Home News Page 2624

The real cost of AI is being paid in deserts far from Silicon Valley

When Sonia Ramos was a child, she witnessed an accident that would shape the rest of her life. She was born into a mining family in Chile. Her father worked for an American copper company; she grew up among the children of the other workers. In 1957, a part of the Chuquicamata mine collapsed, killing several people and injuring dozens more. Though her father was spared, she remembers watching the wretchedness of the aftermath unfold around her: affected families spiraling into abject poverty, children wasting away from hunger. Four decades later, as Ramos began to protest mining, becoming one of the most active and outspoken Indigenous voices in Chile shining a light on its social, cultural, and environmental destruction, she would remember the lessons she learned in the tragedy: The mining industry is a system, and that system, left to its own devices, will seek profit at any cost. “The worker doesn’t exist,” she says. None of the victims received any ceremony or commemoration; none of their families received compensation. “In that place, there is no humanity.”

Chile is the world’s largest producer of copper, accounting for a quarter of the global supply. Since the beginning, copper mining has reshaped not just the land but the societies that rely on it. Sometimes the effects are visible: Chuquicamata today is the largest open-pit copper mine in the world, a gaping wound in the earth that explosives regularly deepen. That displaced rock, piled up in towering mountains that monumentalize the cavities they came from, is slowly burying the remains of a town that was abandoned after the copper mining began to swallow it. The mining has also drained the region of water to process the copper. At one point a foreign multinational corporation consumed so much water it depleted an entire basin in a nearby salt flat, or salar, destroying its rich eco-system.

Less visible are the trails of arsenic that the industry leaves in the air and water, which has increased rates of cancer throughout the north of the country, and the ways mining has restructured Indigenous life and sowed divisions among different communities. With their lands depleted of water and minerals, the Atacameños, the name that ties together all of the distinct Indigenous groups who share this region, can no longer sustain themselves by growing their own crops or raising their own livestock. The shift has plunged their towns into deep poverty. Crime has risen along with depression, alcoholism, and delinquency. They don’t have enough food, running water, proper health care, or educational resources, having seen little benefit from the billions in profits that their land has generated for someone else. Instead, many are forced to work for the very industry that seized their territories and receive health care from the small clinics it sponsors. Where there was once greater unity among them, the Indigenous groups now squabble over diminishing resources.

The salares were once home to flocks of pink flamingos, which the Atacameños consider their spiritual siblings. Now the flamingos are gone.

Lithium is a more recent discovery there, stumbled upon by an American company in the 1960s as it searched for the water it needed for copper mining. When it drilled into the salares, it found high concentrations of lithium floating in an oily brine beneath the surface, opening up a new front of extraction and accelerating the depletion of more ecosystems. Today Chile produces roughly a third of the world’s lithium, second only to Australia. The material is primarily extracted out of the Salar de Atacama, the largest salt flat in the country, by pumping its brine out into shimmering pools of turquoise and waiting for the sun to evaporate and crystallize the solution into lithium and other by-products. The salares were once home to flocks of pink flamingos, which the Atacameños consider their spiritual siblings. Now the flamingos are gone; the young daughter of one Indigenous leader in the Peine community has only her ancestors’ stories and a flamingo plushie by which to remember them.

Over the years, the Atacameños have heard many narratives used to justify all of this extraction. In 2022, as the European Union set new policies around the energy transition and the demand for lithium skyrocketed, both companies and politicians in Chile and the rest of the world lauded the importance of the country’s mining industry in propelling forward a better future. Indigenous communities watching their land and their communities get ripped apart asked: A better future for whom? “Local people never have the ability to think about their own destiny outside the forces of economics and international politics,” says Cristina Dorador, a microbiologist who lives in the north and studies its rich biodiversity.

Now the same narratives are being recycled with generative AI. The accelerated copper and lithium extraction to build megacampuses—and to build the power plants and thousands more miles of power lines to support them— is, in Silicon Valley’s account, also ushering in a better and brighter future. To block that extraction is thus to block fundamental progress for humanity. But it is not the mining that Indigenous communities resist. “Our ancestors were miners,” says Ramos. They were the ones who discovered the copper in the first place. The problem, she says, is the scale.

