Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes asked the court to toss her fraud conviction on Thursday in a last-ditch effort to avoid jail time, Bloomberg reported.
Holmes’s lawyer, Amy Saharia, claimed that the 38-year-old did not misrepresent her blood-testing startup Theranos to investors and did not know she was misrepresenting the company, according to Bloomberg.
Saharia also contended that prosecutors did not meet the standard for proving Holmes had criminal intent to commit fraud. Bloomberg noted that asking the court to toss a conviction is a common and often unsuccessful play by those convicted of white-collar crimes.
A federal jury found Holmes guilty of four counts of wire fraud in January. Holmes attracted numerous wealthy individuals to invest in her now defunct company, which claimed to be able to run multiple diagnostic tests with a single drop of blood.
Theranos COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani, Holmes’s second-in-command, was convicted of 12 counts of wire fraud in July for defrauding investors and patients, according to the Washington Post.
Source: TEST FEED1
Joe Biden wants to rewrite history.
Just recently, the president traveled to Wilkes-Barre, Pa., and gave a speech trying to convince voters that – suddenly, magically, overnight – he’s become very, very concerned about crime. That he and his Democratic colleagues are pro-police, despite what you might have heard and seen over the past several years.
Biden unveiled his “Safer America Plan,” hoping voters will forget Democrats’ many policies that have made America distinctly unsafe. Looking at data from 23 cities, homicides for the first half of 2022 jumped 39 percent from the same time in 2019, before the George Floyd protests changed everything. Robberies were 19 percent higher.
Biden’s sudden “super cop” persona is utter hogwash. It is a fiction driven by Democrats’ very real concern that they are being blamed for the crime spike horrifying much of the nation.
Polling shows crime to be one of voters’ top concerns this year, and Biden’s approval rating on the issue is one of his worst. According to a recent CBS poll, some 58 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the issue, while 42 percent approve. More importantly, 92 percent of respondents said that crime would be either very (67 percent) or somewhat (25 percent) important to how they will vote in the upcoming midterm elections.
Is it any wonder that Biden gets low marks on crime? This is the president who has said there is “absolutely” systemic racism in law enforcement and who ran for president promising to “Expand and use the power of the U.S. Justice Department to address systemic misconduct in police departments and prosecutors’ offices.”
Biden also ran for the Oval Office promising to “end cash bail,” an approach that is causing crime to soar in Democrat-led cities, where even violent offenders are released back onto the streets to commit more crimes.
Just recently in New York, an ex-con who sucker-punched and nearly killed a complete stranger was initially released without bail after his charges were downgraded to misdemeanors, despite the vicious attack being recorded on film and available to prosecutors. Thankfully, he eventually ended up behind bars.
Every day such offenses are reported, as average citizens wonder what has happened to common sense, and why they no longer feel safe.
It isn’t just homicides that are out of control. Voters are appalled by images of criminals sauntering out of stores carrying armloads of expensive items, while security guards stand idly by, afraid of being prosecuted by district attorneys more concerned about the rights of criminals than of victims.
Shoppers find everyday items in their local CVS stores under lock and key, put there by managers frustrated by the insolent crowd causally ransacking the shelves while calls to local law enforcement prove futile. Cops fear getting involved, especially since most of those arrested will be released within hours.
This slide into lawlessness took root during the summer of 2020, after the murder of George Floyd. Unruly crowds burned down buildings, looted stores and attacked cops in cities like Minneapolis and Seattle and mostly went unpunished. Democratic lawmakers and media types excused the violence that killed innocent bystanders and cost tens of billions of dollars in damages, refusing to step in and denounce the criminals taking advantage of the situation.
Biden, running for president, proposed restrictions on cops that would make their job harder. While mildly denouncing violence, Biden commended those protesting Floyd’s murder, which he described as a “wake-up call for our nation.” But he also said it was unacceptable “for our police… to escalate tensions or resort to excessive violence.” In other words, it was mostly the cops who were at fault.
Biden continues to walk that same line today, trying to sound tough on crime even as he appeases progressives who think cops are racist and that even murderers should be given a second, third, or, really, an infinite number of chances at rehabilitation.
But today Biden is president. It is he who has set the permissive tone undermining the country’s security. Look no further than the breakdown of the rule of law at the southern border, where the Biden administration has encouraged an unparalleled surge in illegal immigration into our country.
