Wednesday, February 1, 2017

Labor Unions Appear Set For More State-Level Defeats In 2017

By Todd Bookman
January 30, 2017

One consequence of Republican gains in the 2016 elections is playing out at the state level where organized labor appears likely to face big setbacks in the coming months.

Within days of convening this month, Kentucky lawmakers passed "right-to-work" legislation that prohibit labor unions from forcing non-union members to pay fees to the union.

It's the 27th state with such laws. State legislatures in Missouri and New Hampshire are also actively debating similar bills that could become law by February.

If all three states succeed in enacting "right-to-work" bills, it would be the most states rolling back union power in one year since 1947, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Success in New Hampshire would also make it the first state in the Northeast with a "right-to-work" law.

The bills are a further reflection of organized labor's falling clout. Just 10.7 percent of American workers belonged to a labor union in 2016, according to new data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, down from 20.1 percent in 1983, when the agency began tracking the data.

Over time, the legislation is also likely to further reduce the state-level clout of Democrats, who rely on union money and volunteers during election years.

'Personal Freedom'

Last fall, Republicans held onto the New Hampshire statehouse and their candidate, Chris Sununu, was elected governor. After that, GOP lawmakers quickly sprang into action. They passed a "right-to-work" bill in the state Senate this month with just one vote to spare, despite boisterous opposition from union members. The legislation now heads to the House, where Republicans hold a 50-seat majority.

"This is the Live Free or Die State. So we are about personal freedom, we are about personal liberty," said state Sen. Andy Sanborn, a Republican. "What makes a stronger statement than reaffirming the fact that you are not being compelled to have to pay into a union if you don't want to pay into it?"

In Missouri, enactment of the policy became inevitable after Republican Eric Greitens captured the governorship last year. The political newcomer made signing "right-to-work" a major priority.

"We miss jobs every year and we miss businesses every year because of not being right-to-work," said state Rep. Holly Rehder, the Republican who sponsored the bill in the Missouri House.

It's an argument echoed in New Hampshire, where business executives have said they plan to give the state another look if it passes "right-to-work."

"This law would provide a solid foundation for New Hampshire to begin building a reputation as a state that welcomes companies, along with the jobs, economic stability and growth that come with them," said Tom Sullivan, an executive at firearms maker Sturm, Ruger and Co. during a recent hearing.

'Free riders'

Still, just one-third of New Hampshire's approximately 62,000 union members work in the private sector with the other two-thirds belonging to public-sector unions (think teachers, government employees, public safety workers). With 9.4 percent of the workforce belonging to a labor union, New Hampshire is in the middle of the pack for union membership among U.S. states.

Opponents argue the laws create what's called a "free-riding" problem where non-union members reap the benefits of collective bargaining, such as higher wages and better benefits, without paying for it.

"It's just like you and I going out one night for a couple of beers. I choose the bar, we go out. We both have a couple of drinks," said Bobby Jones, which AFSCME Local 3657, a government worker union, "And then when the bill comes out, I pull out my wallet, and you don't reach for yours."

While Republicans and Democrats spar over the economic impact of the bill on wages and employment levels, its most visible impact may be during election season. Unions spent millions to successfully elect former governor Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, to the U.S. Senate even as they fell short in the gubernatorial race.

"Some people do view it as Republican payback against the role of unions in elections," said Dean Spiliotes, a political scientist at Southern New Hampshire University. "If you are reducing the level of funding through cutting their dues, that's going to have political impacts."


Virginia Beach-based Navy SEAL killed in Yemen identified

FOX8 NC
JANUARY 30, 2017

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. — A Virginia-based Navy SEAL was killed in action over the weekend, the Department of Defense said Monday.

William “Ryan” Owens died from wounds suffered during a raid against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula of Yemen on Sunday morning. Three other American service members were hurt during the raid.

Owens was 36 years old and was from Peoria, Illinois.

Fourteen Al-Qaeda members were killed during the raid, which was carried out by SEAL Team 6, CBS News reported. Others were killed as well, including the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar al-Awlaki, according to CBS News.

President Donald Trump released a statement about the raid:

“Americans are saddened this morning with news that a life of a heroic service member has been taken in our fight against the evil of radical Islamic terrorism. The sacrifices made by the men and women of our armed forces, and the families they leave behind, are the backbone of the liberty we hold so dear as Americans, united in our pursuit of a safer nation and a freer world. My deepest thoughts and humblest prayers are with the family of this fallen service member. I also pray for a quick and complete recovery for the brave service members who sustained injuries.”

A U.S. aircraft being used in the operation made a hard landing during the operation, according to the Department of Defense. The aircraft was then intentionally destroyed.