Enabling the production of massive generative AI models … has also led to the perpetuation of racist stereotypes about the Indigenous peoples.

That scale has consumed everything. It has made the north and the rest of Chile completely dependent on the industry and not allowed for the emergence of other economies. It has choked off the country’s—and the rest of the world’s— ability to imagine different paths where development could exist without plundering natural resources, Ramos says. 

By enabling the production of massive generative AI models, that scale has also led to the perpetuation of racist stereotypes about the Indigenous peoples already suffering from how the technology was physically built. In Brazil, a 2023 art exhibition coproduced by a Chilean university showed the vast chasm between the reality of Latin America’s rich Indigenous cultures and the woefully bereft depictions of them spit out by Midjourney and Stable Diffusion as primitive, technologically inept peoples.

In recent years, the Atacameños have mounted more and more resistance. They fly black flags on their houses to denounce the exploitation of their lands and their community. They’ve organized protests to physically block the roads that company buses and trucks must take to get to the mines. They’ve contracted lawyers to assert their legal rights as Indigenous peoples under international law, which protects their cultural and territorial sovereignty. As companies and the Chilean government have been forced to invite them to negotiations, central to Indigenous demands are the need for the government to conduct research into the health of the Atacama Desert’s ecosystems and to quantify the water loss and any irreparable damage.

Ramos, too, has her own foundation, bringing together “the ancestral and non-ancestral,” she says, to promote and conduct scientific research into the natural wealth that the Atacama Desert has to offer. Due to its uniquely extreme conditions, it is home to many microbial communities—potentially useful for medicines or new sources of energy—that don’t exist anywhere else. For the same reasons, the desert has also been studied for decades as an analogue to Mars’s climate. Ramos hopes that any discoveries will help prove the value of preserving her beautiful homeland. Against the narratives of high-speed progress used to fuel extraction, she searches for new conceptions of progress that promote healing, sustainability, and regeneration.

#real #cost #paid #deserts #Silicon #Valley

Thanks to the Team @ Rest of World – Source link & Great Job Karen Hao

Dem Reps Aren’t Done Pushing for Kilmar Abrego Garcia

During a power outage, Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) gives a press conference to share details of his trip in San Salvador on May 26, 2025. The Democratic congressman visited El Salvador in a new push to secure the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the U.S. resident wrongly deported by the Trump administration. (Photo by MARVIN RECINOS / AFP) (Photo by MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images)

A DEMOCRATIC MEMBER OF CONGRESS attempted over the weekend to visit Kilmar Abrego Garcia at his new detention site in El Salvador only to be turned away by local authorities.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-Md.) who counts Abrego Garcia as a constituent, went to the prison in Santa Ana, El Salvador on Monday. But Ivey told The Bulwark he was rebuffed. He was ultimately not able to meet with the Maryland father with a wife and kids who are both U.S. citizens.

“They tried to give us the runaround and stonewall us, saying that we had to go to San Salvador to get a permit to see him,” said Ivey. “But people who have someone there in prison said no one gets a permit.”

The congressman made the trip with one of Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, Chris Newman, and Jaime Contreras from the labor union SEIU. (Abrego Garcia is a member of a union, SMART, that is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, which now also counts the SEIU as an affiliate.) Ivey said he spoke with El Salvador’s ambassador to the United States and with the U.S. ambassador to El Salvador. “They knew we were coming,” he said. “They knew why we were coming, and they knew when. To refuse to give us the chance to have a meeting with my constituent, even in a minimum-security prison, makes absolutely no sense.”

Ivey’s failed effort to talk to Abrego Garcia adds another chapter to a saga that has come to symbolize the excesses and aggressiveness of the Trump deportation regime. It’s a case that has pitted branches of government against each other, put profound strain on the U.S. legal system, set off panicked scrambling within the administration, and galvanized both critics of the president and his most vehement anti-immigrant defenders.

And as the congressman explained, when recounting why he chose to take the trip at all, it’s become a case study on whether Democrats can truly fight Trump on his signature issue.

Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador on March 15 despite a court order prohibiting him from being deported to that specific country. Like many of the men accused of being gang members and sent to El Salvador, he was held in the CECOT mega-prison, known for human rights abuses. But when Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) succeeded in visiting with Abrego Garcia on April 17, Abrego Garcia said that eight days earlier he had been moved to a lower-security prison.

In a phone call with Ivey in El Salvador, I asked the congressman why he took the Memorial Day weekend holiday to travel more than 2,000 miles to try to see an immigrant the Trump administration has argued is a “leader” of the violent street gang MS-13 (though no evidence of such an affiliation exists).

“We were able to do it this weekend, I’ve been wanting to go earlier but my wife had medical issues and there were logistical things,” Ivey said. “He shouldn’t be down here, he shouldn’t be held in this prison, he should be brought back to the U.S. to get due process, even though the administration is trying to leave him down there defying a Supreme Court order to bring him back.”

Share

Ivey’s trip comes at a sensitive moment for the Democratic party with respect to Trump’s often unlawful overreach on immigration. As the Trump administration took extraordinary and unprecedented steps to deport even some U.S. citizens, including children with cancer, The Bulwark reported late last month that Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries was discouraging further trips to El Salvador in hopes of fighting back on more advantageous fronts. Jeffries’s office pushed back on the report after it sparked a negative reaction. But in the weeks since, other Democrats who had floated trips to El Salvador did not end up going.

Ivey himself acknowledged that there are disagreements within the party over how much an issue like El Salvador imprisonments should be prioritized.

“I appreciate their concern and their views but at the end of the day this is a constitutional issue,” he said, noting that Trump has defied district court, appellate court, and now U.S. Supreme Court rulings. “We can’t just let that go if the Trump administration believes they’re above the law, we have to make sure we correct that. Like the judges they’re attacking because they disagree with their rulings, we have to make sure they’re getting our support.”

Other than Van Hollen, no member of Congress has been able to see Abrego Garcia. Aware of how little contact he has had with the outside world, Ivey said he brought messages for Abrego Garcia from his wife, Jennifer. He didn’t share the specifics, save to say they were messages of hope and love, imploring Abrego Garcia to “keep your faith and to tell him she and the children are doing well.”

Newman said he carried a message, too, seeking to convey to Abrego Garcia that the charges being leveled at him by the White House were smearing him, based on flimsy evidence like the fact that he wore a Chicago Bulls hat and the president’s insistence that a clearly doctored photo of Abrego Garcia with the characters “MS13” tattooed on his fingers was real.

While in El Salvador, Ivey also held other meetings, including with nonprofits, university experts, and families of men who say they have been wrongly imprisoned in the country.

The congressman’s visit precedes plans by Democrats to make a renewed push to visit ICE detention centers after the Trump administration charged New Jersey Rep. LaMonica McIver with assaulting and impeding ICE agents as she tried to conduct legal legislative oversight.

Like members of the party who see increased detention center visits as wise, Ivey sees his El Salvador trip as a way of showing Americans that Democrats are both against Trump’s policies and willing to stand up and fight for constitutional rights.

“It’s about developing an affirmative message,” Ivey said.

Share

From CBS News: The Trump administration is planning to dispatch hundreds of border agents to U.S. cities to help with interior enforcement, even though historically “CBP’s work has been mainly limited to the Mexican and Canadian borders, maritime sectors and international airports.”

Leave a comment

Share The Bulwark

Great Job Adrian Carrasquillo & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

Trump’s Memorial Day Ad Is Highkey Insane

Tim and Cameron talk Trump’s new military ad drop that rails against “wokeness,” Trump’s commencement speech on trophy wives and yachts in Monaco, Chinese military robot dogs, and the rise of hyper-masculine religious movements.

Follow FYPod on TikTok @thefypod

Leave a comment

Watch, listen, and leave a comment.

FYPod is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Subscribe to our YouTube channel here.

Great Job Tim Miller & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

David French’s Stark Warning for Evangelicals

Michael Steele speaks with David French about what the election of an American Pope means for the U.S (and the world). Plus, how politics is beginning to replace religion, the way to actually engage with hyper political people with differing views, Kristi Noem’s Habeas Corpus comments and the world’s lack of bible literacy.