The president’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. In his speech in Pennsylvania, he denounced the “opioid epidemic” and specifically calls out drugs that have been “laced with fentanyl.” He skips right over the part where cracking down on drug overdoses also means closing the southern border, where most of that deadly drug enters the country. He fails to mention that in his first year as president, fentanyl-related deaths jumped 23 percent and that the deadly drug is now the number one cause of deaths among young people.
Biden wants it both ways. He says he’s “opposed to defunding the police” but also placates his progressive base by insisting that rules eliminating chokeholds and restricting no-knock warrants should be imposed nationwide.
None of what Biden offers will solve rampant crime in cities like New York and Chicago. We need to return to “broken windows” law enforcement, which works. But the president does not dare offend progressives in his party.
Biden closed his speech by confusing who was running for which office in Pennsylvania, a key swing state. Here are his words, from the White House transcript:
“But think about doing me a favor. Please, please elect the attorney general to the Senate [to be governor]. (Applause.) Elect that big ol’ boy to be governor [senator].”
Now do you feel more secure?
Liz Peek is a former partner of major bracket Wall Street firm Wertheim & Company. Follow her on Twitter @lizpeek.
Source: TEST FEED1
With the 2022 midterm elections looming, many campaigns are in full-swing trying to connect with voters. But at the local level, a lack of information about the voting process may inhibit some from participating, while a new report suggests these barriers could be exacerbated by a low presence of local election offices on social media.
According to research conducted on the 2020 election, the majority of local election offices throughout the country do not have a social media presence beyond that of Facebook, and for those that do, chances are candidates are not effectively reaching their audience, authors wrote.
Because younger adults have been moving away from Facebook as their preferred social media platform, the findings suggest these local offices might be missing a large swath of younger voters with their election information.
Previous research conducted by the report’s authors documented the positive impact social media can have on voters of all ages. In particular, their work shows that young voters are more likely to register to vote, cast ballots, and have their ballots counted when local election officials have and use their social media accounts to distribute voting information.
The current analysis reveals most offices are not on Facebook or Twitter.
In addition, few are on both Facebook and Twitter, while some use only one of the platforms.
America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.
Eight states, Alaska, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, were excluded from the analysis as elections are run by municipal officials not county staff.
California and Florida both had relatively large proportions of county election offices on both platforms surveyed, along with Ohio and Maryland. Several states including Oregon, Montana, South Dakota, Mississippi and others had no offices using both platforms. In North Dakota, no local election offices used social media in 2020.
At the time, just half of voters between the ages 18 and 29 voted in the presidential election, marking an 11 point increase from 2016 rates.
However, rates among this cohort continue to lag behind older voters, researchers explained.
“Even when they do try to vote, young voters face more barriers to participation than more experienced voters. They are more likely than older people to make errors or omissions on their voter registration applications and therefore not be successfully registered.”
Some of these issues may arise thanks to confusion around voter eligibility requirements under state election laws, while social media poses a potential solution to this challenge.
However, the platforms these offices use to distribute information will be instrumental, as more young individuals report a preference for Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, and SnapChat over Facebook and Twitter, researchers explained.
The primary method local offices use to distribute voting information is through their own government websites. “But young voters’ regular use of social media presents an opportunity for officials to be more active and engaged on those sites,” authors wrote.
“While many election officials around the country face budget and staffing pressures, as well as threats to their safety, our research confirms that when officials do get involved on social media, young voters benefit – as does democracy itself,” they concluded.
Source: TEST FEED1
Mississippi’s capital city is in the midst of a water crisis as recent torrential rain coupled with existing water infrastructure problems has cut off access to clean drinking water for most of the city’s residents.
The main water treatment facility for the city of Jackson, the O.B. Curtis Water Plant, failed in recent days, leaving residents with little to no reliably clean drinking or running water due to possible contamination and lack of pressure for days. City officials said areas in Jackson now have some pressure.
The crisis kicked off late last week after days of heavy rain caused the Pearl River to flood and disrupt treatment processes at the plant. State leaders have urged residents to avoid drinking tap water, and are distributing bottled drinking water and non-potable water to replace running water.
America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news.
Problems with the city’s water system, however, have been ongoing for years. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a Safe Drinking Water Act Emergency Administrative Order for the facility in 2020 after identifying compliance and maintenance deficiencies. Last year, some residents were left without water for several weeks due to a system-wide failure caused by freezing temperatures. Since July, city residents have been under a boil water advisory due to elevated chances water may contain “disease-causing organisms.”
