SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
June, 20 2023, 12:02pm EDT
Contact:
press@sanders.senate.gov
Chairman Sanders Opens Sweeping Investigation into Amazon Warehouse Safety and Calls for Amazon Workers to Share Their Stories
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), sent a letter today to Amazon Chief Executive Officer Andy Jassy initiating a HELP Committee investigation into the abysmal safety record in Amazon’s warehouses and the company’s treatment of workers who are injured in those warehouses. Sanders also published a website where Amazon workers can submit stories about their experiences at the company to help inform the Committee’s investigation.
In the letter, Sanders wrote, “The company’s quest for profits at all costs has led to unsafe physical environments, intense pressure to work at unsustainable rates, and inadequate medical attention for tens of thousands of Amazon workers every year.”
“Amazon is one of the most valuable companies in the world worth $1.3 trillion and its founder, Jeff Bezos, is one of the richest men in the world worth nearly $150 billion,” Sanders wrote. “Amazon should be one of the safest places in America to work, not one of the most dangerous. If Amazon can afford to spend $6 billion on stock buybacks last year, it can afford to make sure that its warehouses are safe places to work. If Amazon can afford to pay you $289 million in total compensation over the past two years, it can afford to treat all of its workers with dignity and respect, not contempt. The time has come for Amazon to stop willfully violating workplace safety laws with impunity and commit to changing its operations to protect the health and safety of its workers.”
Sanders emphasized that the immense wealth amassed by the company and its executives is directly tied to the decisions to force workers into these unsafe environments, writing, “In its endless pursuit of profits, Amazon sacrifices workers’ bodies under the constant pressure of a surveillance system that enforces impossible rates. When faced with worker injuries, Amazon provides minimal medical care… This system forces workers to endure immeasurable long-term pain and disabilities while Amazon makes incredible profits from their labor.” Those decisions also contribute to the company’s turnover rate, which has regularly been as high as 150 percent per year.
Congress cannot allow this to continue. Sanders is demanding that Amazon provide information about the high injury and turnover rates at Amazon’s warehouses, the connection between the extremely fast pace of work demanded of Amazon’s workers and these injury rates, and the inadequate medical care provided at Amazon’s on-site medical clinics.
Amazon’s warehouses remain uniquely unsafe even as regulators have repeatedly cited the company for violations of federal workplace safety laws. The company’s employees suffered more serious injuries than all of the other warehouse workers in the country combined in 2022, despite Amazon only employing approximately a third of the country’s warehouse workers. Amazon’s serious injury rate is double the warehousing industry’s average. The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and state regulators have provided Amazon with measures it could adopt to comply with workplace safety laws and make its warehouses safer. Amazon has chosen to disregard the vast majority of those recommendations.
When Amazon workers are inevitably injured, the letter notes, the company has a documented history of failing to provide adequate medical care. Instead, significant reporting indicates that the company’s on-site medical clinics under-treat and underreport injuries in an effort to push workers back onto the warehouse floor as quickly as possible and downplay the number of serious injuries employees suffer.
Sanders is also asking Amazon workers to submit stories about their time at the company through a webpage available HERE. The submissions are confidential and will help the HELP Committee investigate how the company fails to protect workers and evades responsibility for their necessary medical care.
Read the full letter, here.
LATEST NEWS
Major Media Reform Group Says Goodbye to Musk's 'Toxic Twitter'
"It's clear that X will not correct course under Musk's leadership, and it's time for Free Press to exit."
Nov 15, 2024
Media watchdog Free Press announced on Thursday that it would leave the social media platform formerly known as Twitter over concerns about owner Elon Musk's platforming of hateful speech, fostering an increase of disinformation, and his intensifying harassment of critics
In doing so, the advocacy group joined the more than 100,000 U.S. users who have abandoned Musk's X following Donald Trump's victory in the presidential election last week. Musk aggressively used the site to boost Trump and his campaign, promoting him with tweets worth $24 million and spreading disinformation about the Democratic Party and the integrity of U.S. voting infrastructure.