==========================================

If you believe that, then I have bridge in Brooklyn for sale!

13 Legal Actions Challenging Trump's Immigration Executive Order

By LAUREN PEARLE
JAMES HILL
Feb 1, 2017

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to suspend some immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries -- Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Iran and Libya -- for 90 days, halt the refugee program for 120 days and suspend the admission of Syrian refugees indefinitely.

Since the order was signed last Friday, at least 13 lawsuits have been filed around the country, including one from the state of Washington. Attorneys general in Virginia, Massachusetts and New York today announced their intentions to intervene in existing federal suits filed over the past weekend in their states.

Here are the lawsuits filed so far that challenge Trump’s executive order as of Tuesday, naming the president the Department of Homeland Security the border patrol and others as defendants. The Trump administration denies that the order targets Muslims and that it is a "ban" at all.



Lawsuits Filed Tuesday


Dr. Amer al Homssi, 24, a medical resident at the University of Illinois-Chicago/Advocate Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, has been stuck in Dubai since trying to board a Chicago-bound flight on Sunday, according to his complaint. A Syrian citizen who also holds legal residency in the United Arab Emirates, he was taken by U.S. pre-clearance security officers to secondary screening at Abu Dhabi International Airport, where officers cancelled his valid J-1 U.S. visa, citing the executive order. According to the complaint, the officers told Al Homssi there was nothing that could be done except to wait 90 days and then follow up with the U.S. embassy. Al Homssi risks losing his residency status in the UAE if he is not able to return to the U.S. to complete his medical residency. In that case, the complaint says, he may be forced to return to war-torn Syria, where he has never lived and where he hasn’t been since visiting when he was 17-years-old.

Philadelphia

Two Christian brothers, Basam Asali and Hassan Asali, and their families say they were detained at Philadelphia International Airport Saturday by Customs and Border Protection agents while trying to enter U.S. from Syria on lawful permanent resident visas (their brother, Ghassan Asali, is an American citizen). They claim they were given two options: return to Syria immediately or go to prison, their lawyer, Joseph Hohenstein said. The lawyer also said they were not given interpreters and there was no investigation into their case; they were simply asked if they were from Syria. They were returned to Syria and are now in Damascus, Hohenstein told ABC News.


Zakaria Hagig -- a Libyan Muslim student at the Community College of Denver who says in court papers he is a lawful resident and U.S. taxpayer -- filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Denver claiming that the order violates his religious and due process rights. In court papers, he says he “has a constitutional right to travel to Libya in the event of a family emergency, or other need, and return to the United States to continue his studies and work, and not be banned from reentry without justification and due process protections.”

Dallas

A writ of habeas corpus was filed on behalf of Labeeb Ibrahim Issa, who was allegedly "held against his will—in extreme pain in his wheelchair” by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, according to court documents. Issa was reportedly released after a 15-hour detention. The lawsuit claims that Issa worked for the U.S. Army in Iraq as a driver and performed general maintenance. In 2016, he was badly injured in a car accident in Iraq, after being targeted because of his work for the U.S. Army, the lawsuit claims. He was granted a Special Immigrant Visa after demonstrating “that he had experienced or was experiencing an ongoing serious threat due to his employment with the U.S. Government,” according to court papers. "Mr. Issa landed in Dallas hoping to find safety and freedom —- perhaps only a small token of thanks from our country in exchange for his extreme sacrifice for our country in its war efforts in his home country,” but was instead put through a terrible ordeal.

Lawsuits Filed Monday

State of Washington

Washington is the only state to file a lawsuit against Trump's executive order so far. The state's attorney general, Robert Ferguson, brought a case on behalf of the entire state against President Trump, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DHS Secretary John Kelly, Acting Secretary of State Tom Shannon and the U.S. to “protect the State - including its residents, its employers, and its educational institutions - against illegal actions of the President and the federal government.” The complaint alleges that the executive order is “separating Washington families, harming thousands of Washington residents, damaging Washington's economy, hurting Washington-based companies, and undermining Washington's sovereign interest in remaining a welcoming place for immigrants and refugees.” They claim if successful, the executive order will be deemed unconstitutional nationwide and ask for a restraining order to immediately stop all action pursuant to it. Amazon and Expedia filed declarations in the lawsuit describing the detrimental impact on their operations and employees. Ferguson asked the court to schedule a hearing within 14 days.