President Biden on Tuesday declared an emergency in the state to free up federal resources to respond to the disaster. Officials are currently scrambling to restore access to safe drinking water, and Jackson Mayor Chowke Antar Lumumba said he’s optimistic drinking water will return this week.
How does flooding disrupt water systems?
Floods are the most common type of natural disaster in the U.S. and pose a significant threat to water systems by damaging crucial infrastructure and contaminating supply.
If excess stormwater manages to penetrate contained areas of a treatment facility, which is more likely to be the case in aging, deteriorating treatment plants, it can cause a range of issues, such as pumping failures, erosion and leakage into pipes.
“It’s a major problem when floodwaters actually get into the protected area of one of these plants,” Aaron Packman, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University, told Changing America.
“You can think about the need to pump water. If none of your pumps work, how do you pump out all that flood water that has gotten into your building, your basement, your utility rooms?”
In Jackson, pump failures left the water system without enough water or water pressure to move through city pipes. An emergency rental pump was installed at Jackson’s O.B. Curtis water-treatment plant Wednesday, restoring some pressure to some areas.
As floodwaters wash over areas of land that are typically dry, they collect pollutants such as soil, pesticides, oil, heavy metals, raw sewage and others. Contaminants then travel in high volume in floodwaters that can inundate drinking water wells or city water systems for days or weeks. Additionally, excess water makes it much more difficult for water treatment facilities to effectively treat water.
If water sources or parts of water distribution systems flood, hazardous contaminants that can cause serious illness may find their way into residents’ taps. Direct contact with flood water can cause gastrointestinal infections due to the prevalence of bacteria, viruses and parasites.
“The threat or damage to the treatment facility, the pumping failures and the contamination that goes with flooding are all a big part of the problem,” Packman said.
“Most waterborne disease outbreaks occur during extremes of water, mainly floods, but also droughts.”
Source: TEST FEED1
Conservative activist Ginni Thomas, the spouse of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, reportedly pressured several Wisconsin lawmakers to change the 2020 election results in the state, according to emails obtained by both The Washington Post and CBS News.
Ginni Thomas reportedly reached out to the chair of the Wisconsin Senate Elections Committee, state Sen. Kathy Bernier (R), and state Rep. Gary Tauchen (R). In emails sent to both lawmakers through the FreeRoots platform on Nov. 9, 2020, she said, “Please stand strong in the face of media and political pressure,” according to the Post, which obtained both emails through a public records request.
The Post obtained Thomas’s email to Tauchen from the Documented watchdog group.
“Please reflect on the awesome authority granted to you by our Constitution. And then please take action to ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen for our state,” Thomas reportedly told them.
The reporting comes several months after separate reporting showed that Thomas had reached out to nearly 30 Arizona state lawmakers to also press them to overturn the 2020 election results in the state, which Biden won as well. Thomas has not been formally subpoenaed by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, but members are considering doing so.
A Supreme Court spokesperson, Thomas and Thomas’s lawyer did not return requests for comment from the Post. Neither did Tauchen.
Bernier defended Thomas, telling the newspaper that the conservative activist “has a First Amendment right to speak her mind,” while also acknowledging she did not know the Supreme Court justice’s wife had emailed her following the last election.
Had voter fraud been found, Bernier told the Post they could have taken steps to decertify the election but said that no evidence of wrongdoing was ultimately found following the legal challenges.
The Hill has reached out to Thomas, her lawyer, a spokesperson for the Supreme Court and both Wisconsin state lawmakers for comment.
Source: TEST FEED1
Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (D) placed the state’s first legal sports bet on Thursday, wagering $15 that the Kansas City Chiefs will win the Super Bowl this year.
Kelly tweeted that she placed the bet at the Hollywood Casino in Kansas City, Kan.
“Let’s just say that I’m really hoping the @Chiefs win the Super Bowl this season — even more than usual,” she said.
The Kansas City Star’s Aarón Torres reported that the $15 bet was in honor of the jersey number of Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes. He said the odds on the bet were 10-1.
Kelly said in remarks at the casino that she has heard from Kansans across the state every day that they were “counting down the hours” until they can legally wager on sports and that she is “so glad” the moment has come.
Kelly signed bipartisan legislation making sports betting legal in the state in May and announced last month that the betting would begin on Sept. 1, just in time for the start of the NFL season, the Kansas City Star reported.
Kelly is in the midst of what is expected to be a tough reelection campaign against Republican state Attorney General Derek Schmidt.
