On Climate Change, Trump Offers an Example of Willful Ignorance

MSNBC

The Rachel Maddow Show / Maddow Blog

On Climate Change, Trump Offers an Example of Willful Ignorance

President Donald Trump speaks about the US role in the Paris climate change accord in the Rose Garden, Thursday, June 1, 2017, in Washington. (AP Photo… Andrew Harnik

By Steve Benen     January 2, 2018

In 2012, Donald Trump said he believes that climate data is part of an elaborate conspiracy cooked up by China to undermine the American economy. That, of course, made Trump sound hopelessly bonkers, but it didn’t stop him from dismissing climate change as a “hoax,” over and over again.

With this in mind, after the president announced his rejection of the Paris climate accord on June 1, Trump World faced a simple question: does Trump still think global warming is fake? In a curious development, no one in the president’s orbit – Kellyanne Conway, Sean Spicer, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt – was willing to answer the question. The president’s position on one of the world’s biggest issues was, to a very real extent, a White House secret.

I guess it’s not much of a secret anymore:

Frigid temperatures are expected to grip much of the upper Great Plains and Northeast through the New Year – a forecast that President Donald Trump used to cast doubt on global warming.

Trump tweeted Thursday night that parts of the eastern U.S. could see the coldest New Year’s Eve on record, adding, “Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against.”

Now, at this point, we could talk about the fact that cold weather in a small part of the planet in late December does not disprove climate change. Or we could talk about the fact that the Trump Organization is taking global warming seriously, even if Trump himself is not. Or maybe we could explain in great detail all of the evidence showing just how warm 2017 was.

And while all of this is important – indeed, the future of life on the planet may depend on it – this seems instead like a good time to talk about the difference between ignorance and willful ignorance.

That the American president is basically trolling everyone, pointing to cold weather as proof against global warming, is insulting to the nation’s intelligence. We are, after all, supposed to be the world’s preeminent superpower. When there’s little practical difference between the leader of our executive branch and your weird uncle who watches Fox News all day, it undermines our capacity for international leadership and casts the United States in a deeply embarrassing light.

The difference, however, between your weird uncle and the American president is that the latter has almost limitless access to the best information in the world.

Donald Trump, however, doesn’t care about taking advantage of this unique epistemological opportunity.

It’s discouraging, of course, that the president doesn’t understand the most rudimentary basics of climate change. But it’s far worse, that the president doesn’t want to understand. Trump knows the information is there, but he’s simply too lazy to care.

What we’re left with is a president who is unnervingly comfortable with his ignorance. Trump seems convinced that his own baseless assumptions must be true, so he experiences no curiosity, asks no questions, and makes no effort to grow intellectually. He revels in his blissful obliviousness, using it as a punch-line in poorly written tweets.

A bill will come due. Given the seriousness of the climate crisis, the costs and consequences will be severe.

Image result for picture of Trump with his head in the sand

“Why the Koch machine is a threat to democracy”

Robert Reich added a new video.
January 2, 2018

Brace yourselves for more trickle-down lies. The Koch brothers are kicking their propaganda machine into high gear this year to defend the tax cuts for the rich and corporations that Trump and Republican leaders rammed through Congress last month. Their multimillion-dollar campaign will include television, radio, and online ads along with town hall events and workshops.

This is exactly how the vicious cycle of big money in politics erodes our democracy: The wealthy and corporations spend millions on campaign contributions and lobbying to secure massive tax breaks, which in turn only increases their spending power over our political system. We must stop the Koch machine and reclaim our democracy before it’s too late. What do you think?

The Koch Machine

Brace yourselves for more trickle-down lies. The Koch brothers are kicking their propaganda machine into high gear this year to defend the tax cuts for the rich and corporations that Trump and Republican leaders rammed through Congress last month. Their multimillion-dollar campaign will include television, radio, and online ads along with town hall events and workshops. This is exactly how the vicious cycle of big money in politics erodes our democracy: The wealthy and corporations spend millions on campaign contributions and lobbying to secure massive tax breaks, which in turn only increases their spending power over our political system. We must stop the Koch machine and reclaim our democracy before it's too late. What do you think?

Posted by Robert Reich on Tuesday, January 2, 2018

America’s Worst Graveyard Shift Is Grinding Up Workers

Bloomberg Business

America’s Worst Graveyard Shift Is Grinding Up Workers

Cleanup at the slaughterhouse is as dangerous as it is repulsive, and the immigrants who do the work are under pressure to complete it faster than ever.

A third-shift worker heads into Mar-Jac Poultry in Gainesville, Ga. Photographer: Johnathon Kelso for Bloomberg Businessweek

By Peter Waldman and Kartikay Mehrotra       December 29, 2017

No one knew her real name. At work she was Tiffany Sisneros, until her arm got crushed in a conveyor belt. She filed for workers’ comp as Martha Solorzano, born 1966. The doctor who evaluated her wrote down her last name as Torres. We’ll call her Martha, the name her lawyer uses. Like millions of undocumented immigrants, Martha lived in the shadows. She slept by day, worked at night, shifted names as circumstances demanded, and supported her family with scraps that fell her way from the U.S. labor market.

She worked as a cleaner on the graveyard shift at Tyson Foods Inc.’s cavernous meatpacking plant in Holcomb, Kan. Every day up to 6,000 cows clamber off 18-wheelers lined up at the facility, 200 miles west of Wichita. They’re watered, then ushered into the kill box, knocked unconscious by a bolt gun, hung upside down with their hearts still pounding, and bled to death by a slash to the jugular.

After the heads, hides, and hooves are removed, the carcasses are sawed in half, checked by U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors, and sent down a network of conveyor belts to be butchered, boxed, and bar-coded by 3,800 workers in two shifts. The journey, from carcass to cargo ramp, takes about 40 minutes.

After 11 p.m. the procession halts, and the sanitation crews move in. The only slaughterhouse job worse than eviscerating animals is cleaning up afterward. The third-shift workers, as the cleaners are often called, wade through blood and grease and chunks of bone and flesh, racing all night to hose down the plant with disinfectants and scalding water. The stench is unbearable. Many workers retch.

It was about 3:30 a.m. on July 7, 2011, when Martha finished cleaning conveyor belt FC-3A on the main factory floor. After powering the machine back on, she realized she had forgotten to wipe down a spot where fat collects under the side rail. Such deposits, if neglected, can shut down a processing line, at considerable cost in lost output, if a USDA inspector discovers it during daily swab tests.

So Martha reached under the moving belt to get at the smudge and lost her balance, she testified in her workers’ comp case. As she tried to brace herself, her left hand got caught in the machine’s roller, which reeled her in past her elbow, twisting and cracking her forearm. A supervisor heard her scream and shut down the line. Maintenance workers had to dismantle the guards and rollers to get her out. The radius and ulna bones could be seen sticking out of her arm, in shards.

Most accidents at the Holcomb plant are covered by Tyson’s workers’ comp insurance. But Martha didn’t work for Tyson. The cleaning crew was employed by Packers Sanitation Services Inc., the nation’s largest cleaning contractor to the food industry. The meatpacking industry has a hard enough time filling daytime production jobs, so many bigger plants staff the night shift through contractors such as Packers. These companies pay their largely immigrant workforce up to a third less than what production employees earn during the day. Martha was getting $202 a week. Packers pays current employees an average of $11.86 an hour.

“Sanitation workers face some of the harshest and most dangerous conditions in American industry, and there’s no outcry because they’re largely low-paid immigrants hidden away on the graveyard shift”

Such is the genius of American outsourcing. In an era of heightened concern about food safety, meat and poultry producers are happy to pay sanitation companies for their expertise. The sanitation companies also assume the headaches and risk of staffing positions that only the destitute or desperate will take—very often undocumented immigrants. And they relieve the big producers, including household names such as Tyson and Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., of responsibility for one of the most dangerous factory jobs in America.

