Dec 132014
 

You give your employer your best hours and best effort, but they don’t trust you not to steal from them, despite the cameras watching your every move. So, they search you before you go home. That takes time. The Supreme Court says you give your time for free to your untrusting employer. Shareholders and slaveholders everywhere rejoice.

Court: No pay for Amazon warehouse security checks | Albuquerque Journal News

The Supreme Court says warehouse workers who fill orders for retail giant Amazon don’t have to be paid for time spent waiting to pass through security checks at the end of their shifts.

The unanimous ruling Tuesday is a victory for the growing number of retailers and other companies that routinely screen workers to prevent employee theft. The justices said federal law does not require companies to pay employees for the extra time because it is unrelated to their primary job duties.

Some workers at Amazon contractor Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., claim they wait up to 25 minutes to clear security before they can go home.

The Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court ruling, which said the screenings should be compensated because they were performed for the employer’s benefit.

Court: No pay for Amazon warehouse security checks | Albuquerque Journal News

 Posted by at 11:00 am on Sat 12/13/14
Dec 112014
 

Money is poisoning our deteriorating democracy and the Republicans are making it worse. How do these crooks get elected? Oh, yeah, with a boatload of cash. Your vote is losing value. Cash is all that matters in AmeriCo.

Budget would raise limits on political money | Albuquerque Journal News

Under a spending bill introduced in the Republican-led House, each superrich donor would be allowed to give almost $1.6 million per election cycle to political parties and their campaign committees. The comparable limit for 2014’s elections was $194,400.

The campaign finance proposal was tucked into an unrelated measure to keep most of the government open through the coming September.

The effort is the latest bid to weaken campaign finance rules passed after the Watergate scandal in the 1970s and updated a decade ago. It follows three Supreme Court rulings that gave rise to free-spending super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions from people and corporations alike, and an increased role for outside groups to shape the outcome of elections.

Budget would raise limits on political money | Albuquerque Journal News

 Posted by at 11:55 am on Thu 12/11/14
Nov 292014
 

I can’t call this justice, especially since too many fired officers show up on other police departments or private security. Still, it is appropriate to get this guy out of APD.

Termination recommended for officer who shot woman | Albuquerque Journal News

By Ryan Boetel / Journal Staff Writer
PUBLISHED: Saturday, November 29, 2014 at 12:02 am

Police supervisors have recommended that the officer who fatally shot a 19-year-old woman be fired, according to the officer’s attorney.

Albuquerque police Officer Jeremy Dear is facing termination, said Thomas Grover, Dear’s attorney. The recommendation is the result of an internal affairs investigation into several issues surrounding Dear, including his history of lapel camera policy violations. …

The Hawkes shooting wasn’t the first time there were questions about the Dear’s lapel camera. [Mary Hawkes was the homeless teenager he shot repeatedly.] He was involved in two arrests in 2013 during which he used force against a suspect and no recording of the arrest was made, according to Journal archives.

And KOAT-TV reported that a review of Dear’s personnel file found other incidents in which Dear’s lapel camera didn’t record an interaction that should have been taped.

Termination recommended for officer who shot woman | Albuquerque Journal News

 Posted by at 8:56 am on Sat 11/29/14
Nov 262014
 

Cognitive dissonance: believing government is always wrong but cops and grand juries never are.
Injustice: ignoring Wall Street thieves while shooting shoplifters.

Regarding police violence against the public they serve: I’m starting to wonder if we’re not reaping the harvest of the same seeds being sown in education, the election process, and elsewhere: The goal is to undermine the public’s confidence in the every facet of government, public systems, and the common good. Why? Aside from pure evil, look for who profits. Who profits when we arm and train cops like soldiers? Who profits when we say we can’t adequately patrol the streets? Who profits when we dismantle public education?

Who profits from privatizing everything? Who profits from your fear and your anger? Who profits from a divided nation full of angry and mistrustful citizens? The Profiteers are pulling our strings.

 Posted by at 2:30 pm on Wed 11/26/14
Nov 232014
 

How your congressional delegates voted | Albuquerque Journal News

EPA SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD: Voting 229 for and 191 against, the House on Nov. 18 passed a Republican bill (HR 1422) to reshape the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board to make it more industry-friendly.

The board provides independent evaluations of the scientific analyses upon which the EPA bases its regulations. Its 52 members are chosen by the EPA administrator and serve without pay.

This bill would diminish academic representation on the board while expanding corporate membership; permit experts with financial ties to EPA-regulated industries to serve if they disclose their conflicts of interest; give state, local and tribal governments a guaranteed number of seats on the board; and require the board to gather more public comments, among other provisions.

A yes vote was to send the bill to the Senate, where it is expected to die.

YES: PEARCE (Republican, oil millionaire); NO: LUJAN GRISHAM, LUJÁN (Democrats)

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: Voting 195 for and 225 against, the House on Nov. 18 refused to amend HR 1422 (above) in a way that would to deny membership on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board to representatives of companies or trade associations having a financial interest in decisions that result from the board’s recommendations.

A yes vote was to adopt the Democratic motion.

YES: LUJAN GRISHAM, LUJÁN (Democrats) NO: PEARCE (Republican, oil millionaire)

How your congressional delegates voted | Albuquerque Journal News

 Posted by at 5:05 pm on Sun 11/23/14