Kelly is the only incumbent Democratic governor running for reelection this year in a state that voted for former President Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Control of the governor’s mansion in Kansas has shifted back and forth between Republicans and Democrats over the past several decades.
Kelly has also expressed interest in luring the Chiefs out of Missouri and into Kansas, potentially offering economic incentives. The Star reported that the franchise’s current lease at the Truman Sports Complex does not expire until 2031.
Chiefs President Mark Donovan has said that the team has considered “options” in Kansas.
The American Gaming Association reports that 30 states, plus Washington, D.C., have active, legal sports betting markets. The Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning sports betting in most states in 2018.
Source: TEST FEED1
The social cost of carbon is significantly higher than the federal estimate, according to a study published Thursday in the journal Nature.
Researchers put the financial toll associated with projected future carbon emissions at $185 per ton of carbon pollution added to the atmosphere, more than three times the federal government’s figure of $51.
They arrived at the conclusion in part by using a lower discount rate, or the cost-benefit analysis of reducing emissions now versus the future impacts of inaction. Lower discount rates result in higher estimates for the price of inaction.
“Our estimate, which draws on recent advances in the scientific and economic literature, shows that we are vastly underestimating the harm of each additional ton of carbon dioxide that we release into the atmosphere,” co-author Richard G. Newell, president and CEO of the think tank Resources for the Future, said in a statement.
“The implication is that the benefits of government policies and other actions that reduce global warming pollution are greater than has been assumed.”
The current federal social cost of carbon estimate is itself the Obama-era estimate. Upon taking office in 2017, the Trump administration dismantled the working group that made the estimate and announced a dramatically smaller estimate of $1 to $7 a ton.
The Biden administration has since restored the $51 estimate but has pledged to update the number. As of September 2022, no updated estimate has been published. The Hill has reached out to the White House for clarity on the timeline for an update.
The study is the second in as many years to suggest both the Trump and Biden administrations are substantially underestimating the cost.
A July 2021 study published in Nature Communications put the price even higher, at up to $258 per ton, by factoring in estimated excess deaths associated with increased emissions.
Source: TEST FEED1
California state lawmakers passed an array of climate bills late Wednesday as their legislative session ticked to a close and amid an ongoing heat wave that threatens to cripple the state’s electricity grid.
While advancing several climate measures, legislators also voted to extend the shelf life of a fiercely disputed nuclear plant — a move supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) as a reliable backup for California’s transition to clean energy.
“On the whole, this session was a huge win for our environment and public health,” Laura Deehan, state director for the group Environment California, said in a statement while voicing her disappointment about the nuclear plant decision.
“We have no need for this potentially dangerous power source given the unstoppable momentum toward a state running on 100 percent clean, safe and renewable power — momentum that will only grow given other bills that passed,” Deehan added.
Among the legislation to receive a green light and head to Newsom’s desk for a signature is SB-1020, which would require 90 percent of the state’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040. Those are interim targets toward a 100 percent goal for 2045 and all electricity procured for state agencies would need to come from clean energy by 2035, according to the bill.
A second key item to get a go-ahead was SB-1137, which would prohibit oil drilling within 3,200 feet of places where residents live, work and learn, if signed into law.
Other bills approved by the legislature would allocate significant funds to clean transportation and energy, establish a statewide carbon capture program and create an incentives-based plan to promote the use of sustainable aviation fuel.
Newsom has until Sept. 30 to sign or veto the legislation, although several of the items are part of his state climate package.
“California is lighting the way to a bright future powered by renewable energy, including wind, solar, and battery storage,” Deehan said.
“We know we will see even hotter heat waves, more severe droughts, and fiercer wildfires if we don’t act on climate,” she added. “The legislature took significant steps today to change that trajectory for the better.”
California Environmental Voters, a progressive environmental advocacy group, described 2022 as “a breakthrough year on climate action” in a statement issued after the legislative session wrapped up.
“After years of inaction, 2022 is an unprecedented year of climate leadership,” the group stated, acknowledging that there is more work to be done.
While environmental organizations largely applauded the legislature’s decisions, many groups expressed disappointment about other measures that did not receive approval.
A proposal to establish stricter emissions reduction targets — AB-2133 — passed the state Senate but failed to do so in the Assembly.
That legislation would have required a decrease in statewide greenhouse gas emissions to at least 55 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 — a significant jump from current law, which requires a 40 percent reduction by that time.
