Emma Jacobs is a features writer for the Financial Times

View original post here:

The gig economy: freedom from a boss, or just a con? - New Statesman

The annual fte between the White House and reporters who keep tabs on it has taken another strange turn under the media-bashing leadership ofDonald Trump.

Time Inc. and People magazine have canceled an annual cocktail party held prior to the White House Correspondents Dinner to promote freedom of the press instead. The publications affair usually includes a smattering of celebrity guests.

This year we have decided to focus on supporting the White House Correspondents Association, which plays a crucial role in advocating for the broadest possible access for the press at the White House, Alan Murray, Time Inc.s chief content officer, said in a statement provided to The Huffington Post. News and culture outlets Vanity Fair, The New Yorker and Bloomberg have also canceled partiessurrounding the dinner.

Over the past couple years, the Time/People partyhas attractedthe likes of Karlie Kloss, Vivica A. Fox, Gina Rodriguez, Tracee Ellis Ross, Laverne Cox and Jesse Tyler Ferguson. The event, affectionately labeled nerd prom by some, is known for its hefty swag bags that consistently exciteWashington Post reporters.

While Time will still participate in the dinner, People will instead make a donation to the White House Correspondents Association.

The 2017 correspondents dinner is already expected to be an unusual one for one big reason: The president wont be there.

Trump, who has called the mediathe enemy of the people,tweeted last month his decision to skip the event, which serves as a show of good faith between the press and the administration. It is still scheduled for April 29.

The same day, however, Full Frontal host Samantha Bee will host an alternative event. Aptly titled Not the White House Correspondents Dinner, Bee will welcome an unknown number of guests in Washington hours before the black-tie affairin order to properly roast the president, she told The New York Times in January.

Featuring a menu of bottomless cocktails and assloads of fancy fingerfoods, The Hill reports, proceeds from Bees event will go to the Committee to Protect Journalists, a nonprofit dedicated to press freedom.

More here:

People Cancels Annual Correspondents' Dinner Event In The Name Of Press Freedom - Huffington Post

In his letter on March 15, Bret Reinthaler makes many false assumptions. When he concludes that liberals are uncaring, he couldn't be further from the truth. When he assumes all we care about is what Trump puts on his steak or what Ivanka is doing, he is demeaning the intelligence of all proud Democrats. The word liberal to me means being respectful of individual rights and freedoms.

As for his assertions that Hillary Clinton should be held accountable for Benghazi and her use of a private email server, I say, hasn't this dedicated and caring public servant been dragged through the mud enough? The Republican party held hearing after hearing and never found her personally culpable of any wrongdoing. Also, the FBI looked into the email situation and concluded there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute. Still, the phrase "Lock her up" continues! So much for being innocent until proven guilty. If she has broken the law, the Republicans would have locked her up by now.

Most Democrats are very concerned that our country's electoral process was compromised by Russian hacking and many think this tainted our election to the point of influencing the outcome. I, for one, may never again have confidence in our voting system.

We need to have a complete and impartial investigation into the numerous allegations of contact and possible collusion between Russian operatives and members of the Trump administration. We need to know the truth. The Republican party may be the Russians next target. Where is your outrage conservatives?

William Owen, Bloomington

Continued here:

Liberals are caring, respect freedom - Bloomington Pantagraph

Geert Wilders said he still wants his anti-Islam Freedom Party to be part of talks on a new coalition government in the Netherlands, striking a defiant tone after his failure to make significant gains in last weeks elections as informal talks got under way.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte, whose Liberals remain the largest group in parliament, repeated that he wants Wilderss party, known as the PVV in Dutch, to be excluded the from coalition talks.

Photographer: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg

Wilders, whose Freedom Party gained five extra seats in the lower house in The Hague to become the second-largest, told Liberal Health Minister Edith Schippers, whos leading the first informal talks, on Monday that barring the Freedom Party from the coalition talks would be undemocratic.

The PVV deserves a place at the negotiation table, Wilders saidin a tweet to which he attached a note to Schippers, whos been appointed by the speaker of the lower house as the so-called scout to take the first soundings on the next government.

The process of forming a new coalition after a Dutch election is highly choreographed. Amid increasing political fragmentation, at least four parties will be needed to get to a 76-seat majority in the lower chamber this time round. Schippers was meeting Monday with the leaders of all 13 parties that won seats.

Wilders said he wants Schippers to explore a coalition that consists of Ruttes Liberals, the Freedom Party, the Christian Democrats, the 50Plus party that appeals to older voters, the reformed protestant SGP, which does well in the conservative Christian Bible Belt, and a smaller populist group, the Forum for Democracy.

Rutte has a different view -- he told reporters after his meeting with Schippers that he wants a stable majority cabinet that includes the Christian Democrats and the centrist, pro-European Union D66 party. The three have 71 seats between them.

The Liberals took 33 seats in the 150-member chamber, followed by Wilderss party on 20 seats. The Christian Democrats and the D66 each won 19 seats.

The rest is here:

Wilders Wants Freedom Party to Be Part of Dutch Coalition Talks - Bloomberg

Fox News host Chris Wallace pointed out to House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) on Sunday that his plan to reform the health care system would crush older Americans by forcing them to either drop insurance coverage or pay thousands more.

During a Sunday interview, Wallace said that 24 million fewer Americans overall would have insurance under the Ryan plan in 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

You said that part of that is that this is what freedom looks like, Wallace recalled. But is the major decrease in the number of people according to the CBO who will have health insurance, is it freedom or is it that some people will no longer be able to afford health insurance under your plan?

Wallace noted a CBO estimate which said that a 64 year old making less than $27,000 a year will pay $14,600 a year for health insurance instead of the $1,700 they pay now under President Barack Obamas law.

What theyre saying is that this isnt freedom, this isnt people voluntarily deciding not to have health insurance, Wallace remarked. Its that your plan makes it unaffordable for people.

Ryan argued that Obamacare was not going to last, and he agreed that older people were not getting enough assistance under his plan.

Were not going to make people buy something thats so expensive that they cant afford, that the market is not going to offer, the Speaker insisted. And so where I dispute that comparison is it suggests that were going to have the same kinds of plans being offered in 10 years that Obamacare would otherwise offer.

The person in their 50s or 60s does have additional health care costs than, say, a person in their 20s and 30s, Ryan continued. Youre right in saying and we agree we believe we should have even more assistance and thats one of the things were looking at for that person in their 50s and 60s.

So, youre going to change the plan? Wallace pressed.

That is among the things were looking at doing, yes, Ryan replied cagily. And the point I would say is, were going to let people buy what they want to buy. Were going to have more plans being offered, more choice and competition.

Watch the video below from Fox News Sunday, broadcast March 19, 2017.

Continued here:

'This isn't freedom': Chris Wallace grills Paul Ryan for plan to crush seniors with health care costs - Raw Story