Leave a comment

Watch, listen and leave a comment. Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to the audio edition.

Ad-free editions are available exclusively with a Bulwark+ membership. The Michael Steele Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. To add this to your player of choice, click here.

Great Job The Bulwark & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

Will Sam Altman and His AI Kill Us All?

Tim Miller talks with Karen Hao, author of ‘Empire of AI’, about the unchecked rise of Sam Altman, the hidden costs of OpenAI’s rapid expansion, and the unsettling consequences of a future increasingly shaped by powerful, unregulated artificial intelligence.

Read Karen Hao’s book ‘Empire of AI’

Leave a comment

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to audio.

Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here.

Great Job Tim Miller & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

Bill Kristol: Something Worth Fighting For

Despite our missteps in some of our more recent wars, we were fighting to bring freedom, democracy, and self-governance to others. Now, Trump’s mercantilist agenda is showing us what it looks like to not have an American-led world order. And even after Russia’s largest aerial assault on Ukraine since the war began, he still won’t threaten Putin—only Zelensky. Meanwhile, just looking at the math alone, the reconciliation bill is alarming.

Bill Kristol joins Tim Miller for a Memorial Day pod.

Leave a comment

show notes

The Bulwark Podcast is available wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Follow, leave us a review and wherever you tune in. Add the show to your player of choice, here.

As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left-hand side of the player to toggle to the audio edition.

Ad-free editions of The Bulwark Podcast are available exclusively for Bulwark+ members.

Great Job Tim Miller & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

Big Tech Wants to Become Its Own Bank

Amid a flood of industry lobbying in Washington, DC, and Democrats’ capitulation, the Senate is set to pass the GENIUS Act, a sweeping cryptocurrency law that could spread fraud-ridden, destabilizing digital currencies across the banking system. But lawmakers and consumer protection experts warn that the bill has an even more serious problem: it would allow Elon Musk and other Big Tech tycoons to issue their own private currencies.

That means we could soon live in a world where all online transactions will require us to pay for goods in billionaires’ own made-up monopoly money, for which tech giants will be able to charge exorbitant transaction fees.

This scenario isn’t just a pipe dream. It’s a long-running project by tech platforms to control payment networks. In the past few weeks, Meta began laying the groundwork once again to launch its own cryptocurrency.

What’s more, thanks to a bipartisan “compromise” that convinced Democratic holdouts to support the legislation, the latest version of the bill could stop the government’s top financial and tech regulator from overseeing any of these potential tech currencies.

The GENIUS Act, which stands for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, was designed to create light-touch regulations for stablecoins, a more commonly used form of crypto token that is often pegged to the US dollar in an equivalent value (one stablecoin is redeemable to one dollar).

If it becomes law, any banking or even nonbanking enterprise could get a license to deal stablecoins with minimal oversight. This could riddle the entire financial system with volatility and make illicit activity like fraud and terrorism undetectable while providing major new markets to the companies issuing the cryptocurrencies. The El Salvador–based firm Tether is currently the largest trading platform for these currencies and has faced numerous US lawsuits for fraud.

After some crypto-friendly Democrats temporarily backed away from their support for the bill earlier this month, Republicans came to the bargaining table and made what appeared to be some modest concessions to temper Democrats’ concerns about Trump’s corrupt use of crypto for personal gain. But a legal analysis from the Democratic staff on the Banking Committee just blasted this new version of the bill for allowing Big Tech to create its own currencies, among a litany of other problems.

The bill also includes a giant carve-out to ensure Musk’s social media platform X, formerly Twitter, would not be covered by even modest restrictions, thereby “gifting the President’s closest Big Tech ally a competitive advantage in creating his own private currency,” according to the Banking Committee analysis.

Musk might not be the only one scoring these benefits. The Trump administration could also waive the bill’s more stringent requirements for any favored tech company, according to the Senate Banking Committee staff.