Perhaps the most contentious item, however, was a bill that gave a lifeline to the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant — SB-846 — which passed by 31-1 in the state Senate and 69-3 in the Assembly late into the night on Wednesday.
If signed into law, the bill would invalidate a previously approved plan under which Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) would retire the facility’s two units by 2024 and 2025. Instead, both units would be able to continue functioning until the end of 2030, per the text of the bill.
Earlier this month, Newsom proposed extending the plant’s life by five to 10 years, with the goal of maintaining a carbon-free, reliable power supply as the state transitions to solar, wind and other renewable sources of energy, The Associated Press reported.
Just hours prior to the legislature’s vote on Wednesday, Newsom declared a state of emergency and warned of possible strain on the state’s electricity grid this week, due to an ongoing heatwave that has been scorching much of the West. The governor asked Californians to decrease their consumption between 4 and 9 p.m. to minimize risks of outages.
Despite California’s need for more carbon-free electricity, environmental groups largely oppose the idea of keeping Diablo Canyon open — questioning both its seismic safety and the fact that the proposal includes forgivable loan for PG&E of up to $1.4 billion.
The days leading up to Wednesday’s vote involved intense lobbying from these organizations, while Newsom’s office was calling wavering legislators, the AP reported.
The 1960s-era plant, located halfway between Los Angeles and San Francisco, today generates about 9 percent of the state’s electricity, according to the AP.
“I’m not a proponent of the Diablo Canyon power plant. But I am a proponent of keeping the lights on,” Democratic Assemblymember Chris Holden said during his arguments for a bill, as reported by the AP.
The Environmental Working Group — whose president, Ken Cook, is based in the Bay Area — slammed the decision, saying state legislators “voted to rush through a bailout bill for the facility.”
The group argued that pushing the bill through the legislature in the last week of the session did not give lawmakers sufficient time to determine whether the plant should continue operating.
“The rush by lawmakers and Gov. Newsom to keep Diablo Canyon running is dangerous and dumb and will only set back California’s drive to make solar and wind the prevailing sources of electricity in the state,” Cook said in a statement.
His organization, Cook added, intends to “explore every available opportunity — administratively, legally and policy-wise — to prevent the extended operation of Diablo Canyon.”
American Clean Power-California, a clean industry trade organization, characterized the Diablo vote as a reminder that the state must work to speed up its clean energy transition.
“The last ditch scramble to extend the life of Diablo Canyon must serve as a wakeup call for California,” a statement from the group said.
“To avoid prolonging expensive and inflexible facilities, and imposing those costs on ratepayers, the administration must accelerate the work of state agencies to site and permit new carbon-free resources,” the group added.
Source: TEST FEED1
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has released a playbook for how the agency will expand its power over the American economy.
FTC Chair Lina Khan has aggressively pursued a hyper-regulatory agenda since her bait-and-switch confirmation last summer. Lawmakers should conduct robust oversight hearings to determine just how far the agency has strayed from its statutory authority under Khan’s leadership.
Late last week, the FTC released its updated strategic plan for FY 22-26 after months of deliberation. For decades, the FTC has pledged to police harmful business practices “without unduly burdening legitimate business activity.” That clause, present in every strategic plan since 2006 and originally articulated in 1997, is absent without explanation in Khan’s plan. The clause’s omission signals that Khan’s FTC will target legitimate business activity, a guilty-until-proven-innocent posture that will chill innovation.
As a whole, the document moves the agency’s focus away from maximizing consumer welfare and towards other vague social goals that progressives believe antitrust law can solve. For the past half-century, business conduct is generally not considered an antitrust violation unless it demonstrably harms consumers, a legal test called the consumer welfare standard. The consumer welfare standard constrains the government from launching antitrust suits against companies for political reasons.
In her dissent to Khan’s Strategic Plan, FTC Commissioner Christine Wilson concludes that Khan’s focus on arbitrary social goals instead of consumer welfare “will result in higher prices, suppressed production, fewer choices, and dampened innovation.”
Scrutinizing the strategic plan is not an academic exercise, as Khan is currently pursuing cases that stretch the bounds of antitrust law. The FTC recently challenged Meta’s acquisition of Within, a virtual reality (VR) fitness app developer, in a case that is flimsy at best and meritless at worst. The FTC voted 3-2 along party lines to sue Meta, overruling career FTC staff that recommended against bringing the case.