"For years, Free Press has sought to hold social-media companies accountable for amplifying hate and lies that undermine public health, safety, and democracy. We have pushed for meaningful reforms that would protect users and have extensively documented the platforms' failures. None of these companies has fallen so low as X under Elon Musk's ownership," the group wrote in their departure announcement.
"Musk has turned X into a propaganda machine for racists, misogynists, xenophobes, antisemites, and transphobes."
"Free Press will no longer be posting on X, effective immediately, and we invite you to join us in ceasing activity on Musk's platform," they continued. "We refuse to give X any legitimacy."
When Musk took control of Twitter over two years ago, he reinstated the accounts of white supremancists and conspiracy theorists. About a month into his tenure, he made his the first social media platform to allow Trump to post again following the January 6, 2021 insurrection.
"Free Press is committed to ensuring that people have a voice in the decisions that shape our media system. Musk, quite simply, only wants to amplify himself and others who share his far-right, bigoted values," Free Press co-CEO Jessica J. González said in a statement. "Musk has turned X into a propaganda machine for racists, misogynists, xenophobes, antisemites, and transphobes. His continued mismanagement of the platform has endangered people on the receiving end of his abuse and threatened our democracy."
When Musk first took the reins at Twitter, Free Press and other groups met with him to discuss how to protect users from harassment. When it became clear that Musk was not taking the problem seriously, Free Press joined with other organizations in mobilizing an advertising boycott via the #StopToxicTwitter campaign. Ultimately, the site's value dipped by $35 billion. Musk responded by suing or threatening to sue scholars and advocates who criticized the platform's direction.
"Through our research, organizing, and reporting, Free Press has fought to reform X," González said. "We remember the potential that it once had, giving ordinary people the means to speak directly to power and build community. But it's clear that X will not correct course under Musk's leadership, and it's time for Free Press to exit."
Independent research found that X's U.s. usership had declined prior to Trump's win, with the segment of the population who reported using the site dropping by nearly one-third between 2023 and 2024. The site saw its largest single-day post-Musk drop in U.S. users on the day immediately after the election, with over 115,000 million people deactivating their accounts. The platform also lost over 281,600 users worldwide. At the same time, competitor Bluesky gained 1 million users in the week after the election.
X also saw its highest U.S. traffic for the year on November 6, at 46.5 million. How these two trends will balance each other out in the coming months remains to be seen, as Similarweb's David Carr recently wrote:
Some users swearing off the X service will presumably stop using it, or use it less, without necessarily deactivating their accounts. Whether there will be a measurable decrease in the audience for X as the result of politics remains to be seen. By the weekend, X usage had tapered off to a more typical level over the past year.
On the other hand, X's recent daily peak in U.S. traffic doesn't make up for the erosion in audience the service has seen over the past couple of years since Musk took ownership of the service.
In the week following the election, several prominent journalists, activists, and authors have also announced their departure from X, including climate advocate Bill McKibben, historian Heather Cox Richardson, novelist Stephen King, journalism professor Jay Rosen, and media outlet The Guardian.
"This is something we have been considering for a while given the often disturbing content promoted or found on the platform, including far-right conspiracy theories and racism," The Guardianexplained on Wednesday. "The U.S. presidential election campaign served only to underline what we have considered for a long time: that X is a toxic media platform and that its owner, Elon Musk, has been able to use its influence to shape political discourse."
Journalist Don Lemon gave an extra reason for his decision to abandon the platform: new terms of service taking effect on Friday that require all lawsuits brought against the company be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas rather than the Western District.
"As The Washington Post recently reported on X's decision to change the terms, this 'ensures that such lawsuits will be heard in courthouses that are a hub for conservatives, which experts say could make it easier for X to shield itself from litigation and punish critics,'" Lemon said.
However, not all critics of Musk and Trump are ready to abandon the site.
"I haven't left X/Twitter—at least not yet, anyway—despite its morally unconscionable management by Musk, because I believe that in this moment of national crisis those of us who want a better America need to stay connected any way we can, and a lot of friends are currently still there," wrotePhiladelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch. "But building a new, engaged social network on Bluesky is going to bea major focus going into 2025 as we look to rebuild American democracy from the ashes of what just happened."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Tlaib Demands Blinken Resign Over Failure to Hold Israel Accountable for Gaza Genocide
"No nation blocking U.S. humanitarian assistance can receive U.S. weapons," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib. "The Biden administration cannot pick and choose when they comply with our own laws."