On top of these carve-outs, a new legal citation slipped into the bill tacitly strips away the authority of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a key financial and tech regulator, to oversee the issuance of stablecoins. The CFPB has been probing Meta and other tech companies’ payment networks and has taken action to regulate those platforms like banks.

Despite these concerns, sixteen Democratic senators just voted in favor of moving the updated bill to a floor vote, which all but guarantees its passage through the Senate. Just two Republicans, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) and Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS), voted against the measure, disfavoring federal intervention to assist crypto and Big Tech.

According to Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, their colleagues have now given license to the kind of outright pay to play that Democrats had claimed to oppose in the original version of the GENIUS Act.

The tech giants that stand to benefit from the bill funneled millions of dollars to key swing-seat candidates this past election. Those include vocal crypto allies Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), who each received $10 million from political action committees funded by cryptocurrency interests. The Protect Progress PAC, the Democratic arm of the crypto lobby’s campaign spending operation, spent $33 million on both primary and general election races in 2024.

The GENIUS Act is ostensibly geared toward assisting cryptocurrency companies whose lobbying groups have pushed hard for the bill. But Brian Shearer, a former senior adviser at the CFPB and a legal expert at Vanderbilt University, argues that the legislation’s implications will be far more wide-ranging across nonbanking industries.

The bill’s language erodes a two-hundred-year-old legal standard that mandates a separation between banks that deal in financial products and commercial enterprises that sell goods. The division was put in place to prevent industrial firms from accumulating too much power in finance, enabling them to restrict competitors or consumers from accessing banking.

In the past, blurring the lines between finance and commerce has caused major problems.

For example, within the financial sector, the 1999 repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act under former president Bill Clinton removed a long-standing barrier between the riskier business of investment banking and the more stolid side of commercial banking, which just deals with managing depositors’ accounts. Financial experts cite the law’s repeal as helping to pave the way for the 2008 financial crash.

While that outcome may sound extreme, the point, Shearer says, is that “even minor disruptions to the fundamentals of financial regulation can have these profound consequences to the whole financial system.” Regulators have warned of a potential financial collapse if crypto is allowed to infiltrate traditional banking markets.

The GENIUS Act also comes at a time when financial regulators, led by the CFPB, have been cracking down on Big Tech for using its market power to force user adoption of its own payment processing services, which come with high transaction fees.

Apple, Google, and Meta each run their own payment networks, and Musk has previously indicated his desire to integrate payment services into X’s social media platform.

Apple Pay has developed the most advanced online payment system, with nearly eight hundred million global users. As part of a Department of Justice antitrust lawsuit, Apple stands accused of forcing users and developers to adopt its payment network.

Former CFPB lawyer Brian Shearer explains that under the GENIUS Act, Apple could launch its own stablecoin “payment card,” which would hold customers’ deposits and give the tech giant even greater access to financial and transaction data on its users.

Meta has laid out perhaps the most elaborate plans for issuing its own currency. In 2019, company CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced the launch of Meta’s own crypto token known as Libra but pulled back because of blowback from global and US regulators. Federal regulators, including Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, warned that lax oversight on financial products like Libra could pose a risk to financial markets. For example, there’s no deposit insurance coverage for payments held on tech platforms.

Meta’s announcement of Libra drew scrutiny from the CFPB, which opened an inquiry into Big Tech payment networks. Following the probe, the agency issued rules in 2024 holding tech-based payment services to the same regulatory standards as other financial institutions and applying fraud, privacy, and other consumer-protection laws to stablecoins.

Shortly after the rules were announced, Zuckerberg complained about the CFPB’s actions on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, and Musk called for the agency to be shut down.

Now the latest version of the GENIUS Act could strip the CFPB’s authority to enforce those rules. Without the CFPB’s involvement, a patchwork of other, less robust financial regulators would be left to monitor these potentially harmful practices.

As the legislation makes its way through the Senate, reports have emerged that Mark Zuckerberg is once again considering a company stablecoin. One reason cited for the move would be to make it easier for Meta to pay content creators overseas without dealing with cumbersome international banking procedures.

If lawmakers pass the GENIUS Act and allow Meta’s plans to move forward, the corporation could essentially become its own financial institution for an existing customer base of nearly four billion global users across its social media platforms.