Chicago

Unnamed John Doe, an Iranian citizen and legal permanent resident of the U.S., who lives in Chicago with his family, claims he went home to Iran earlier this month to be with his ailing mother and was planning on returning to the U.S. in early February. He wasn’t, however, permitted to purchase a plane ticket for his return, he claims. According to the Chicago Tribune, the judge assigned to this case, U.S. District Judge Samuel DerYeghiayan, is an Armenian, born in Aleppo, Syria and the first Armenian immigrant to become a federal judge in the U.S.

Virginia


Under the Council On American Islamic Relations' banner, Muslim-Americans from around the country filed a constitutional challenge to Trump’s executive order, which they said “implements an impermissible religious gerrymander that divides foreign nationals, even those lawfully present inside the United States, into favored and disfavored groups based on their faith.” The suit accused the president of enacting a policy “that overtly discriminates against Muslims and officially broadcasts a message that the federal government disfavors the religion of Islam.” Some of the plaintiffs said the order would force them to return to their home countries where the lawsuit said “they will likely face persecution, torture and even execution simply because they are Muslim.” The lawsuit quotes Trump’s campaign rhetoric and calls the executive order “the legal manifestation of those bigoted views.”

Seattle

The American Immigration Council, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild filed a nationwide, class-action lawsuit in the District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who have filed visa petitions for their immediate family members who are nationals of the seven countries. The applicants have all gone through a lengthy and rigorous application and screening process and are seeking to be reunited with their families in the U.S., the lawsuit claims. “Since issuance of the executive order, immigrants have been unjustly blocked from entering the United States at airports all across the country. Now, federal government officials are blocking more family members before they even board their planes, and suspending or revoking all other visa applications,” according to the filing.

“Plaintiffs include Reema Dahman, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, who had filed a petition to bring her 16-year-old son, stranded in war-torn Syria, to the United States. The two have not seen each other since 2012. They are now at the last stage of processing, waiting only for an immigrant visa interview to be scheduled. But the president’s executive order has suspended immigrant visa interviews, putting safety and security further out of the boy’s reach and further delaying the boy’s reunification with his mother,” according to the plaintiffs’ press release.

“Plaintiff Juweiya Ali’s 6-year-old Somali son is also in limbo. Ms. Ali, a U.S. citizen, began the process to bring him to the United States from Somalia in August 2016. But they too now are left to worry that the visa process will remain suspended indefinitely,” according to the plaintiffs’ press release.

Lawsuits Filed Over the Weekend

The court ordered emergency stays in all the following cases. These are temporary orders that prevented the Customs and Border Protection, a division of DHS, from sending back those in detention who had made it to the U.S. or were en-route to the U.S. when the executive order was signed. These judges did not rule on the underlying legality or constitutionality of Trump’s executive order.

Brooklyn, New York

Two men from Iraq, Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, were detained overnight Saturday at JFK Airport. New York Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler and Nydia Velazquez appeared at the airport on Saturday to try to get the two men released, revealing that there were actually 12 people detained, including the two men from Iraq. New York District Court Judge Ann Donnelly issued a nationwide emergency stay that prevents detainees from being sent back.

Boston

Two Iranian nationals who are associate professors at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, lawful permanent residents of the U.S., and Muslims, were allegedly detained at Boston Logan Airport on Saturday after returning home from an academic conference. Judge Allison Burroughs granted a seven-day temporary restraining order and ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. Unlike the New York order, this does not apply nationally.

Dulles Airport, Virginia

Fifty to 60 lawful permanent residents of the United States allegedly were detained at Dulles International Airport on Saturday, and their lawyers claimed they were denied access to counsel. Judge Leonie Brinkema granted the plaintiffs' motion and issued a seven-day temporary restraining order granting detainees at Dulles International Airport access to counsel and prohibiting deportation of detainees. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on Monday, clarifying the class. The plaintiffs defined the class as "individuals with legal permanent resident status or who are traveling on valid U.S. immigrant visas who have been or will be either detained and/or coerced into signing a Form I-407."

Seattle


Saturday, two plaintiffs arrived at Sea-Tac Airport and were scheduled to be flown to Dubai. They were represented by the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which filed an Emergency Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and a motion for a temporary restraining order. The same day, Judge Thomas Zilly granted stay of removal (deportation) and enjoined the defendants from deporting the plaintiffs prior to further court orders.

California


A federal judge in California on Sunday granted a temporary restraining order preventing the U.S. government from deporting Ali Khoshbakhti Vayeghan, an Iranian man with a valid U.S. visa, who filed a lawsuit Saturday. But before the court had issued the ruling, Vayeghan had already been put back on a plane to Dubai to be removed to Iran. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ordered that US authorities bring Vayeghan back to the U.S. and to not stand in the way of admitting him to the country under the terms of his previously approved visa.

Apple is considering legal action against Trump's immigration ban and matching employee donations

Rob Price
2/1/2017


"Hundreds" of Apple employees are affected by President Trump's immigration ban — and the company is considering taking legal action.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, Apple CEO Tim Cook publicly railed against the ban on immigration from seven majority-Muslim countries.

"More than any country in the world, this country is strong because of our immigrant background and our capacity and ability as people to welcome people from all kinds of backgrounds. That's what makes us special," he said. "We ought to pause and really think deeply through that."

Cook said that the company is considering taking unspecified legal action ("we want to be constructive and productive") against the controversial executive order — something online retail giant Amazon is already doing.

Over the weekend, President Trump signed an executive order suspending the United States' refugee program and banning visitors from seven majority-Muslim countries, an evolution of his campaign promise of a Muslim ban. The move has provoked significant national and international protests, amid confusion over its implementation.

Much of technology industry is heavily opposed to the ban, with companies ranging from Google to Airbnb speaking out against it and pledging support to those affected. "Like many of you, I'm concerned about the impact of the recent executive orders signed by President Trump," Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg said. Netflix CEO Reed Hasting called the order "so un-American it pains us all." Google said at least 187 employees were affected by the ban.


In an internal memo to employees over the weekend, Apple CEO Tim Cook previously highlighted the fact that "Apple would not exist without immigration" — a reference to the fact that late cofounder Steve Jobs' father was a Syrian migrant. (You can read the full memo below.)

Apple is also matching employees' donations to relief funds 2-to-1, Cook told the WSJ. It's not clear whether Apple has put an upper limit on these matched donations, and we've reached out to the company for clarification.

The executive said that he is talking to "very, very senior people in the White House" about the ban. He didn't specify who, but he was spotted having dinner in Washington, D.C. in late January with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, a senior advisor to Trump.

Here's the full memo Apple CEO Tim Cook sent to employees about the immigration ban:

Team,

In my conversations with officials here in Washington this week, I've made it clear that Apple believes deeply in the importance of immigration -- both to our company and to our nation's future. Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do.

I've heard from many of you who are deeply concerned about the executive order issued yesterday restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries. I share your concerns. It is not a policy we support.

There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday's immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them. We’re providing resources on AppleWeb for anyone with questions or concerns about immigration policies. And we have reached out to the White House to explain the negative effect on our coworkers and our company.

As I've said many times, diversity makes our team stronger. And if there’s one thing I know about the people at Apple, it’s the depth of our empathy and support for one another. It’s as important now as it’s ever been, and it will not weaken one bit. I know I can count on all of you to make sure everyone at Apple feels welcome, respected and valued.

Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship. Our employees represent the finest talent in the world, and our team hails from every corner of the globe.

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, "We may have all come on different ships, but we are in the same boat now."


Tim

Japan policymakers reject Trump devaluation claims

2/1/2017

Japanese policymakers hit back on Wednesday at U.S. President Donald Trump's accusation of currency manipulation, stressing that Japan was abiding by a Group of 20 agreement to refrain from competitive currency devaluation.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe defended the Bank of Japan's massive stimulus program, saying it was intended to reflate the economy and was not currency manipulation.

"Bold monetary easing is a necessary policy to accelerate economic growth and the United States is doing the same thing," Abe told parliament on Wednesday.

"If Japan's economy improves, that's not a bad thing for the United States," he said, adding that he will explain this point when he meets Trump next week.

The dollar was on the defensive after Trump and his trade adviser, Peter Navarro, on Tuesday criticized China, Germany and Japan, saying they were devaluing their currencies to the disadvantage of the United States.

Senior Japanese officials, worried about the pain a rise in the yen could inflict on the export-reliant economy, scrambled to contain damage as the dollar hit a two-month low of 112.08 yen JPY= on Tuesday, following Trump's remarks.

The top government spokesman told reporters it was "absolutely not the case" that Japan was devaluing the yen to gain an unfair trade advantage.

"Japan is guiding policy in line with agreements made by the G7 and G20 countries. There will be no change to that stance," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga, one of Abe's closest aides and the point-person on economic policy.

Masatsugu Asakawa, Japan's top currency diplomat, told reporters that exchange-rates were determined by markets and were not being manipulated.

"As Bank of Japan Governor (Haruhiko) Kuroda has said repeatedly, Japan's monetary policy aims to achieve the domestic purpose of ending deflation. It's not aimed at currency rates," Asakawa, vice finance minister for international affairs, told reporters.

"If he is talking about currency intervention, Japan hasn't done any lately," he added, referring to Trump.

Kuroda later told parliament the central bank would continue to promote "powerful monetary easing" to achieve its 2 percent inflation target as quickly as possible.

Trump's comments suggest that currency policy will be among main topics at talks between Trump and Abe in Washington on Feb. 10. Japanese media reported the two may hold another meeting in Florida the following day.

WON'T BIND BOJ?

Japan has not intervened directly in the currency market since November 2011. However, the weak yen has been considered one of the few successes of Abe's "Abenomics" stimulus policies aimed at pulling the economy out of two decades of deflation.

As one of three "arrows" of Abenomics, the BOJ adopted a massive asset-buying program in 2013. It was praised for boosting exporters' profits and brightening business sentiment through a weak yen.

The yen has fallen 20 percent against the dollar since then, but is off its lows of around 125 yen to the dollar in 2015.

While the yen spiked in the middle of last year, as investors bought it as a safe haven against global risks, like Britain's decision to leave the European Union, it slid versus the dollar again as U.S. bond yields rose on market expectations of Trump's inflation-stoking policies.

Japanese policymakers have argued that the BOJ's ultra-easy monetary policy is solely aimed at beating deflation and did not go against a Group of 20 agreement to refrain from using monetary policy for currency devaluation.

"There's no reason for the U.S. to criticize our currency and monetary policies," said a Japanese government official with knowledge of currency policy.

Trump's comments are unlikely to bind the BOJ's hands on monetary policy, said Kazuo Momma, a former senior BOJ official, adding that policymakers would not consider easing unless the yen spiked well above 100 to the dollar.

"Trump's comments could continue to create short-term market volatility, but the BOJ shouldn't respond to each and every remark he makes," Momma, who retains close contact with incumbent policymakers, told Reuters.

Naoyuki Shinohara, a former International Monetary Fund executive and previously Japan's top currency diplomat, said pressure by Trump should not hinder any necessary monetary easing by the BOJ.


Asked whether yen-selling intervention could become an option if the yen kept rising in the wake of Trump's remarks, Shinohara said: "Intervention probably won't be too effective."

Dollar struggles after worst start to year in decades

By Jemima Kelly | LONDON
2/1/2017

The dollar recovered a little ground on Wednesday after recording its worst start to the year in three decades on concerns the United States was poised to ditch its two-decade-old "strong dollar" policy.

The greenback skidded 2.6 percent against a basket of major peers .DXY in January, its worst showing since 1987. It fell first on worries over signs of protectionism from U.S. President Donald Trump and then on mounting unease that the new administration is set on talking down the currency.

A senior trade adviser to the president, Peter Navarro, said on Tuesday that the euro was "grossly undervalued", sending the single currency soaring above $1.08 for the first time since early December EUR= and knocking the dollar index down almost 1 percent to a seven-week low.


Navarro's comments were followed by Trump himself, who complained that "every other country lives on devaluation" while the United States "sit(s) there like a bunch of dummies".

"The market is concerned about what it is he’s prepared to do to take care of these concerns about the dollar – that’s the issue that’s going to hang over the market," said Bank of New York Mellon currency strategist Neil Mellor.

"In some ways I think we’re heading for a mini re-run of last year, albeit for different reasons: everyone was geared up for dollar strength and then in the first quarter saw the dollar down."

Commerzbank currency strategist Esther Reichelt, in Frankfurt, said currency markets would be relatively calm on Wednesday ahead of the conclusion of the U.S. Federal Reserve's latest policy meeting, though with Trump grabbing much of the headlines, the meeting has been relegated to the sidelines.

The Fed is expected to keep interest rates unchanged in its first policy decision since Trump took office, as the central bank - along with the market - awaits greater clarity on his economic policies.

The lack of clarity over Trump's promised fiscal stimulus has been another factor that has weakened the dollar since the start of the year.

It had hit 14-year highs on the view that his policies would boost growth and inflation, leading to a faster pace of interest rate hikes, but it has fallen over 4 percent since then and is now trading less than 2 percent above its pre-election levels.

The dollar index traded less than 0.2 percent above the previous day's seven-week low on Wednesday, while the euro traded flat on the day just below $1.08.

Against the yen, though, the dollar was 0.4 percent higher at 113.25 yen JPY=.

Despite Tuesday's comments, which increased the prospect of Washington reversing the "strong dollar" policy advocated by presidents dating back to the Clinton administration, the U.S. currency still attracted demand.


"Trump is providing an opportunity for bargain hunters. The dollar ends up being sold on his statements, but ultimately it finds downside support as Treasury yields do not fall that much," said Masashi Murata, senior currency strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman in Tokyo.