Nov 15, 2024
Progressive Democratic Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib of Michigan on Thursday urged U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to resign for breaking federal laws against arming human rights violators by lavishing Israel with tens of billions of dollars in American weapons used to harm Palestinians—more than 150,000 of whom have been killed or maimed in Gaza.
Speaking on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., Tlaib—the only Palestinian American member of Congress—argued that "Secretary Blinken has continued to lie to Congress and should resign."
"U.S. law is very clear. No nation blocking U.S. humanitarian assistance can receive U.S. weapons," she stressed. "The Biden administration cannot pick and choose when they comply with our own laws."
The
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and Leahy Laws prohibit military aid to security forces that commit gross human rights violations, although in practice, the U.S. has sent weapons to many countries guilty of grave abuses, including the perpetrators of several genocides.
Tlaib disdainfully referred to the Biden administration's deadline for Israel to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza or face a possible suspension of arms transfers.
"I want to talk about, quote, Biden's 30-day humanitarian deadline," she said. "The Biden administration has continued to ignore reports from its own experts, international human rights organizations, and the United Nations that the Israeli government is blocking humanitarian aid in Gaza."
Although the deadline passed earlier this week without full Israeli compliance with any of the 19 demands made by Blinken and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, the State Department determined that Israel is not violating U.S. law, sparking global outrage.
"The Israeli government is using starvation as a weapon of war," Tlaib said.
Earlier this year, as Gazan children began dying from malnutrition and lack of medical care, the International Court of Justice in The Hague—which is weighing a South Africa-led genocide case against Israel—ordered Israeli authorities to stop blocking aid from entering Gaza. Critics accuse Israel of flouting this and two other Gaza-related ICJ orders.
Pointing to a photo of Yazan al-Kafarneh, a 10-year-old Gaza boy with cerebral palsy who died in March of malnutrition and lack of medical care, Tlaib continued: "Look at this picture. It is evident that blocking U.S. humanitarian aid... is happening, and it is a blatant violation... of the Foreign Assistance Act."
"The Israeli government is using starvation as a weapon of war."
"In a letter to the Israeli government on October 13, Secretary Blinken acknowledged that the Israeli government is violating U.S. law by blocking aid and gave them 30 days to comply," she noted. "The letter demanded that 350 trucks be allowed into Gaza per day. And guess what? According to Israel's own data and own government, only 57 trucks were allowed into Gaza per day in October."
"On November 1, top United Nations officials said, 'The entire Palestinian population in northern Gaza is at imminent risk of dying from disease, famine, and violence,'" she added. "This week... Secretary Blinken exposed his lie by announcing that there will be no change to any policy, despite admitting that the Israeli government has still failed to comply with all of their demands."
Members of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's far-right Cabinet have suggested that Blinken personally endorsed Israel's policy of bombing aid trucks.
Palestinian groups and individuals in Palestine and the U.S. unsuccessfully sued President Joe Biden, Blinken, and Austin for their failure to prevent and complicity in Israel's genocide.
Also on Thursday, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) condemned the Biden administration's failure to take any punitive action against Israel for its assault on Gaza, which a United Nations panel that same day called "consistent with the characteristics of genocide."
"Despite [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's failure to meet the United States' demands, the Biden administration has taken no action to restrict the flow of offensive weapons," Warren said in a statement. "The failure by the Biden administration to follow U.S. law and to suspend arms shipments is a grave mistake that undermines American credibility worldwide."
"If this administration will not act, Congress must step up to enforce U.S. law and hold the Netanyahu government accountable through a joint resolution of disapproval," Warren asserted, adding that she has endorsed resolutions led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and others aimed at blocking a series of proposed arms sales to Israel. Sanders said Wednesday that he will soon seek a floor vote on the resolutions.