“Big tech wants to open their own banks, which they can’t do under existing bank regulations,” wrote Shearer on the financial policy site Open Banker. “We know this is a real threat because Meta has already tried it and failed once before.”

Great Job Luke Goldstein & the Team @ Jacobin Source link for sharing this story.

Conservatism RIP?

returns to discuss whether conservatism remains valid in the MAGA era.

Leave a comment

Watch, listen or leave a comment. Ad-free editions are exclusively available for Bulwark+ members.

Don’t care for video? Use the controls on the left side of the player to toggle to the audio edition.

The Mona Charen Show is a weekly, one-on-one discussion that goes in depth on political and cultural topics. New shows drop Mondays. Find this show wherever you get your podcasts and on YouTube. Add the show to your player of choice, here.

REFERENCES:

Great Job Mona Charen & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

This Memorial Day, We Remember


The Bulwark is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.





Great Job The Bulwark & the Team @ The Bulwark Source link for sharing this story.

When US Labor Backed US Imperialism

Jeff Schuhrke

After the 1932 election, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt won, Democrats had big majorities in Congress and were in charge of the White House for the next decade and a half. This is when the New Deal, Social Security, the Fair Labor Standards Act, National Labor Relations Act, regulations on corporations and Wall Street, and more were passed. Then World War II started. In the 1946 midterm elections, Republicans retook control of Congress for the first time since FDR had been elected. By this point, FDR was dead, and the country shifted in a more right-wing direction.

The Republicans elected to Congress in 1946 included people like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy. They had seen how organized labor was getting more and more powerful in these preceding years, especially 1945–1946. There was this huge strike wave after World War II with workers fighting back against wartime inflation, wanting to keep some of the gains they had won during the war like security of union membership. These Republicans came in with a mission to stop this growth that the labor movement had been seeing.

At the same time, the fragile wartime alliance between the United States and Soviet Union was breaking down. There had always been strong anti-Soviet, anti-communist sentiment in the United States, and so the Republicans and corporate America were really eager to use this emerging Cold War, anti-Soviet animus against organized labor, and to paint the labor movement in the US as nothing more than a communist conspiracy aiming to destroy the American way of life.

So in 1947, they passed the Taft-Hartley Act, which was a series of amendments to the 1935 National Labor Relations Act that explicitly wanted to rein in the kinds of powerful, militant union tactics like secondary strikes and secondary boycotts; to allow states to pass “right-to-work” laws, which are designed to defund and bankrupt unions; and to weaken the law around who could be in a union via a number of other provisions. Harry Truman vetoed the Taft-Hartley act. But Republicans were able to override his veto, and it was passed anyway.

This was 1947. Ever since then, repealing Taft-Hartley has been the number one political and legislative agenda of the labor movement; it still hasn’t been repealed, despite numerous Democratic administrations and Democratic congresses coming in since 1947.

An important component of the Taft-Hartley Act was a provision that union officers would have to sign an affidavit swearing they were not members of the Communist Party. They didn’t have to sign affidavits saying that they had never been involved in any kind of fascist organization, or that they were not part of any other political party or political movement. It was only the Communist Party. A lot of these CIO unions were led by communists, and they would be perjuring themselves if they signed this. And that was kind of beside the point, because it was more of a matter of principle. Why should anyone have to announce what their political affiliations were as a condition of being a union official?

But the AFL’s leadership had always been conservative and anti-communist. They were jumping all over this saying, “see, this is why it’s such a bad idea to allow communists into the labor movement — it’s just going to lead to the destruction of unions.” And some of the noncommunist CIO leaders, like Philip Murray, the president of the CIO at the time, and especially Walter Reuther, the up-and-coming, just elected president of the UAW, agreed. Taft-Hartley helped to give more justification to the CIO for a purge of communist-led unions. And Taft-Hartley really did kneecap organized labor. You could see union density growing between the late 1930s and the mid-1940s, right up until Taft-Hartley was passed. Ever since then, union density has been in decline.

Great Job Jeff Schuhrke & the Team @ Jacobin Source link for sharing this story.

Secret Link