Author: Stop the Donald Trump

Trump’s Baseless Claims on Mail-in Voting in Debate

During the recent presidential debate, President Donald Trump made several unfounded claims regarding mail-in voting, suggesting that mail carriers are “selling ballots” and that ballots have been “dumped in rivers.” These statements are part of an ongoing campaign to undermine confidence in the electoral process, particularly concerning mail-in ballots.

Election experts have countered Trump’s assertions, emphasizing the security and historical reliability of mail-in voting. Lawrence Norden, director of the Election Reform Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, stated that Trump’s claims are riddled with inaccuracies and that mail-in ballots have been used safely in the U.S. since the Civil War.

In one specific instance, Trump referenced an investigation into discarded military ballots in Pennsylvania, claiming that seven of the nine ballots found were for him. However, the FBI clarified that there was no evidence of a coordinated voter fraud scheme related to this incident. Similarly, Trump’s claims about ballots being found in “creeks” were linked to a non-issue involving trays of mail that were mistakenly misplaced during transit.

West Virginia officials refuted Trump’s claims regarding mail fraud in their state, clarifying that a recent case involved a postal worker altering voter registration applications—not ballots themselves. The state’s Secretary of State reassured voters about the integrity of the election process.

Overall, Trump’s statements regarding mail-in voting are not supported by factual evidence, and experts advise that his rhetoric poses a threat to the democratic process by casting undue doubt on the legitimacy of elections.

(h/t: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/09/30/2020-debate-trump-makes-outrageous-claims-mail-voting/3586836001/)

Trump’s NLRB Appointments Threaten Labor Rights

The U.S. Senate committee has approved two nominees to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) as part of President Donald Trump’s ongoing strategy to reshape labor policies. Marvin Kaplan and William Emanuel, both of whom have records opposing union interests, are poised to gain seats on the five-member board. Their confirmation would establish a Republican majority that could reverse pro-labor rulings implemented during the Obama administration.

Under previous leadership, the NLRB made significant strides in favor of workers, including easier pathways for union formation and protections against mandatory arbitration agreements. These changes were crucial for enhancing worker rights in sectors like fast food and education, where union representation had dwindled.

Emanuel, a long-time lawyer for management-side employment law firms, has been accused of aggressively defending companies against worker rights claims. His clients have included major corporations facing allegations of labor violations, raising concerns about his potential conflicts of interest when adjudicating labor disputes.

Kaplan has similarly been criticized for his legislative efforts aimed at undermining the NLRB’s authority, including attempts to repeal rules that facilitate quicker union elections. These actions signal a broader trend under Trump’s administration that prioritizes corporate interests over labor rights.

As Trump continues to appoint individuals with anti-labor histories, the implications for organized labor could be severe, potentially stifling workers’ ability to unionize and weakening existing labor protections. The upcoming Senate confirmation vote will determine whether these nominees will reshape the NLRB’s direction further.

Trump Proposes to Weaken Apprenticeships

The Trump administration is advancing a proposal that could significantly weaken apprenticeship programs in the United States. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has introduced a framework for a new category of apprenticeships known as Industry Recognized Apprenticeship Programs (IRAPs). This initiative raises concerns regarding the quality and integrity of apprenticeship training.

Historically, Registered Apprenticeships have been recognized for their rigorous standards, combining paid on-the-job training with classroom instruction. These programs, which have been federally regulated, achieve better outcomes for participants, with median annual earnings around $60,000. However, the new IRAP framework, which could be implemented without oversight from the DOL, may dilute these standards.

Under the proposed system, IRAPs would not adhere to the established guidelines that ensure quality training and fair labor practices. Certification could be granted by various third-party entities, leading to inconsistencies and potential exploitation of apprentices. This shift has drawn criticism from labor advocates, including the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), which argues that it could exacerbate existing disparities in access to quality training, particularly among underrepresented groups.

Critics of the IRAP system contend that it reflects a misguided solution to non-existent problems within the Registered Apprenticeship framework. The existing model has seen significant federal investment aimed at expanding access and improving equity. The DOL’s pivot toward IRAPs is seen as a departure from efforts to enhance the quality and accessibility of traditional apprenticeships.

The IRAP proposal also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest, as third-party certifiers could both create and oversee their training programs. This could undermine accountability and lead to a proliferation of low-quality apprenticeship opportunities. Additionally, the new framework may exempt apprentices from vital labor protections, further jeopardizing their rights and earning potential.

1 … 12 13 14