The North American Meat Institute, an industry trade group, says OSHA data show that the injury rate is lower among sanitation workers than among meat production employees, and that total U.S. meatpacking injuries are at an all-time low. The industry has given “tens of thousands” of sanitation workers safety training with OSHA grants and made safety a “major focus,” the group says.

But no one knows how many sanitation workers get sick and injured on the job, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration doesn’t require plants to report contractors’ injuries, and the highly fragmented sanitation industry uses multiple job codes, so cleaners fall through the data cracks, the GAO says.

Judging from Packers’s record, the nightly storm of high-­pressure hoses, chemical vapors, blood, grease, and frantic deadlines, all swirling in clouds of steam around pulsing belts, blades, and blenders, can be treacherous. From 2015 through September 2016, Packers had the 14th-highest number of severe injuries—defined as an amputation, hospitalization, or the loss of an eye—among the 14,000 companies tracked by OSHA in 29 states, according to data analyzed by the National Employment Law Project, or NELP. Even that statistic understates the risks. With about 17,000 workers, Packers is a fraction of the size of the 13 companies above it on NELP’s danger scorecard, including the U.S. Postal Service (No. 1), Tyson (No. 4), and Pilgrim’s Pride (No. 6). Adjusting for size, Packers topped the danger list by a wide margin, with a rate of 14 severe injuries for every 10,000 workers. Its amputation rate of 9.4 dismemberments per 10,000 workers was almost five times higher than for U.S. manufacturing workers as a whole in 2015.

“Sanitation workers face some of the harshest and most dangerous conditions in American industry, and there’s no outcry because they’re largely low-paid immigrants hidden away on the graveyard shift,” says Deborah Berkowitz, senior fellow at NELP and a former OSHA chief of staff. “That’s the cost of American consumers wanting cheap protein and the meat and poultry industry demanding huge profits.”

On the morning of Martha’s accident, Packers dispatched a technical-services manager, Salvador Diaz, to investigate. He drove north from Texas, arriving at the Holcomb plant at 6 a.m. to look around before going to interview Martha at the hospital. He caught her shortly after she woke up from three hours of surgery. She said the conveyor belt “grabbed” her as she was trying to clean beneath it, though she blamed herself for the accident, according to Diaz’s report. “I understand I have done wrong but never thought that it would catch my hand,” Diaz quoted Martha as telling him.

Packers fired her. The company and its insurer argued in workers’ comp court that Martha wasn’t entitled to compensation beyond medical expenses, because she had recklessly disregarded its safety rules about powering down machines. Martha said she had cleaned under moving conveyor belts many times in her 22 months on the job without Packers managers ever saying a word.

The doctor who evaluated Martha wrote that her left hand had suffered permanent nerve damage resulting in a “9% whole person impairment,” which could have ­entitled her to a maximum workers’ comp payout of $150,000. But the court sided with Packers, ruling the accident was entirely Martha’s fault. She got nothing. Martha vanished after that, melting away like many undocumented workers who are injured on the job. She could not be located for comment.

Packers fared better. On the same day in December 2014 that the Kansas judge rejected Martha’s workers’ comp claim, Packers announced it had been bought by Leonard Green & Partners LP of Los Angeles, its third private equity owner in seven years. The purchase was financed with more than $550 million of debt. This November—35 months and at least 19 amputations later—Packers refinanced its loans and paid its investors a dividend of $339 million.

The profit-taking was aggressive, wrote a debt analyst at Moody’s Investors Service; S&P Global lowered Packers’ credit rating. But the company’s outlook remains stable, they said, partly because of strong industry demand and rising labor productivity. Packers brings in more than $800 million a year in revenue from about 500 plants. To David Michaels, who ran OSHA during the Obama administration, big debt is a potential red flag. “Are they reducing costs to pay debt by pressuring workers to work faster?” he asks. “That’s a common danger with highly leveraged companies.”

A sanitation worker at Farm Fresh Foods in Guntersville, Ala. Photographer: Johnathon Kelso for Bloomberg Businessweek

Packers executives declined to discuss specific employee injuries, and rejected the notion that debt or dividends have any effect on work conditions. “We recognize the hazards are high in the sanitation industry,” wrote Todd Mitchell, Packers’ vice president for safety, in response to emailed questions. “Our sole concern is making sure our team members perform their job safely.”

Packers’ “aggressive approach” to minimizing areas of concern such as amputations has “greatly reduced” such incidents, Mitchell continued. Since 2015 cleaners have been instructed not to run blenders and augers while cleaning them, and supervisors increasingly power down all machines themselves. After reporting 14 amputations to OSHA in 2015, Packers reported only 3 in 2016. Mitchell called NELP’s analysis of OSHA’s severe-injury data “inflated and incomplete,” in part because the data included companies Packers had recently acquired and at which it was trying to improve safety practices.

In Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle, the protagonist is injured in a meat plant and, like Martha, summarily fired. Sinclair likened the “unspeakable” conditions for European immigrants in Chicago’s meatpacking plants to slavery, only “there was no difference in color between master and slave,” he wrote.

A century later, the racial component is back. Almost 30 percent of the nation’s half-million meat and poultry workers are foreign-born noncitizens, compared with 10 percent of manufacturing workers overall, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. More than a third of meatpacking workers are Hispanic. The proportion of sanitation employees who are immigrants isn’t tracked, but many workers and industry executives estimate it’s the vast majority in many places.

Meatpackers tend to be scrupulous these days about checking the papers of ­production-line hires. Landing a job on the third shift, however, is easy for undocumented workers, especially at smaller plants and with cleaning contractors, immigrants say. All workers in the U.S. must have proof of identity and employment authorization, which companies are not obligated to verify as authentic. Employers are responsible only for misrepresentations the government brings to their attention. Perhaps most important: All sides know the feds rarely raid at night.

Outsourcing sanitation is “driven purely by profit,” says Tim Cox, who runs a consulting firm in North Carolina that specializes in sanitation for meat and poultry producers. “It’s less costly to hire someone with no documentation who doesn’t understand his worker rights than to hire someone who does.”

Hugo Avalos-Chanon at the plant where he was killed in an accident in 2013. Courtesy Abraham Watkins Law Firm

They’re also more willing to do the work than U.S. citizens and holders of green cards, and, by some accounts, more able. “It’s sad to say, but it’s the gospel truth: Seven out of 10 Americans in the Deep South, whether black or white, will fail the drug test,” says Randy Hadley, local president of the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union in Birmingham, Ala., which represents about 6,000 poultry workers in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee. “Immigrants pass the drug test. That’s what companies tell us.” Nationally, about a third of poultry workers and roughly two-thirds of beef and pork workers are unionized, but affiliation is much lower among undocumented workers. “They’re too scared to sign union cards,” Hadley says.

Gilberto Gonzalez, a 47-year-old Guatemalan immigrant who has been cleaning poultry plants in Alabama for 11 years, says smaller plants and sanitation contractors ask few questions of undocumented hires and accept virtually any supposed proof of employment eligibility. “They have a way of working it out to get people on,” he says. (“Gonzalez” is a pseudonym he provided for this article in order to speak openly about his experiences as an undocumented sanitation worker.)

He lives with three of his sons in a decaying mobile home just outside Albertville on northeastern Alabama’s Sand Mountain, famous for its snake-handling preachers. He sent for each son separately in recent years. Just teenagers when they came, the boys paid smugglers $10,000 apiece to spirit them along the 2,300-mile trek from Guatemala through Mexico, across the Rio Grande, and on to Alabama, the last leg in the back of 18-wheel trucks. They’re still mostly invisible. They work at night, stay inside during the day, use back roads to avoid police, and never open the door for anyone they don’t know. Once, the family huddled inside as Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents snooped around the trailer park and knocked on their door for several minutes. “We just prayed to God, and they finally left,” Gonzalez says.

He works now at a Tyson plant, an employee of a large cleaning contractor called QSI, owned by the Vincit Group of Chattanooga, Tenn. (QSI and Packers say they use the federal E-Verify system to confirm employment authorization.) The work is good, as these things go. He’s still haunted, though, by his previous job. For about 15 months, he and his oldest son, who is 22 and identifies himself as Miguel, worked sanitation at a small processing plant called Farm Fresh Foods LLC in Guntersville, Ala. The facility is typical of the makeshift warehouses that dot the back roads of chicken country, picking up deboning work and other butchering jobs from the big poultry producers. Most operate on thin margins—bad news for workers, particularly the undocumented, who are always the most vulnerable to abuse.

“We just work and sleep and stay off the street. What choice is there?”

Farm Fresh’s sanitation supervisor rode the cleaning crew without mercy, according to the Gonzalezes and other former colleagues, who filed a complaint with OSHA in 2016. They were forced to work at punishing speeds in ankle-deep water with floating fat and chicken guts. They were enclosed in poorly ventilated rooms with chlorinated cleaning products wafting in the air, severely limited in bathroom and water breaks. The chemical vapor caused heart-pounding insomnia, Miguel says. Several workers had to seek medical help. Workers who didn’t keep up the pace were moved to an extremely cold area of the plant as punishment.

After pushing the 20-man crew all night, the supervisor would make them play a devious game before going home, Gonzalez says. To prepare the facility for the morning shift, the cleaners had to distribute 80-pound crates of raw chicken on the cutting tables. There were more workers than crates, and anyone caught empty-handed faced possible suspension or firing. As a result, workers raced one another across the wet floor to get the heavy loads, causing injuries.

“When we complained, they only got meaner,” Gonzalez says. After the cleaners met with Farm Fresh’s management to discuss work conditions, the company suspended them and refused to issue their last paychecks. The Southern Poverty Law Center helped them file safety and whistleblower complaints with OSHA, which has an agreement with other federal agencies not to act against undocumented workers at job sites while complaints are pending. OSHA fined Farm Fresh $29,000 for having inadequate drains and failing to provide proper protective gear against contaminated water, chicken waste, and chemical solvents and vapors. The company settled with the workers separately. Farm Fresh did not respond to inquiries for comment for this story.

Gonzalez wants to stay in Alabama another year or two to finish paying off the family’s home in Guatemala, where his wife and youngest son still live. But he worries the decision won’t be his to make in an era of highly publicized ICE raids. “We just work and sleep and stay off the street,” he says. “What choice is there?”

OSHA’s power has always lain more in its capacity to shame than punish. The fines for serious safety violations seldom exceed $20,000, a trifle for most manufacturers. Now OSHA doesn’t shame much, either. In the past, the agency called out safety violators in press announcements, often resulting in embarrassing hometown headlines about injured workers. But this year, under President Trump, OSHA has issued 121 press releases, compared with 546 last year under President Obama.

The Trump administration has also stripped OSHA’s website of data on workplace fatalities, replacing it with highlights of the agency’s cooperative safety initiatives with industry. Among the Obama regulatory proposals that Trump’s OSHA has dropped this year is an updated standard for lockout/tagout, the crucial procedures workers should follow to shut down dangerous machines before working on them. And this fall, after the GAO reported that meat and poultry workers are suffering health problems from being denied bathroom breaks and fear punishment if they complain, OSHA rejected the GAO’s recommendation that its inspectors ask about bathroom access during plant visits. “OSHA does not routinely ask questions about any potential hazards that go beyond the scope of a complaint investigation, unless those hazards are in plain sight,” wrote the agency’s Loren Sweatt to the GAO in response to its findings.

Meat and poultry companies have operated without much fear of OSHA since well before Trump took office, particularly in the Southeast. In 2016, when three OSHA investigators showed up at Mar-Jac Poultry in Gainesville, Ga., to investigate an electrical explosion that injured a maintenance worker, Mar-Jac allowed them to examine the site of the incident but nothing else. OSHA discovered a rash of other injuries in the plant’s injury log and tried to expand the search, but the company’s lawyer sent them away.

When an OSHA inspector returned four days later to examine the blast victim’s tools, Mar-Jac’s attorney, Mark Waschack of Wimberly Lawson Steckel Schneider & Stine in Atlanta, said the inspector could walk through the plant to the locker room where the tools were located, but only if he agreed to wear a cardboard box over his head to blind him to any safety hazards. “Mr. Waschack stated that he had previously done this to two [inspectors] in two previous OSHA inspections,” wrote OSHA’s Robin Bennett in a court affidavit.

Bennett refused to wear the box. Instead, OSHA issued a search warrant, which, at Mar-Jac’s request, a Gainesville federal judge quashed, saying OSHA lacked probable cause. The agency fined Mar-Jac $20,000 for violations linked to the explosion and appealed the search-warrant ruling last March to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, arguing the injury logs and electrical blast provided a “reasonable suspicion” of safety violations. The appellate court has yet to rule.

The Fieldale Farms plant in Gainesville, Ga. Photographer: Scott Rogers / Gainsville Times

Poultry producers across the Southeast, using Wimberly Lawson lawyers, have blocked at least 13 other OSHA searches. One, Fieldale Farms Corp., limited OSHA’s access in 2015 after a Burmese sanitation worker lost five toes in its Gainesville plant. Another, Gold Creek Foods LLC in Dawsonville, Ga., blocked OSHA from inspecting all but a single machine after one of its sanitation workers, just 18 at the time, lost an arm in a chicken cuber. OSHA fined Fieldale $9,800 for the shorn toes and Gold Creek $21,000 for the dismembered arm. Both plants had been fined before, but OSHA has still been denied access to do a full safety inspection. Fieldale did not respond to questions for this story. Gold Creek’s general counsel, Robert Weber Jr., said the company cooperated with OSHA, but he did not respond to questions about blocking the agency’s expanded inspection.

J. Larry Stine, the Wimberly Lawson partner in charge of the poultry litigation, says that in preventing OSHA from conducting broad inspections, his clients “are asserting their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” Putting boxes on the heads of inspectors, he says, is “a little hyperbole to illustrate the point.”

Hundreds of pages of OSHA reports and other investigative documents obtained by Bloomberg through public-records requests point to a dark place in U.S. industry. And a protein boom could make matters worse. U.S. production of red meat and poultry is expected to hit a record 103 billion pounds in 2018, up 3 percent from 2017, according to the USDA. Processors are straining to add capacity and workers in order to keep up. With their allies in Congress, the poultry industry is pushing the USDA to lift limits on factory line speeds, a move the Obama administration resisted as unsafe.

To meet output targets, production lines are operating later into the night, leaving fewer hours for sanitation workers to scrub down equipment before morning inspections, says David Greer, who’s managed chicken plants and sanitation crews for Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue Farms, Gold Creek, and others since 1991. And the third shift is getting more complex and hazardous as meatpackers add automated blades, belts, and other gear to the nightly steam bath, with many not adding to crew sizes.

“The plant says if you were cleaning it with five people before, you’re cleaning it with five people now,” says Greer.  “These guys are so pressed for time, it creates a big temptation for shortcuts.”

Avalos-Chanon died in this hamburger blender. Courtesy Oregon OSHA

Brent Sherman, 37, couldn’t keep track of all the modifications at Tyson’s meatpacking plant in St. Joseph, Mo. Early one morning in 2015, he was hosing down a Cozzini meat blender, capable of grinding 8,000 pounds at a time, when it did something he didn’t expect. Before starting, Sherman had set the blender’s controls on sanitation mode, ensuring it wouldn’t power up for 60 minutes; safety sensors on the machine were meant to keep it powered off until he reinstalled all the pieces, even if it took him more than an hour.

What he didn’t realize was that someone had disarmed the sensors so it would automatically restart after the sanitation cycle, making it easier—but infinitely more dangerous—to hose down, according to OSHA’s investigation. When the hour was up, the blender suddenly jerked back to life, snagging Sherman’s hose and snapping off both his arms below the elbow.

OSHA’s investigation found a sanitation culture of wanton bravado at the plant. Many sensors had been similarly disabled for faster cleaning, the agency discovered. A night-shift worker was a plant legend for his speed and daring, based on his refusal to power down a single machine during sanitation. Cleaning workers told OSHA that the only time they felt any pressure from Tyson managers to properly lock out machines was when a government inspector was expected at the plant.

OSHA fined Tyson $35,000 in the Sherman case. Sherman is suing the company and Cozzini for negligence in state court, and both defendants deny wrongdoing. Tyson spokeswoman Caroline Ahn declined to comment on the case or Tyson’s injury rate. “We don’t want to see anyone hurt on the job and work hard to keep our team members healthy and safe,” she wrote in an email. Tyson promptly investigates accidents to avert recurrences and monitors sanitation contractors to ensure they abide by all training, health, and safety standards, Ahn wrote.

Mel McCrary, a former OSHA inspector in Kansas City who worked the case, says Tyson has tried to improve its safety systems since Sherman’s injury. But a long history with the industry suggests to him that safety will never be a significant priority. “People are getting cut up, but if the company is performing, life is good,” says McCrary, who retired this year after a 21-year career investigating meatpacking injuries. “Sanitation workers are treated, at best, with apathy.”

And at worst? In 2013, Hugo Avalos-Chanon, 41, was cleaning a hamburger blender at Interstate Meat Distributors Inc. in Clackamas, Ore., when, investigators believe, his hose got caught in the machine’s paddles and pulled him in. His widow in Mexico is suing Interstate for negligence and wrongful death, claiming the night shift was a veritable death trap. There were no safety guards on dangerous machines, and workers were required to clean the equipment while it was running, according to court filings. Based on pretrial testimony, a Clackamas County judge is letting the widow seek punitive damages at trial.

Interstate did not respond to questions for this story. In legal filings, the company acknowledges safety problems but says Avalos-Chanon’s employer, and hence the company responsible for his safety, was the sanitation contractor DCS Sanitation Management Inc. Interstate claims it paid DCS, which has since been purchased by Packers, a flat fee to assume full responsibility for the night shift. Oregon OSHA fined DCS $6,300 after Avalos-Chanon’s death.

“DCS managers knew it was possible to clean the machines without turning them on,” Interstate argues in a court filing, in a rare burst of industry candor, “but they believed doing so would not make financial sense.” —With Shruti Singh

Suspicious Timeline Suggests GOP Blocking Merrick Garland May Be Tied to Trump/Russia Scandal

BlueDot Daily

Suspicious Timeline Suggests GOP Blocking Merrick Garland May Be Tied to Trump/Russia Scandal

By pmorgan     January 2, 2018

Special Counsel Robert Mueller is investigating the Trump Campaign AND the Republican National Committee for their alleged Russian collusion efforts in rigging the election in key swing states, particularly Michigan and Wisconsin.

Trump adviser George Papadopoulos is helping the investigation along and now we have learned that the Republican Senate may have known the election was rigged when they blocked Obama’s Supreme Court appointment of Merrick Garland.

The Republican Senate pulled the unconstitutional stunt at a time that they should have felt concerned about the future of the White House. Hillary was the clear front-runner by most accounts at the time, so why block a Supreme Court pick when it was a statistical impossibility for Trump to win the White House? It’s possible those in Trump’s corner knew something no one else did at the time.

The New York Times just detailed a timeline of the Trump-Russia scandal and now a lot of things are making even more sense.

March of 2016 is when Papadopoulos drunkenly bragged about conspiring with Russia to an Australian diplomat, who immediately ratted him out. This is very significant, because it gives us additional context to Papadopoulos’ guilty plea, which clearly states that he first learned about Russia’s election rigging on March 14th of 2016. Just 48 hours later, Senate Republican John Cornyn suddenly announced that he would be blocking Barack Obama’s Merrick Garland nomination to the Supreme Court.

When you put the pieces together, you can see that the moment Trump and his campaign knew Russia was willing to help Trump win, the Republican Party decided to block Obama’s Supreme Court pick, allowing Trump to later fill it after he “won”.

If it can be proven that Papadopoulos told someone in the Republican Senate about the election rigging, this would be a game changer. Mueller has to be currently looking into finding this evidence, because something with this many hands in it cannot be coincidence.

This scandal goes much deeper than the sitting President. It appears the entire GOP is connected to it.

Even this Fox Business host knows the GOP tax plan will only help the wealthy

Wake Up America
January 2, 2018

Even this Fox Business host knows the GOP tax plan will only help the wealthy

Even this Fox Business host knows the GOP tax plan will only help the wealthy

Even this Fox Business host knows the GOP tax plan will only help the wealthy

Posted by Wake Up America on Monday, January 1, 2018

Washington Post

Home Depot just showed who will gain the most from corporate tax cuts

 

By David Lynch      December 7, 2017

With unemployment low and demand for new homes high, a company like Home Depot could be spending most of its surplus billions on raises for workers or the rollout of new stores.

Instead, the world’s largest home improvement chain this week announced that it is using $15 billion to buy back shares of its own stock, a move that will reward shareholders including chief executive Craig Menear and other top executives.

Even as lawmakers on Capitol Hill began hammering out the final version of a tax cut designed to give businesses more money to invest, Home Depot’s statement was a reminder that corporate America may have other plans for that cash.

Several companies already have indicated that they will use excess funds to pay off debt, increase dividend payments or repurchase their own shares rather than create new jobs or raise wages. On Wall Street, the consensus is that workers will be last in line behind shareholders, creditors and investment bankers when the extra corporate cash is distributed.

“If they’ve got good growth prospects for something, they’re already throwing money at that. I don’t think the world changes because of lower taxes,” said Tim Ghriskey, who manages $1.5 billion in assets as chief investment officer at Solaris Asset Management. “There’s clearly going to be a lot of share buybacks.”

Home Depot, which says its plans have nothing to do with the shifting tax landscape, is a special company for the president. The chain’s founder, Bernie Marcus, was among President Trump’s staunchest supporters during the 2016 campaign, once writing that “the fate of this nation” depended upon his election.

Now, the White House website features a Marcus opinion piece praising the tax cut as “the gift that keeps on giving.” As Congress debated the $1.5 trillion Republican tax plan, Home Depot last month issued a statement praising the plan for “improving the competitive position of companies so they can create more jobs.”

White House economists have said that more generous tax rules for corporations will lead to an increase in investment, which will in turn trigger more jobs and higher wages. In an October report, the Council of Economic Advisers bemoaned the “disappointing state of capital accumulation” and said underinvestment by big business explains disappointing wage growth in recent years.

Yet business investment by one measure has risen in four of the past five quarters, which economists say is a reminder that such big-ticket spending decisions often turn on more than the tax rate. Some outside experts also are skeptical that the tax changes will make much difference for companies already enjoying ­near-record corporate profits.

“I don’t anticipate much new investment,” said economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

To be sure, several corporations, including AT&T and CVS Health, have publicly touted plans to funnel tax savings into new spending on equipment or hiring. The telecom giant has vowed to boost its annual investment next year by $1 billion, about a 4 percent increase from last year’s $22 billion total.

Companies choose to buy their own shares, increase the dividend they pay shareholders, or pay off debt when they can’t earn a higher return by using the money some other way. With interest rates so low, letting cash sit idle doesn’t make sense.

“Companies have had so much cash, they could do ‘all of the above.’ They’re likely to continue to do so,” said Edward Yardeni, president and chief investment strategist at Yardeni Research.

Over the past five years, companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index spent $2.6 trillion acquiring their own shares. Information technology companies such as Google’s parent company Alphabet led the way with big banks such as Wells Fargo and Citigroup close behind. Dozens of companies so far this year, including marquee names such as Apple, JPMorgan Chase and Boeing, have spent big on their own stock.

As the stock market shattered records this year, the number of companies in the S&P 500 that have repurchased shares fell compared with last year.

With the corporate tax cut nearing final approval, Home Depot is far from alone in its buyback plans. Within hours of the retailer’s announcement Wednesday, T-Mobile US disclosed its own $1.5 billion plan to repurchase shares.

Such buybacks often lift stock prices, since they result in the same earnings being divided by a smaller number of shares. In Home Depot’s case, that will be good news for shareholders that include top management, a teachers pension plan and mutual funds run by Capital Group, Vanguard and BlackRock.

Home Depot also is increasing its investment, modernizing the front end of its top 40 stores and introducing more automation to its supply chain. Over the next three years, the company plans to spend $8.2 billion on capital improvements compared with more than $27 billion on share buybacks and dividends.

The retailer’s announcement, which included no major hiring, was just the latest indication that the $1.5 trillion tax cut may not have the intended effect upon corporate investment and the overall economy.

With extra cash freed up by the corporate tax cuts, buybacks could top the record value of $172 billion set in the third quarter of 2007. Around $129 billion was spent in the most recent three months, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices.

“I definitely think it’s going up,” said Howard Silverblatt, senior analyst at S&P Dow Jones Indices.

In a July survey of 302 companies, 65 percent said they planned to boost dividend payments, and 46 percent forecast share buybacks. A little more than one-third said they would invest the proceeds in new equipment, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

House and Senate conferees are working to reconcile competing tax cut packages in hopes of sending Trump a final bill before Christmas. The measure would cut the corporate income tax to 20 percent from the current 35 percent and allow companies to bring home roughly $2.6 trillion in cash parked overseas at sharply reduced tax rates.

Home Depot had $4.2 billion deposited in foreign accounts as of January, according to its Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

A spokesman for Home Depot said the tax legislation was not a consideration in the stock buyback or the unveiling of new financial targets for 2020, including a modest increase in capital spending.

“Tax reform benefit is not factored into any of this,” Stephen Holmes said.

The disappointing prospects for corporate investment echo prior tax-cutting episodes. In 2004, the U.S. granted companies a one-time opportunity to bring money home and pay a 5.25 percent tax rather than the full 35 percent corporate levy. Almost all of the repatriated funds were distributed to shareholders, according to a 2009 study by economists at Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Illinois.

“We’ve been down this road before and come up relatively empty-handed,” said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist for MUFG Union Bank. “You can give these companies more money, but if they don’t have any way to invest the money and get the return they want, they’re going to return the money to shareholders every single time.”

David J. Lynch is a staff writer on the financial desk who joined the Post in November 2017 after working for the Financial Times, Bloomberg News and USA TODAY.

‘Muffled’ Climate Scientists Relocate to France as Trump’s Disregard Blatantly Continues

EcoWatch – Climate

From Oil Change International

‘Muffled’ Climate Scientists Relocate to France as Trump’s Disregard Blatantly Continues
 

By Andy Rowell           January 2, 2018

Many East Coasters will be returning to work today in bitter cold conditions after the second-coldest New Year on record.

The low temperatures over the festive period did not go unnoticed by President Donald Trump who tweeted in late December:

“In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!”

The utter ignorance and stupidity underlying this tweet is staggering for someone with so much power. As the New York Times noted in response: “Trump’s tweet made the common mistake of looking at local weather and making broader assumptions about the climate at large.”

The paper added: “To use an analogy Mr. Trump might appreciate, weather is how much money you have in your pocket today, whereas climate is your net worth. A billionaire who has forgotten his wallet one day is not poor, anymore than a poor person who lands a windfall of several hundred dollars is suddenly rich. What matters is what happens over the long term.”

“Trump is free to tweet whatever he likes. And he will continue to do so. But to use cold weather as some sort of rebuttal of broader climatological warming is not even close to accurate, factual or funny,” said CNN.

And over the long term, Trump’s toxic assault on science will have an impact on the quality of the science that the U.S. produces. In time, there will be a so-called “brain drain” of leading climate experts who will leave the U.S. to escape the noxious fumes of the Trump administration.

And it has already started to happen. Some 18 scientists are taking up French President Macron‘s offer to relocate to the country to continue work on climate change. The majority of these are relocating from the U.S.

One of the world’s most influential climate scientists, Camille Parmesan, is one such scientist, who currently works at the University of Texas and Plymouth in the UK. Her 1996 study published in the journal, Nature, on butterflies was one of the first scientific studies to document impacts of climate change on wildlife.

In an interview with the Guardian, she outlined why she has decided to relocate to France: “The impact of Trump on climate science has been far greater than what the public believe it has.”

“He has not only slashed funding, but he’s gone on the attack in any way he can with his powers as the president. University researchers are buffered from this, but scientists working at government agencies have really felt the blow,” said Parmesan. “They have been muffled and not allowed to speak freely with the press, they have had their reports altered to remove ‘climate change’ from the text, and are being told to leave climate change out of future reports and funding proposals.”

“This degrades the entire climate science community. Scientists are fighting back, but Congress needs to exercise its constitutional powers and keep the executive branch in check. This is not a partisan issue—this is about the future of America,” said Parmesan.

Reposted with permission from our media associate Oil Change International.

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

With Science Under Siege in 2017, Scientists Regrouped and Fought Back: 5 Essential Reads

EcoWatch – By The Conversation

With Science Under Siege in 2017, Scientists Regrouped and Fought Back: 5 Essential Reads

You can’t keep a good scientist down. Vlad Tchompalov / Unsplash

By Maggie Villiger      December 31, 2017

2017 may well be remembered as the year of alternative facts and fake news. Truth took a hit, and experts seemed to lose the public’s trust. Scientists felt under siege as the Trump administration purged information from government websites, appointed inexperienced or adversarial individuals to science-related posts and left important advisory positions empty. Researchers braced for cuts to federally funded science.

So where did that leave science and its supporters? Here we spotlight five stories from our archive that show how scholars took stock of where scientists stand in this new climate and various ways to consider the value their research holds for society.

  1. A Risk to Standing Up for Science

In April, the March for Science mobilized more than a million protesters worldwide to push back against what they saw as attacks on science and evidence-based policy. But some people in the research community worried about a downside to scientists being perceived as advocates.

Emily Vraga, assistant professor in political communication at George Mason University, put the conundrum this way:

“On one hand, scientists have relevant expertise to contribute to conversations about public policy…. On the other hand, scientists who advocate may risk losing the trust of the public.”

Maintaining that trust is imperative for scientists, both to be able to communicate public risks appropriately and to preserve public funding for research, she wrote.

Vraga and her colleagues’ research suggests that scientists don’t lose credibility when they advocate for policies based on their expertise. But there’s a distinction to be made between advocacy and mere partisanship—statements motivated by the science are received differently than if they’re perceived as driven by political beliefs.

  1. Rhetorical Tools at the Ready

With the feeling that there’s a “war on science” afoot, savvy scientists are thinking about how to defend their work. University of Washington professor of communication Leah Ceccarelli says they can look toward the field of rhetoric for help in how to get their messages across. She writes:

“Before dismissing this recommendation as a perverse appeal to slink into the mud or take up the corrupted weapons of the enemy, keep in mind that in academia, ‘rhetoric’ does not mean rank falsehoods, or mere words over substance.”

It’s about building persuasive arguments, built on solid foundations, she said. Rhetoricians study effective communication—and they’re happy to open their toolbox to scientists.

Indeed, the science of science communication is becoming a hot area of inquiry, as practitioners investigate and disseminate various techniques for effectively spreading accurate scientific information.

  1. What You Miss Out on When Science Gets Cut

Scientists are always scrambling to secure funding for their research, and during the first year of the Trump administration, it seemed science projects were consistently on the budget chopping block.

Christopher Keane, the vice president for research at Washington State University, made the case that federal funding for science ultimately revs up regional economies, particularly when scholars within academia join forces with entrepreneurs in the private sector:

Thousands of companies can trace their roots to federally funded university research. And since the majority of federally funded research takes place at America’s research universities—often in concert with federal labs and private research partners—these spinoff companies are often located in their local communities all across the country.”

  1. Slashing Science Projects Hurts Workers

Ohio State University economist Bruce Weinberg described how a unique data set allowed him and his colleagues to actually follow the money on federally funded scientific research. Using administrative data, they were able to identify everyone paid to work on a research project, not just the few who appear as authors on any culminating journal articles.

“This is valuable because we’re able to identify students and staff, who may be less likely to author papers than faculty and postdocs but who turn out to be an important part of the workforce on funded research projects. It’s like taking into account everyone who works in a particular store, not just the manager and owner.”

The majority of people employed on research projects turn out to be somewhere in the training pipeline, whether undergraduates, graduate students or postdocs.

And to do all that work, Weinberg points out, labs need to purchase everything from “computers and software, to reagents, medical imaging equipment or telescopes, even to lab mice and rats.” Cut the federal funding for science and the economic effects will ripple out far beyond just university science buildings.

  1. Basic Research Powers Later Patents

Skeptics may wonder: What’s the big deal? So we take a few years off from funding some basic research. Does basic research really matter? As Northwestern University’s Benjamin F. Jones and Mohammad Ahmadpoor put it, the:

“‘Ivory tower’ view of academic endeavors suggests that science is an isolated activity that rarely pays off in practical application. Related is the idea that marketplace innovation rarely relies on the work of universities or government labs.”

But is that right? To find out if basic research actually does lead to usable practical advances, they designed a study to investigate the links between patentable inventions and scientific research. Jones and Ahmad poor created a “social network” style map, which connects patents and science papers using the reference citations in each. They found that:

“Among research articles that receive at least one citation, a full 80 percent could be linked forward to a future patent. Meanwhile, 61 percent of patents linked backward to at least one research article.”

It’s impossible to predict which basic research projects will be important in the marketplace, but they wrote that a very high share of scientific research does link “forward to usable practical advances. Most of the linkages are indirect, showing the manifold and unexpected ways” in which basic research can ultimately pay off.

Reposted with permission from our media associate The Conversation.

Former Treasury Secretary Lew Says Tax Cuts Will Leave the U.S. Broke

Bloomberg

Former Treasury Secretary Lew Says Tax Cuts Will Leave the U.S. Broke

Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew said the Trump administration’s decision to add a significant amount of debt through last year’s tax legislation is leaving the country broke.

Marcus Besasson         January 2, 2018

“It’s a ticking time bomb in terms of the debt,” Lew said in a Bloomberg Radio interview with Tom Keene and Jonathan Ferro. “You cannot run a fiscal policy by spending trillions of dollars you don’t have at a time that the economy is doing well.”

Having chosen to make tax policy without including Democrats in any of the conversation, now the administration probably can’t rally Republicans in Congress to do the basic business of government, such as making sure the country doesn’t default on debt and children don’t get thrown off health insurance, he said.

“The next shoe to drop is going to be an attack on the most vulnerable in our society,” Lew said. “How are we going to pay for the deficit caused by the tax cut? We are going to see proposals to cut health insurance for poor people, to take basic food support away from poor people, to attack Medicare and Social Security. One could not have made up a more cynical strategy.”

“What we’ve seen is a tax cut that spends money we don’t have to have very concentrated benefits for global corporations and the top 1 percent, and it’s leaving us broke,” according to Lew.

Does the White Working Class Really Vote Against Its Own Interests?

Politico

Does the White Working Class Really Vote Against Its Own Interests?

Trump’s first year in office revived an age-old debate about why some people choose race over class—and how far they will go to protect the system.

Zeitz-whiteness-lede-byDanielDowneyJr.jpgIllustration by Daniel Downey, Jr.

By Joshua Zeitz    December 31, 2017

As his first year in the White House draws to a close, Donald J. Trump remains in almost every respect a singular character. He exists well outside the boundaries of what most observers previously judged possible, let alone respectable, in American politics. To catalogue the norms he has violated, the traditions he has traduced or trampled, and the rules—written and unwritten—that he has either cunningly sidestepped or audaciously blown to smithereens would require volumes. Love him or loath him, Trump operates apart from history.

Yet if Trump defies history, paradoxically, he has also resurfaced questions that historians have long debated, including some that many considered settled for many years. In this sense, Trump hasn’t just defied history; he has changed it—and he has changed the way that we think about it, forcing us to look back on our past with a new lens.

This Politico Magazine series, to be published in three installments over the next few weeks, will look at three historical debates that simmered on low heat for years, until the historic presidential election of November 2016 brought them back to a boil. These debates are foundational. They concern race and identity. National character. The dark side of populism. They drive at the core meaning of American citizenship.

The first in this series, perhaps the most fundamental, centers around the white working class. Are working-class white voters shooting themselves in the foot by making common cause with a political movement that is fundamentally inimical to their economic self-interest? In exchange for policies like the new tax bill, which several nonpartisan analyses conclude will lower taxes on the wealthy and raise them for the working class, did they really just settle for a wall that will likely never be built, a rebel yell for Confederate monuments most of them will never visit, and the hollow validation of a disappearing world in which white was up and brown and black were down?

If they did accept that bargain, why? Or are we missing something? Might working-class whites in fact derive some tangible advantage from their bargain with Trump? Is it really so irrational to care more about, say, illegal immigration than marginal income tax rates?

These are good questions. They’re also not new ones. The historian W.E.B. Du Bois asked them more than 80 years ago in his seminal work on Reconstruction, when he posited that working-class Southern whites were complicit, or at least passive instruments, in their own political and economic disenfranchisement. They forfeited real power and material well-being, he argued, in return for the “psychological” wages associated with being white.

Since then, the issue has inspired a vibrant debate among historians. Until last year, most agreed with Du Bois that the answer to the question was not so simple as “yes” or “no”—that whiteness sometimes conferred benefits both imaginary and real.

In the age of Trump, we’re once again pressure-testing Du Bois’ framework. As one might expect, it’s complicated. White identity pays dividends you can easily bank, and some that you can’t.

In 1935 Du Bois published his most influential treatise, Black Reconstruction, a reconsideration of the period immediately following the Civil War. One of the historical quandaries that Du Bois addressed was the successful effort of white plantation owners in the 1870s and 1880s in building a political coalition with poor, often landless, white men to overthrow biracial Reconstruction governments throughout the South.

“The theory of laboring class unity rests upon the assumption that laborers, despite internal jealousies, will unite because of their opposition to the exploitation of the capitalists,” wrote Du Bois, who trained at both the University of Berlin and Harvard, and whose grounding in Marxist political economy taught him to view politics through the lens of different but fixed stages in capitalist development. “This would throw white and black labor into one class,” he continued, “and precipitate a united fight for higher wages and better working conditions.”

That, of course, is not what happened. In most Southern states, poor whites and wealthy whites forged a coalition that overthrew biracial Reconstruction governments and passed a raft of laws that greatly benefited plantation and emerging industrial elites at the expense of small landowners, tenant farmers and factory workers. “It failed to work because the theory of race was supplemented by a carefully planned and slowly evolved method,” Du Bois wrote, “which drove such a wedge between white and black workers that there probably are not today in the world two groups of workers with practically identical interests who hate and fear each other so deeply and persistently and who are kept so far apart that neither sees anything of common interest.”

Du Bois famously posited that “the white group of laborers, while they received a low wage, were compensated in part by a sort of public and psychological wage. They were given public deference and titles of courtesy because they were white.”

Decades before so many white working-class citizens of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin—to say nothing of Alabama, West Virginia and Mississippi—cast their lot with a party that endeavors to raise their taxes and gut their health care, Du Bois identified the problem: Some wages aren’t denominated in hard currency. They carry a psychological payoff—even a spiritual one.

The most obvious time and place to pressure-test Du Bois’ theory is the Jim Crow South. In the 60-odd years between the collapse of Reconstruction and World War II, the South—still reeling from the Civil War, in which it lost the present-day equivalent of approximately $5.5 trillion in real property and wealth—slipped into a semi-permanent state of economic crisis.

In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt declared the region “the Nation’s No. 1 economic problem.” It was, as historian Gavin Wright famously observed, a “low-wage region in a high-wage country,” one where two-thirds of the population lived in small towns of fewer than 2,500 people, derived meager incomes from agriculture, mining or manufacturing, and even in the midst of a national depression, stood out for poor health, want of education and lack of opportunities for upward mobility.

The vast majority of farmers, black and white, were tenants or sharecroppers, and repressive poll taxes disenfranchised not just black men and women, but also poor white people. Designed by wealthy plantation owners and industrialists, the poll tax was expressly a class measure, meant to preserve the region’s prevailing low-tax, low-wage, low-service economy. It was more ingenious and insidious than many people today realize. In Mississippi and Virginia, it was cumulative for two years; if a tenant farmer or textile worker couldn’t pay in any given year, not only did he miss an election cycle, he had to pay a full two years’ tax to restore his voting rights. In Georgia, the poll tax was cumulative from the time a voter turned 21 years old—meaning, if one missed 10 years, he or she would have to pay a decade’s worth of back taxes before regaining the right to vote. In Texas, the tax was due on February 1, in the winter off-season, when farmers were habitually strapped for cash. It was, as one Southern liberal observed at the time, “like buying a ticket to a show nine months ahead of time, and before you know who’s playing, or really what the thing is all about.”

Little wonder that in 1936, three of four voting-age adults outside the South participated in the presidential election, but in the South, just one in four cast ballots. The system kept men like Eugene Cox, a conservative Democrat who held the powerful post of House Rules Committee chairman, in power. In 1938, Cox won re-election with 5,137 votes, though his district in southwest Georgia had a total population of 263,606 residents.

Yet when working-class Southern whites could participate in the political process, they often jettisoned their natural class interests in favor of racial solidarity. Historians have focused special attention on the rise and fall of the Readjuster movement, a biracial coalition that controlled the legislature, governor’s office and most federal posts in Virginia between 1879 and 1883. Forged in opposition to a conservative Democratic establishment that had shuttered schools, imposed regressive taxes, and favored creditors over debtors, the alliance passed a raft of measures that presaged much of the Populist movement’s agenda in coming years. For a time, it held. But in 1883 Democrats campaigned with intense focus on the issue of inter-marriage and miscegenation—a rare phenomenon that nevertheless struck a raw nerve with white workers and farmers. They warned that Readjuster rule would result in “mixed schools now and mixed marriages for the future.” It worked. Conservative “Bourbon” Democrats regained control of state government and reintroduced regressive, one-party rule that benefited a small minority of Virginians.

To reduce Jim Crow politics to a single trajectory is to oversimplify a complicated story. But the problem of white working-class Southerners bedeviled generations of liberal activists and the historians who studied them. When the union federation Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) launched Operation Dixie, a massive effort to unionize Southern workers in the mid-1940s, organizers ran into the same wall: Conservative politicians and their wealthy patrons successfully used race as a cudgel to turn white workers away from collective bargaining agreements that would have raised their wages. Even those Southern populists who ostensibly opposed Bourbon rule—from Georgia’s Tom Watson in the early 20th century to Mississippi’s Theodore Bilbo in the 1930s—more often flipped the playbook and used race as a blunt instrument against their elite opponents.

Southern liberals in the 1930s and 1940s applied a sharp class focus and concluded that wealthy Democrats wanted, in historian Gavin Wright’s words, to keep labor “cheap and divided.” The white liberal writer Lillian E. Smith famously captured this thinking in her short story, “Two Men and a Bargain,” which began: “Once upon a time, down South, a rich white man made a bargain with a poor white … ‘You boss the nigger, and I’ll boss the money.’”

Critically, Du Bois never insisted that the psychological wages of whiteness were wholly devoid of tangible value. What they forfeited in material benefits, working-class whites also recouped in limited power and privilege. “They were admitted freely with all classes of white people to public functions, public parks, and the best schools,” he wrote. “The police were drawn from their ranks. … The newspapers specialized on news that flattered the poor whites and utterly ignored the Negro except in crime and ridicule. On the other hand, the Negro was subject to insult; was afraid of mobs; was liable to the jibes of children and the unreasoning fears of white women; and was compelled almost continuously to submit to various badges of inferiority.” You couldn’t necessarily buy groceries with these benefits, but they were palpably meaningful.

David Roediger, a historian of class and race who writes with a Marxian lens, emphasized exactly this point in his classic volume, The Wages of Whiteness, published in 1991 (the title was a direct tribute to Du Bois). He encouraged a generation of scholars to consider that working-class whites may not have been unwitting dupes in their own economic subjugation; instead, they knowingly harvested certain real advantages of whiteness. While this pattern was most visible in the South, it also deeply influenced political culture in the North and West, where whiteness was no less central to popular conceptions of American citizenship. And Roediger’s focus was on Northern workers in antebellum cities—workers undergoing the jarring transition from pre-industrial forms of work and leisure to a more regimented existence as wage laborers.

The workers whom Roediger describes, and whom dozens more scholars would similarly study, understood that American citizenship was predicated on race and independence; Congress, after all, had opened citizenship to all “free white persons” in 1790. That law remained on the books into the 20th century. But what did it mean to be “white?” Congress never made that point clear. Indeed, there was no immediate consensus that certain new immigrants met the qualification. And what did it mean to be “free?” Their new status as wage earners—economically dependent on other men to earn a living—seemingly made many working men and women something less than free. Many non-black workers keenly understood that they might be left outside the boundaries of citizenship. They also resented new forms of industrial discipline that their employers foisted onto them. Many addressed these anxieties by drawing a sharp dichotomy between white and black—citizen and slave—and placing themselves on one side of that divide.

They became avid purveyors of blackface minstrelsy—a popular form of entertainment in which working-class whites reveled in watching other working-class whites apply burnt cork to their faces and act out what the historian George Rawick (writing more generally about early American racism) described as a “pornography of [their] former [lives].” The black characters they portrayed on stage were shiftless, sexually promiscuous and rowdy; they reveled in pre-industrial activities like hunting. They were coarse. In short, they deflected on black people, both slave and free, the very same social demerits that wealthier whites—who were trying to impose new discipline on the urban working class—ascribed to them.

Playbills commonly “paired pictures of the performers in blackface and without makeup—rough and respectable,” Roediger observed. The former were labeled, “Plantation Darkeys.” The latter, “Citizens.” By culturally differentiating themselves from black people, actors and audience members alike established themselves as “free white persons.”

While it’s easy to imagine that working-class whites embraced the new racial dichotomy in order to enjoy leverage in the new urban job market, in many cases, black and white workers weren’t even in competition with each other. Many of the most popular blackface actors were former artisans and mechanics—coach makers, typesetters and wood craftsmen who were now increasingly likely to fall into “wage slavery.” They were unlikely to vie for employment with free black men, who were normally consigned to unskilled jobs as dockworkers, day laborers, and (until Irish women displaced them) domestic servants.

One group that did sometimes compete for unskilled jobs with African Americans were Irish immigrants. Regarded as racially suspect—depicted in political cartoons as dark and ape-like, and patently unqualified for citizenship—Irish immigrants became some of the most avid and violent practitioners of white identity politics. Even when they weren’t in direct competition with back men for jobs—as when a group of Irish handloom weavers was displaced by white Protestant weavers in Philadelphia in 1844—they donned blackface and mobbed their black neighbors. The point wasn’t to get their jobs back.

Indeed, more was at stake than cash wages. To achieve standing as free white persons—and to enjoy the many benefits of citizenship that accrued from that definition—working-class men in the antebellum era consciously asserted their white identity and set it apart from blackness through language, performance, politics and violence. To imagine that they didn’t understand the full impact of their decisions is to deny them any modicum of intelligence or agency.

If working-class whites historically derived both psychological and citizenship wages by privileging race over class, is it possible that they sometimes enjoyed real wages as well? Beginning 25 years ago, a rising generation of political historians including Thomas SugrueKevin KruseMatthew LassiterRobert Self and Craig Steven Wilder concluded that they did. Giving special focus to labor and housing markets, they found that many working-class white families benefited directly from government policies that placed African Americans at a disadvantage.

Take housing. Beginning in the 1930s, most mortgages were underwritten by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), a federal agency that insured banks against losses from homeowners who defaulted on their loans. The FHA insured these mortgages in return for securing the banks’ pledge to provide home loans at low interest rates and to spread interest payments over at least 15 and as many as 30 years to pay back their loans. At minimal expense to the federal government and with only the pledge of default insurance, the FHA freed up unprecedented levels of capital and helped create a postwar social order in which 60 percent of American households owned and accumulated wealth in their own homes.

In deciding whether or not to insure mortgages, the FHA rated every census tract in the country. Assuming that houses lost value in neighborhoods that were racially mixed or primarily populated by African Americans and Latinos, the FHA assigned such areas lower scores or “redlined” them altogether, refusing to insure mortgages in these neighborhoods or insuring them on unfavorable terms. This meant that most black Americans could not secure mortgages, as their mere presence in a neighborhood would choke off affordable credit.

In a perverse twist, black residents in many Northern cities had little recourse but to rent cramped, sub-divided apartments in buildings whose white landlords often neglected repairs and upkeep, but the physical decay of their homes fed the white Americans’ suspicions that black residents chose to live in squalor.

It was not just a matter of housing. A powerful combination of private-sector discrimination and nepotism within trade unions had long excluded black workers from well-paid, blue-collar industries. As George Meany, the president of the AFL-CIO crassly admitted, “When I was a plumber, it never [occurred] to me to have niggers in the union!” Even in liberal bastions like New York City, African Americans in the 1950s and 1960s comprised less than 5 percent of all dock workers, skilled machinists, electricians or unionized carpenters—the types of jobs that afforded non-college educated white men access to middle-class comfort and economic security in the post-war period. The black unemployment rate was double that of the city’s overall unemployment rate. And New York was better than most places. In Chicago, 17 percent of black adults in the early 1960s were unemployed. In Cleveland, 20 percent. In Detroit, 39 percent.

By the time federal and state officials got serious about enforcing fair employment laws in the 1970s, America’s manufacturing and extractive industries had already fallen into steady decline. In effect, two post-war forces most responsible for lifting millions of working-class families into middle-class comfort and privilege—the suburban housing boom and unionized blue-collar jobs—only became available en masse to black Americans just as the post-war boom drew to a close.

This wasn’t a simple case of discrimination or inequality. Working-class white families affirmatively enjoyed what the historian George Lipsitz termed a “possessive investment in whiteness.” They availed themselves of the G.I. Bill’s housing and education benefits, paid for in part by black people’s taxes, at a time when black veterans faced sharp limitations on where (or whether) they could draw the same benefits. They accumulated equity in their suburban homes and used it to send their children to college or to save for their retirement. They enjoyed access to public services—from public schools and public trash collection, to clean water and sewage—that were deficient in majority-minority neighborhoods. These advantages conferred second-order benefits, including better health and a higher average life expectancy.

In other words, whiteness did pay real wages. It delivered an inter-generational advantage to those who were in a position to claim it. And white working-class Americans seemed on some level to understand it. When in 1966 Lyndon Johnson attempted to ram through Congress a law banning racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing, white working-class voters revolted both in the streets and at the polls. (Ronald Reagan, a washed up former actor, unseated the otherwise popular incumbent governor of California, Pat Brown, largely by touting his opposition to the state’s open housing law.) That summer, when Martin Luther King Jr. led protests throughout the “bungalow belt” in Chicago’s working-class white neighborhoods and the nearby blue-collar suburb of Cicero, Polish, Italian, and Irish residents who had once been staunch Democratic voters now erupted in fury. They pelted protesters with rocks and beat them with clubs amid cries of “White Power!”; “Burn them like Jews”; “We want Martin Luther Coon!”; “Roses are red, violets are black, King would look good with a knife in his back.”

Just a few years later, when the federal government began requiring that government contractors and industrial unions that did business with them begin aking affirmative efforts to integrate their workforces, white voters gravitated to backlash politicians who promised to preserve their privilege in the job sector. Even as late as 1990, conservative Republican Senator Jesse Helms was able to make openly racist appeals on such grounds and pay no price. On the contrary, it was a winning formula.

The same dynamic that Du Bois grappled with is on display today. In breaking for Donald Trump and the GOP, working-class white voters are manifestly undercutting their economic self-interest. To be sure, Trump didn’t campaign like an archetypal GOP plutocrat. He railed against free trade and immigration, policies that many white working-class citizens believe, with some justification, have hurt their communities. He promised to bring back manufacturing and coal mining jobs, eliminate generous tax loopholes for wealthy families like his own, and—like Andrew Jackson, after whom he has patterned his presidency—privilege the many over the few.

But Democrats and Never Trump Republicans shouted at the top of their lungs that Trump’s campaign promises either weren’t possible or that they wouldn’t help working-class voters as much as he pledged. And they appear to have been right. The president recently signed into law a tax bill whose benefits, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center and the Congressional Budget Office, accrue principally to corporations and super-rich individuals; many middle-class and working-class families will ultimately face a tax hike. The administration and its congressional supporters have also taken steps to make health care less affordable or altogether inaccessible, destabilize retirement security for working-class families, and allow industrial polluters to despoil the air they breathe and the water they drink. Despite what Trump said on the campaign trail, his agenda does little to help and much to hurt struggling white families.

Of course, whiteness still delivers other dividends—as it always has. It makes one less likely to be killed by a police officer during a traffic stop. It enables white men to carry assault weapons (including long guns) in places of public accommodation, while a black man might be shot and killed by law enforcement officials merely for picking up a BB gun displayed on a sales rack at Walmart. It affords working-class white families the peace of mind that the government won’t invade homes or hospitals in pursuit of undocumented children or grandparents. Whiteness, in other words, continues to pay tangible benefits, and for right or wrong, it makes some sense that its primary beneficiaries are loathe to support candidates who expressly promise to disrupt this privileged status.

Yet Trump has also, arguably more than any other candidate for president in the last hundred years (excepting third-party outliers like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace), played to the purely psychological benefits of being white. From his racially-laden exhortations about black crime in Chicago and Latino gangs seemingly everywhere, to his attacks on an American-born federal judge of Mexican parentage and Muslim gold star parents, he has paid the white majority with redemption and revanchism. Trump might be increasing economic inequality, but at least the working-class whites feel like they belong in Trump’s America. He urged them to privilege race over class when they entered their polling stations.

And it didn’t just stop there. As Ta-Nehisi Coates argues, Trump swept almost every white demographic group, forging a “broad white coalition that ran the gamut from Joe the Dishwasher to Joe the Plumber to Joe the Banker.” It’s not just blue-collar white people who seem blithely willing to sacrifice economic rationality for racial solidarity. After all, it arguably took a special kind of stupid for upper-middle class suburbanites in high-tax states to support a party that just raised their taxes. (No, this wasn’t a bait-and-switch. The GOP leadership has talked openly about eliminating deductions for state and local taxes since 2014.) Unless, that is, you account for the wages of whiteness.

Joshua Zeitz, a Politico Magazine contributing editor, is the author of Building the Great Society: Inside Lyndon Johnson’s White House, which will be released on January 30.