The core of the FTC’s case is not that the acquisition would harm consumers. Rather, the agency asserts that Meta should not be able to buy Within because of its size, a radical departure from current antitrust tradition. Progressives believe that bureaucrats, not consumers, should decide how big a company is or what a market should look like.
In the complaint, the FTC invents an artificially narrow market definition to depict Meta as attempting to monopolize the VR fitness market. The market definition conveniently excludes fitness-specific VR apps and broadband-connected fitness apps, intentionally ignoring the existence of competitors such as FitXR and Peloton. The FTC’s complaint fails to acknowledge the many other ways Americans can get up and move, like going to the gym, hiking, running outside or kickboxing.
The business community at large is beginning to recognize the threat Khan’s mission creep poses to the economy. Walmart recently filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit the agency launched in June, calling the suit an “egregious instance of agency overreach” and saying that the agency lacked “constitutionally valid authority to sue for money or injunctive relief.” Former FTC staffers have called the Walmart case “far-fetched.”
Khan’s expansive agenda will likely lead to the FTC’s power being curtailed by other branches of government. The Supreme Court will hear FTC v. Axon this coming term, a case that examines the constitutionality of the FTC’s administrative trial process that has led to a 100 percent win rate for the agency over the past 25 years.
There is no shortage of material for Congress to probe in oversight hearings. FTC staff morale has plummeted, with one staffer saying that under Khan’s leadership, the agency “[has] a willingness to just kind of ignore the law and the facts sometimes if it’s going to further the ideological mission.”
The Senate antitrust subcommittee will hold an oversight hearing on Khan and Antitrust Division chief Jonathan Kanter in September. House Judiciary Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) recently sent a letter to Khan demanding information on the FTC’s reliance on unpaid “consultants” to perform core functions at the agency.
Khan’s command and control agenda is a clear and present danger to the U.S. economy, but Congress doesn’t have to take it lying down. Instead of expanding the FTC’s power via misguided antitrust legislation, lawmakers should work to rein the runaway agency in.
Tom Hebert is federal affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform and executive director of the Open Competition Center.
Source: TEST FEED1
More than 30 worker and civil society groups are demanding Amazon CEO Andy Jassy testify in a congressional hearing on the company’s worker safety “crisis.”
In a letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and top lawmakers on two congressional labor committees on Thursday, the coalition urged the lawmakers to hold a congressional hearing on “the dangerous labor practices” the groups said have caused a number of deaths and injuries at Amazon warehouse facilities and to call Jassy and others “responsible” for those conditions to testify.
The letter noted that three Amazon workers at a New Jersey warehouse facility died last month within a three-week span and about 34,000 serious injuries were reported at company facilities last year.
The groups also cited a report from the Strategic Organizing Center that found on-site injuries at the company’s facilities around the country increased by 20 percent from 2020 to 2021 and another report from nonprofit organization Make the Road NJ that noted injuries at Amazon fulfillment centers in New Jersey increased by 54 percent in that time.
“Amazon should not be offering its ‘thoughts and prayers’ — Amazon should be taking action to protect the lives of all workers. I know about Amazon’s failures when it comes to health and safety because I experienced them,” Make the Road NJ member and former Amazon employee Nayeli Sulca said in a statement. “Luckily, I’m still here to be able to talk about it. My heart goes out to the families of the workers who will not be able to do the same.”
“We demand that our representatives in Congress convene a hearing and hold Amazon and its CEO accountable for the ongoing safety crisis in warehouses. Congress must act now to ensure Amazon workers’ lives are respected –– that means strong enforcement of health and safety laws, and ensuring Amazon respects workers rights to organize.”
Amazon in recent months has seen a number of its U.S. warehouses file petitions to hold union elections. Earlier this year, one of Amazon’s Staten Island facilities became the first of the company’s U.S. locations to vote to unionize.
In their union organizing efforts, Amazon workers have cited low wages and poor working conditions as their high-priority concerns.
“These tragedies are yet more gruesome examples of how Amazon treats workers as disposable, pushing their bodies to the brink—and even to the point of death—to maximize its profits,” National Employment Law Project Executive Director Rebecca Dixon said in a statement. “Amazon must not allow even one more person to be injured or killed and they must start treating workers as human beings instead of as bits of data.
“Courageous Amazon workers around the country are actively organizing and demanding changes, and elected leaders must stand with them. The time for congressional hearings is now.”
The Hill has reached out to Amazon for comment and more information.
Source: TEST FEED1