"There is no longer any doubt," Sanders said Wednesday, "that Netanyahu's extremist government is in clear violation of U.S. and international law as it wages a barbaric war against the Palestinian people in Gaza."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Potentially Ominous Trend' for Press Freedom as Trump Wages Legal War on News Outlets
"Governments and powerful figures threatening journalists and media outlets with costly legal battles and bankruptcy is a common tactic against press freedom in repressive countries," said one journalist.
Nov 15, 2024
"The press freedom fire is at our door step now," said one Washington Post journalist on Thursday night after news broke that two months before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office, he has already begun to wage legal warfare against on the news media.
The Columbia Journalism Review (CJR)reported that days before the election, a lawyer for Trump, Edward Andrew Paltzik, sent a letter to The New York Times and Penguin Random House demanding $10 billion in damages for publishing articles and a book that were critical of the president-elect, who was convicted of 34 felony counts earlier this year.
Trump's legal team took issue with a book by Times journalists Susanne Craig and Russ Buettner titled Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success. They also said they were demanding damages over "false and defamatory statements" in the October 20 article "For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment" by Peter Baker and the October 22 piece "As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator" by Michael Schmidt.
The former article covered numerous wrongdoings by the president-elect and accusations against him, pointing out that he "is the only president in American history impeached twice for high crimes and misdemeanors, the only president ever indicted on criminal charges, and the only president to be convicted of a felony (34, in fact)," and that he has also boasted about sexually assaulting women and spearheaded numerous businesses that went bankrupt.
The latter article detailed comments by Trump's former chief of staff, John Kelly, who told the Times that the definition of fascism accurately describes Trump.
The president-elect himself said while campaigning that he planned to govern as a dictator only on "Day One" of his term in office.
"Governments and powerful figures threatening journalists and media outlets with costly legal battles and bankruptcy is a common tactic against press freedom in repressive countries."
Paltzik told the newspaper that the articles demonstrate the Times' "intention of defaming and disparaging the world-renowned Trump brand that consumers have long associated with excellence, luxury, and success in entertainment, hospitality, and real estate, among many other industries, as well as falsely and maliciously defaming and disparaging him as a candidate for the highest office in the United States."
The CJR reported that the Times responded to Paltzik's letter, telling him the newspaper stood by its reporting on Trump.
As Barry Malone, deputy editor-in-chief of the Thomson Reuters Foundation, said on social media on Friday, Trump's legal threats may be designed not to actually win billions of dollars in damages but "to tie the media up with time-consuming and often prohibitively expensive cases."
The Times and Penguin Random House threats were reported two weeks after Trump suedCBS News for another $10 billion, claiming an interview with Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost the November 5 election, was unfairly edited to present her in a positive light and qualified as "election interference."
CBS said it would "vigorously defend" its journalistic practices and called the lawsuit "completely without merit"—a similar response to the one by The Washington Post, which was accused by Trump on the same day of making an illegal in-kind donation to Harris.
Anne Champion, an attorney who has represented several journalists and CNN in legal cases initiated by Trump, told the CJR that the legal threats will likely have "a mental chilling effect" on reporters and news outlets in the United States as Trump prepares to take office.
"It is both conscious and unconscious," said Champion. "Journalists at smaller outlets know very well that the costs for their organization to defend themselves could mean bankruptcy. Even journalists at larger outlets don't want to burden themselves or their employees with lawsuits. It puts another layer of influence into the journalistic process."
Trump has a longstanding disdain for the media, saying numerous times during his first term that journalists were the "enemy of the people." During one campaign rally just before the election he said he wouldn't "mind" if reporters at the event were shot, and he called the media the "enemy camp" during his victory speech last week.
During his first term he also threatened to "take a strong look at our country's libel laws"—which are actually controlled by states, not the federal government—and ensure that "when somebody says something that is false and defamatory about someone, that person will have meaningful recourse in our courts."
The American Civil Liberties Union pointed out at the time that the First Amendment and the lack of federal libel laws would stand in Trump's way, but on Thursday Lachlan Cartwright wrote at CJR that "the drumbeat of legal threats signals a potentially ominous trend for journalists during Trump's second term in office."
As Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah noted on the social media platform Bluesky, "governments and powerful figures threatening journalists and media outlets with costly legal battles and bankruptcy is a common tactic against press freedom in repressive countries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular