Discord has officially updated its hateful conduct policy to add behaviors that don't reflect its "goal to promote acceptance and inclusivity." These newly added bannable behaviors include "deadnaming or misgendering a transgender person." According to TechCrunch, Discord started internally implementing its expanded policy in 2022, but the chat app has just only made it public in an effort to provide more transparency.
"As part of our ongoing efforts to ensure Discord remains a safe and fun place for people to hang out with friends, we continually evaluate potential harms and update our policies," a spokesperson told the publication. "We often work with organization and subject matter experts to ensure our policies accurately encompass a holistic view of how these issues manifest across the internet and society."
In addition to misgendering and deadnaming trans people, Discord also considers expressing contempt or disgust towards members of protected groups, perpetuating negative stereotypes about them, repeatedly using slurs to degrade them, threatening or promoting violence against them, as well as calling for their segregation and exclusion as hateful behaviors. LGBT organization GLAAD has praised Discord in its call for social networks to update their policies to recognize deadnaming and targeted or deliberate misgendering as hate speech.
GLAAD also points out that among the biggest social networks today, TikTok is the only one that explicitly prohibits intentional misgendering and deadnaming. Notably, X implemented a rule against the behavior in 2018 when it was still called Twitter, but it quietly removed that section in its hateful conduct policy under Elon Musk's leadership.
Discord won't be banning users who violate its hateful conduct policy after just one infraction, though. Under its warning system, users who go against its rules will receive a direct message detailing their offense, with the platform weighing each violation differently based on the "severity of harm." Users can see their account standing in their settings page. If they have one or more violation, their accounts will be marked "at risk," while they could be permanently suspended if they're marked as having "severe or repeated" violations.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/discord-could-ban-users-if-they-continue-to-deadname-trans-people-083112064.html?src=rss
And why should only terrestrial workers be exploited? Elon Musk has long talked of his plans to colonize Mars through his company SpaceX and those plans don't happen without a sizeable — and in this case, notably captive — workforce on hand. The same Elon Musk who spent $44 billion to run a ubiquitous social media site into the ground, whose brain computer interface company can't stop killing monkeys and whose automotive company can't stop killing pedestrians, wants to construct entire settlements wholly reliant on his company's largesse and logistics train. Are we really going to trust the mercurial CEO with people's literal air supplies?
One of the first things to know about company towns is that companies don’t appear to want to be in charge of housing. In our experience, people often think housing was an actively pursued control tactic, but if you look at the available data and the oral histories, companies often seem downright reluctant to supply housing at all. In Dr. Price Fishback’s economic analysis of coal towns in early-twentieth-century Appalachia, Soft Coal, Hard Choices, he found that companies able to have a third party supply housing typically did. This is hard to square with the idea that housing was built specifically with sinister intentions.
There are also good theoretical reasons to explain why companies build housing and rent it out to workers. Suppose Elon Musk is building the space city Muskow. Having wisely consulted the nearest available Weinersmith, he decides he shouldn’t own employee housing due to something or other about the risks of power imbalance. He looks to hire builders, but immediately runs into a problem: very few companies are available for construction on Mars. Let’s consider the simple case where only one company is willing to do it.
Well, guess what. That company now has monopoly power. They can raise home prices or lower home quality, making Muskow less attractive to potential workers. Musk can now only improve the situation by paying workers more, costing him money while lining the pockets of the housing provider.
If he wants to avoid this, Musk’s ideal option is to attract more building companies, so they can compete with each other. If that’s not possible, as was often the case in remote company towns, then the only alternative is to build the housing himself. This works, but the tradeoff is that he’s now managing housing in addition to focusing on his core business. He’s also acquired a lot of control over his employees. None of this setup requires Musk to be a power-hungry bastard — all it requires is that he needs to attract workers to a place where there’s zero competition for housing construction.
Historically, where things get more worrisome is in rental agreements, which often tied housing to employment. Even these can partially be explained as rational choices a non- evil bastard might non- evilly make. Workers in mines were often temporary. Mines were temporary, too, existing only until the resources were no longer profitable. This made homeownership a less compelling prospect for a worker. Why? Two reasons. First, if a town may suddenly fold in fifteen years because a copper mine stops being profitable, buying a house is a bad investment. Second, if you own a home, it’s hard for you to leave. This is a problem because threatening to leave is a classic way to enhance your bargaining position as a worker.
Once you have people whose housing is tied to their job, the potential for abuse is enormous — especially during strikes. Rental agreements were often tied to employment, and so striking or even having an injury could mean the loss of your home. When your boss is also your landlord, their ability to threaten you and your family is tremendous, and indeed narrative accounts refer to eviction of families with children by force. If employees either owned their homes or had more secure rental agreements, power would have run the other way. They could have struck for better wages or conditions and occupied those homes to make it harder for their employer to bring in replacements.
It may be tempting to see this as a purely capitalist problem, but very similar results occurred in Soviet monotown housing. Employees tended to get reasonably nice company-town housing; if they lost their jobs, they had to go to the local Soviet, which provided far worse accommodations. As one author put it, “Thus, housing became the method of controlling workers par excellence.” This suggests that there’s a deep structural dynamic here — when your employer owns your housing, they’re apt to use it against you at some point.
In space, you can’t kick people out of their houses unless you’re prepared to kill them or pay for a pricey trip home. On Mars, orbital mechanics may preclude the trip even if you’re able to afford it. In arguing with space-settlement geeks, housing concerns are often set up as binaries — “Look, they’re not going to kill the employees, so they’ll have to treat them well.” In fact, there’s a spectrum of bastardry available. A company-town boss on Mars could provide lower-quality food, reduce floor space, restrict the flow of beet wine, deny you access to the pregnodrome. They could also tune your atmosphere. We found one account by a British submariner, in which he claimed to adjust the balance of oxygen to carbon dioxide depending on whether he wanted people more lethargic or more active. Whether it’ll be worth the risk of pissing off employees who cost, at least, millions to deliver to the settlement is harder to say.
This overall logic — companies must supply amenities, therefore companies acquire power — repeats across contexts in company towns. To attract skilled employees who may have families, the company must supply housing, yes, but they also must supply other regular town stuff — shopping, entertainment, festivals, sanitation, roads, bridges, municipal planning, schools, temples, churches. When one company controls shopping, they set the prices and they know what you buy. When they control entertainment and worship, they have power over employee speech and behavior. When they control schools, they have power over what is taught. When they control the hospitals, they control who gets health care, and how much.
Even if the company does a decent job on all these fronts, there may still be resistance, basically because people don’t love having so much of their lives controlled by one entity. Fishback argued that company towns, for all their issues, were not as bad as their reputation. In theorizing why, he suggested one problem you might call the omni-antagonist effect. Think about what groups you’re most likely to be angry at during any given moment of adult life. Landlord? Home-repair company? Local stores? Utility companies? Your homeowners association? Local governance? Health-care service? Chances are you’re mad at someone on this list even as you read this book. Now, imagine all are merged into a single entity that is also your boss.
In space, as usual, things are worse: the infrastructure and utility people aren’t just keeping the toilet and electricity running; they’re deciding how much CO2 is in your air and controlling transportation in and out of town. Even if the company is not evil, it’s going to be hard to keep good relations, even at the best of times.
And it will not always be the best of times.
When Company Towns Go Bad
Unionization attempts on September 3, 1921, reporting on the then ongoing miners strike in West Virginia, the Associated Press released the following bulletin:
Sub district President Blizzard of the United Mine Workers . . . says five airplanes sent up from Logan county dropped bombs manufactured of gaspipe and high explosives over the miners’ land, but that no one was injured. One of the bombs, he reports, fell between two women who were standing in a yard, but it failed to explode.
“Failed to explode” is better than the alternative, but well, it’s the thought that counts.
Most strikes were not accompanied by attempted war crimes, but that particular strike, which was part of early-twentieth-century America’s aptly named Coal Wars, happened during a situation associated with increased danger — unionization attempts.
Looked at in strictly economic terms, this isn’t so surprising. From the company’s perspective, beyond unionization lies a huge unknown. Formerly direct decisions will have to run through a new and potentially antagonistic committee. The company will have less flexibility about wages and layoffs in case of an economic downturn. They may become less competitive with a nonunion entity. They may have to renegotiate every single employee contract.
Whether or not a union would be good per se in a space settlement, given how costly and hazardous any kind of strife would be, you may want to begin your space settlement with some sort of collective bargaining entity purely to avoid a dangerous transition. A union would also reduce some of the power imbalance by giving workers the ability to act collectively in their own interest. However, this may not happen in reality if the major space capitalists of today are the space company-town bosses of the future—both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos kept their companies ununionized while CEOs.
Economic Chaos
Another basic problem here is that company towns, being generally oriented around a single good, are extremely vulnerable to economic randomness. Several scholars have noted that company towns tend to be less prone to strife when they have fatter margins. It’s no coincidence that the pipe-bomb incident above came about during a serious drop in the price of coal early in the twentieth century. Price drops and general bad economic conditions can mean renegotiations of contracts in an environment where the company fears for its survival. Things can get nasty.
If Muskow makes its money on tourism, it might lose out when Apple opens a slightly cooler Mars resort two lava tubes over. Or there could be another Great Depression on Earth, limiting the desire for costly space vacations. So what’s a space CEO to do? In terrestrial company towns, if a Great Depression shows up, one option is for the town to just fold. It’s not a fun option, but at least there’s a train out of town or a chance to hitchhike. Mars has a once-every-two-years launch window.* Even a trip to Earth from the Moon requires a 380,000-kilometer shot in a rocket, which will likely never be cheap.
The biggest rockets on the drawing board today could perhaps transport a hundred people at a time. Even for a settlement of only ten thousand people, that’s a lot of transport infrastructure in case the town needs to be evacuated. Throw in that, at least right now, we don’t even know if people born and raised on the Moon or Mars can physiologically handle coming “back” to Earth, and, well, things get interesting.
The result is that there is a huge ethical onus on whoever’s setting this thing up. Not just to have a huge reserve of funding and supplies and transportation, so that people can be saved or evacuated if need be, but also to do the science in advance to determine if it’s even possible to bring home people born in partial Earth gravity.
There is some precedent for governments being willing to prop up company towns. Many old Soviet monotowns now receive economic aid from the Russian government. We should note, however, that keeping a small Russian village on life support will be a lot cheaper than maintaining an armada of megarockets for supplies and transportation.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/hitting-the-books-a-city-on-mars-kelly-and-zach-weinersmith-penguin-153023805.html?src=rss
And why should only terrestrial workers be exploited? Elon Musk has long talked of his plans to colonize Mars through his company SpaceX and those plans don't happen without a sizeable — and in this case, notably captive — workforce on hand. The same Elon Musk who spent $44 billion to run a ubiquitous social media site into the ground, whose brain computer interface company can't stop killing monkeys and whose automotive company can't stop killing pedestrians, wants to construct entire settlements wholly reliant on his company's largesse and logistics train. Are we really going to trust the mercurial CEO with people's literal air supplies?
One of the first things to know about company towns is that companies don’t appear to want to be in charge of housing. In our experience, people often think housing was an actively pursued control tactic, but if you look at the available data and the oral histories, companies often seem downright reluctant to supply housing at all. In Dr. Price Fishback’s economic analysis of coal towns in early-twentieth-century Appalachia, Soft Coal, Hard Choices, he found that companies able to have a third party supply housing typically did. This is hard to square with the idea that housing was built specifically with sinister intentions.
There are also good theoretical reasons to explain why companies build housing and rent it out to workers. Suppose Elon Musk is building the space city Muskow. Having wisely consulted the nearest available Weinersmith, he decides he shouldn’t own employee housing due to something or other about the risks of power imbalance. He looks to hire builders, but immediately runs into a problem: very few companies are available for construction on Mars. Let’s consider the simple case where only one company is willing to do it.
Well, guess what. That company now has monopoly power. They can raise home prices or lower home quality, making Muskow less attractive to potential workers. Musk can now only improve the situation by paying workers more, costing him money while lining the pockets of the housing provider.
If he wants to avoid this, Musk’s ideal option is to attract more building companies, so they can compete with each other. If that’s not possible, as was often the case in remote company towns, then the only alternative is to build the housing himself. This works, but the tradeoff is that he’s now managing housing in addition to focusing on his core business. He’s also acquired a lot of control over his employees. None of this setup requires Musk to be a power-hungry bastard — all it requires is that he needs to attract workers to a place where there’s zero competition for housing construction.
Historically, where things get more worrisome is in rental agreements, which often tied housing to employment. Even these can partially be explained as rational choices a non- evil bastard might non- evilly make. Workers in mines were often temporary. Mines were temporary, too, existing only until the resources were no longer profitable. This made homeownership a less compelling prospect for a worker. Why? Two reasons. First, if a town may suddenly fold in fifteen years because a copper mine stops being profitable, buying a house is a bad investment. Second, if you own a home, it’s hard for you to leave. This is a problem because threatening to leave is a classic way to enhance your bargaining position as a worker.
Once you have people whose housing is tied to their job, the potential for abuse is enormous — especially during strikes. Rental agreements were often tied to employment, and so striking or even having an injury could mean the loss of your home. When your boss is also your landlord, their ability to threaten you and your family is tremendous, and indeed narrative accounts refer to eviction of families with children by force. If employees either owned their homes or had more secure rental agreements, power would have run the other way. They could have struck for better wages or conditions and occupied those homes to make it harder for their employer to bring in replacements.
It may be tempting to see this as a purely capitalist problem, but very similar results occurred in Soviet monotown housing. Employees tended to get reasonably nice company-town housing; if they lost their jobs, they had to go to the local Soviet, which provided far worse accommodations. As one author put it, “Thus, housing became the method of controlling workers par excellence.” This suggests that there’s a deep structural dynamic here — when your employer owns your housing, they’re apt to use it against you at some point.
In space, you can’t kick people out of their houses unless you’re prepared to kill them or pay for a pricey trip home. On Mars, orbital mechanics may preclude the trip even if you’re able to afford it. In arguing with space-settlement geeks, housing concerns are often set up as binaries — “Look, they’re not going to kill the employees, so they’ll have to treat them well.” In fact, there’s a spectrum of bastardry available. A company-town boss on Mars could provide lower-quality food, reduce floor space, restrict the flow of beet wine, deny you access to the pregnodrome. They could also tune your atmosphere. We found one account by a British submariner, in which he claimed to adjust the balance of oxygen to carbon dioxide depending on whether he wanted people more lethargic or more active. Whether it’ll be worth the risk of pissing off employees who cost, at least, millions to deliver to the settlement is harder to say.
This overall logic — companies must supply amenities, therefore companies acquire power — repeats across contexts in company towns. To attract skilled employees who may have families, the company must supply housing, yes, but they also must supply other regular town stuff — shopping, entertainment, festivals, sanitation, roads, bridges, municipal planning, schools, temples, churches. When one company controls shopping, they set the prices and they know what you buy. When they control entertainment and worship, they have power over employee speech and behavior. When they control schools, they have power over what is taught. When they control the hospitals, they control who gets health care, and how much.
Even if the company does a decent job on all these fronts, there may still be resistance, basically because people don’t love having so much of their lives controlled by one entity. Fishback argued that company towns, for all their issues, were not as bad as their reputation. In theorizing why, he suggested one problem you might call the omni-antagonist effect. Think about what groups you’re most likely to be angry at during any given moment of adult life. Landlord? Home-repair company? Local stores? Utility companies? Your homeowners association? Local governance? Health-care service? Chances are you’re mad at someone on this list even as you read this book. Now, imagine all are merged into a single entity that is also your boss.
In space, as usual, things are worse: the infrastructure and utility people aren’t just keeping the toilet and electricity running; they’re deciding how much CO2 is in your air and controlling transportation in and out of town. Even if the company is not evil, it’s going to be hard to keep good relations, even at the best of times.
And it will not always be the best of times.
When Company Towns Go Bad
Unionization attempts on September 3, 1921, reporting on the then ongoing miners strike in West Virginia, the Associated Press released the following bulletin:
Sub district President Blizzard of the United Mine Workers . . . says five airplanes sent up from Logan county dropped bombs manufactured of gaspipe and high explosives over the miners’ land, but that no one was injured. One of the bombs, he reports, fell between two women who were standing in a yard, but it failed to explode.
“Failed to explode” is better than the alternative, but well, it’s the thought that counts.
Most strikes were not accompanied by attempted war crimes, but that particular strike, which was part of early-twentieth-century America’s aptly named Coal Wars, happened during a situation associated with increased danger — unionization attempts.
Looked at in strictly economic terms, this isn’t so surprising. From the company’s perspective, beyond unionization lies a huge unknown. Formerly direct decisions will have to run through a new and potentially antagonistic committee. The company will have less flexibility about wages and layoffs in case of an economic downturn. They may become less competitive with a nonunion entity. They may have to renegotiate every single employee contract.
Whether or not a union would be good per se in a space settlement, given how costly and hazardous any kind of strife would be, you may want to begin your space settlement with some sort of collective bargaining entity purely to avoid a dangerous transition. A union would also reduce some of the power imbalance by giving workers the ability to act collectively in their own interest. However, this may not happen in reality if the major space capitalists of today are the space company-town bosses of the future—both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos kept their companies ununionized while CEOs.
Economic Chaos
Another basic problem here is that company towns, being generally oriented around a single good, are extremely vulnerable to economic randomness. Several scholars have noted that company towns tend to be less prone to strife when they have fatter margins. It’s no coincidence that the pipe-bomb incident above came about during a serious drop in the price of coal early in the twentieth century. Price drops and general bad economic conditions can mean renegotiations of contracts in an environment where the company fears for its survival. Things can get nasty.
If Muskow makes its money on tourism, it might lose out when Apple opens a slightly cooler Mars resort two lava tubes over. Or there could be another Great Depression on Earth, limiting the desire for costly space vacations. So what’s a space CEO to do? In terrestrial company towns, if a Great Depression shows up, one option is for the town to just fold. It’s not a fun option, but at least there’s a train out of town or a chance to hitchhike. Mars has a once-every-two-years launch window.* Even a trip to Earth from the Moon requires a 380,000-kilometer shot in a rocket, which will likely never be cheap.
The biggest rockets on the drawing board today could perhaps transport a hundred people at a time. Even for a settlement of only ten thousand people, that’s a lot of transport infrastructure in case the town needs to be evacuated. Throw in that, at least right now, we don’t even know if people born and raised on the Moon or Mars can physiologically handle coming “back” to Earth, and, well, things get interesting.
The result is that there is a huge ethical onus on whoever’s setting this thing up. Not just to have a huge reserve of funding and supplies and transportation, so that people can be saved or evacuated if need be, but also to do the science in advance to determine if it’s even possible to bring home people born in partial Earth gravity.
There is some precedent for governments being willing to prop up company towns. Many old Soviet monotowns now receive economic aid from the Russian government. We should note, however, that keeping a small Russian village on life support will be a lot cheaper than maintaining an armada of megarockets for supplies and transportation.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/hitting-the-books-a-city-on-mars-kelly-and-zach-weinersmith-penguin-153023805.html?src=rss
Game studios and publishers have collectively laid off an estimated 9,000-plus workers this year. Microsoft (which itself has laid off workers from Xbox teams in 2023) is bucking the trend to a certain extent by hiring dozens of ZeniMax quality assurance contractors as unionized employees.
The company agreed at the beginning of this year to formally recognize a union representing around 300 QA workers at ZeniMax Media, the parent company of Bethesda that Microsoft bought in 2021. As part of bargaining talks that have been ongoing since April, Microsoft has agreed to hire 77 temporary workers and incorporate them into the ZeniMax Workers United-CWA (Communications Workers of America) union.
Microsoft is hiring 23 of the workers as full-time, permanent employees with a pay increase of 22.2 percent. The other 54 workers are getting an immediate pay bump from $18 per hour to $20.75 an hour. Once the collective bargaining agreement is ratified, Microsoft will hire those workers as temporary employees.
According to the CWA, the new employees will now receive paid holidays and sick leave. The latter was previously only available if contractors lived in a jurisdiction that requires paid time off for illness. In addition, all of the workers will receive a copy of Starfield, the blockbuster game they had worked on. The CWA says it was not standard practice for contractors to get copies of the games they help to ship.
The CWA says the union will keep fighting for more contractors to have a pathway to permanent roles. “We look forward to continued good faith negotiations as we work towards a collective bargaining agreement,” Microsoft vice president Amy Pannoni told Bloomberg.
“We are now stronger at the bargaining table and are working to secure a fair contract for all workers — direct employees and contractors," Chris Lusco, associate QA tester and a member of ZeniMax Workers United-CWA, said in a statement. "We are all a part of ZeniMax Studio’s success and we all deserve our fair share. We hope to set a new precedent for workers across Microsoft and the entire gaming industry so that all workers, regardless of their employment status, are able to improve their working conditions through collective bargaining."
Last year, while Microsoft was attempting to win regulatory approval to buy Activision Blizzard, the company said it would remain neutral when the publisher's employees wished to unionize. A pact it reached with the CWA to that effect is set to come into force on December 12, 60 days after the Activision deal closed.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/microsoft-is-hiring-dozens-of-zenimax-qa-contractors-as-unionized-employees-180047283.html?src=rss
Fresh off successful contract negotiations with Ford, GM and Stellantis, the United Auto Workers (UAW) is seeking to unionize 150,000 workers across 13 automakers including Tesla, BMW, Mercedes Benz and Hyundai, it announced. "To all the autoworkers out there working without the benefits of a union: now it’s your turn," said UAW president Shawn Fain.
The UAW said the organizing drive covers "more than a dozen" non-union automakers. It notes that many use a mix of full-time, temporary and contract employees "to divide the workforce and depress wages." The union cited one example of a Hyundai assembly plant employee who worked for a subcontractor for eight years starting at $9.25 an hour before finally becoming a full-time Hyundai employee.
Non-union automakers, including VW, Nissan, Hyundai, Honda, Toyota and Subaru raised wages after the UAW's negotiations with the big three. VW, for one, bumped them to $23.42 an hour, rising to a maximum of $32.40. However, they "lag far behind UAW autoworkers in wages, benefits and rights on the job," the union said.
The UAW helped workers win a 25 percent raise over four years with the big three automakers, with the highest-paid Ford workers now earning $83,000 per year for a 40-hour work week (around $42 per hour). The union also gained reinstatement of cost-of-living allowances, shorter progression periods to top wages and a quicker conversion of temporary to in-progression (full-time) employees.
Tesla employees have attempted to unionize the company before, and some alleged that the company fired them for that — though that claim was recently dismissed by the US National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB has previously found that Tesla violated labor law by prohibiting employees from talking about workplace matters. Back in 2022, Elon Musk challenged the UAW to hold a vote at Tesla's California factory.
Other automakers aren't exempt from worker complaints, including startup Rivian. "The company likes to tell us we’re making the plane while flying it, and that explains a lot about the problems we have," said one Rivian chassis worker. "We have all sorts of safety issues. Turnover is terrible. Every group has a story about a new employee who did not make it to first break. The lack of safety, the low pay, the forced overtime, there are so many reasons we need to be union."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/united-auto-workers-seeks-to-unionize-tesla-bmw-and-other-carmakers-100555374.html?src=rss
Tesla sued Sweden’s transportation agency and postal service on Monday over a union strike blocking the company’s license plate deliveries in the country. The workers are striking to demand the non-unionized automaker sign a collective bargaining agreement, a standard practice that mechanics’ union IF Metall describes as “the backbone of the Swedish model.” However, the Swedish Transport Agency says it already received an interim decision from a district court ordering it to consent within seven days to Tesla’s request to collect license plates or face hefty fines. The agency says it’s too early to say what exactly that means for the standoff.
The Associated Pressreported Monday that Tesla, which delivered over 9,000 EVs to Swedish customers in 2022, described the actions of The Swedish Transport Agency (Transportstyrelsen) as a “unique attack” on the US company. Tesla’s lawsuit reportedly urges a district court to fine the Swedish Transport Agency 1 million kronor (US$95,803) while allowing Tesla to “retrieve license plates.” The registrations are held up because workers at state-owned postal service PostNord stopped supplying the plates to Tesla after its workers joined the strike.
The lawsuit allegedly claims the Swedish Transport Agency refused the automaker’s request to pick up the license plates itself or, failing that, send them through a different channel. Reutersreports Tesla filed two lawsuits: one against the Swedish Transport Agency and another against PostNord.
In a statement to Engadget, Swedish Transport Agency spokesperson Ann-Sofie Masth confirmed the lawsuit and revealed the court’s interim decision. “The Swedish Transport Agency has now received an interim decision from the Norrköping district court to consent within 7 days to Tesla collecting license plates directly from our sign manufacturer. It appears from the decision that our sign manufacturer has announced that it is prepared to provide the signs directly to Tesla, provided that the Swedish Transport Agency agrees to this. We at the Swedish Transport Agency now need to analyze the announcement and assess what consequences this has for us and what measures might need to be taken to implement the decision. It is currently too early to say exactly what that would mean.”
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Tesla, not exactly a union-friendly company, has a policy against signing collective bargaining agreements, claiming its employees already have equal or better terms than what the union proposed. The argument that it takes good enough care of its employees to void the need for a union echoes one Tesla CEO Elon Musk made in 2017 when accused of allegations of poor working conditions and low pay at the company’s Fremont, CA factory.
IF Metall, Sweden’s most prominent manufacturing union, began striking on October 27. Although Tesla doesn’t have a manufacturing plant in the country, it has several service centers, which stopped working on Tesla vehicles after going on strike. Other unions in the Nordic nation, including dockworkers, cleaners and electricians, have joined the strike in an act of unity. A component maker joined the unions on Friday in a sympathy action.
In Tesla’s court filing, the company reportedly described the decision as “a unique attack on a company operating in Sweden,” claiming the refusal to deliver the license plates would affect “a large number of consumers who ordered a new car from Tesla.”
In a statement to The AP, an IF Metall representative said, “We are doing this for the sake of our members, to ensure that they have safe working conditions.” A Swedish Transportation Agency spokesperson reportedly told Reuters, “We at the Swedish Transport Agency do not share this view and therefore Tesla has decided to have the issue tested in court, which is their right.”
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/tesla-sues-sweden-for-blocking-license-plate-deliveries-during-labor-strike-190547427.html?src=rss
US Senator Ron Wyden wants the public to know about the details surrounding the long-running Hemisphere phone surveillance program. Wyden has written US Attorney General Merrick Garland a letter (PDF), asking him to release additional information about the project that apparently gives law enforcement agencies access to trillions of domestic phone records. In addition, he said that federal, state, local and Tribal law enforcement agencies have the ability to request "often-warrantless searches" from the project's phone records that AT&T has been collecting since 1987.
The Hemisphere project first came to light in 2013 when The New York Times reported that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was paying AT&T to mine and keep records of its customers' phone calls. Four billion new records are getting added to its database every day, and a federal or state law enforcement agency can request a query with a subpoena that they can issue themselves. Any law enforcement officer can send in a request to a single AT&T analyst based in Atlanta, Georgia, Wyden's letter says, even if they're seeking information that's not related to any drug case. And apparently, they can use Hemisphere not just to identify a specific number, but to identify the target's alternate numbers, to obtain location data and to look up the phone records of everyone who's been in communication with the target.
The project has been defunded and refunded by the government several times over the past decade and was even, at one point, receiving federal funding under the name "Data Analytical Services (DAS)." Usually, projects funded by federal agencies would be subject to a mandatory Privacy Impact Assessment conducted by the Department of Justice, which means their records would be made public.
However, Hemisphere's funding passes through a middleman, so it's not required to go through mandatory assessment. To be specific, ONDCP funds the program through the Houston High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, which is a regional funding organization that distributes federal anti-drug law grants and is governed by a board made up of federal, state and local law enforcement officials. The DOJ had provided Wyden's office with "dozens of pages of material" related to the project in 2019, but they had been labeled "Law Enforcement Sensitive" and cannot be released to the public.
"I have serious concerns about the legality of this surveillance program, and the materials provided by the DOJ contain troubling information that would justifiably outrage many Americans and other members of Congress," Wyden wrote in his letter. "While I have long defended the government’s need to protect classified sources and methods, this surveillance program is not classified and its existence has already been acknowledged by the DOJ in federal court. The public interest in an informed debate about government surveillance far outweighs the need to keep this information secret."
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/us-senator-calls-for-the-public-release-of-att-hemisphere-surveillance-records-083627787.html?src=rss
Workers at Sega of America are accusing the video game company of "bad faith bargaining with workers" for its plan to lay off dozens of temporary workers. The publisher known for franchises that include Sonic the Hedgehog and Yakuza is now facing an unfair labor practice complaint filed by the Communications Workers of America (CWA). In April, 200 people in various departments across the company overwhelmingly voted in favor of unionization and formed the Allied Employees Guild Improving Sega (AEGIS-CWA) under the CWA. Now, Sega allegedly intends to lay off 80 of those unionized workers.
In its complaint, the CWA explained that it's been in bargaining with Sega since September. On November 6, Sega apparently presented the organization with a proposal to phase out of all its temporary employees by taking their work offshore to the company's offices in Europe and Japan by February 2024. Those temporary employees make up 40 percent of the union's bargaining unit and mostly work in quality assurance and localization, which the group describes as "critical to Sega's success."
The afternoon after their meeting, the CWA said Sega presented its proposal to the affected employees through captive audience meetings. "We believe this is a clear case of bad faith bargaining," the CWA wrote in its complaint, since Sega dealt directly with the union members and "violated status quo" by telling them they're losing their jobs.
"Sega will not be allowed to get away with this unlawful behavior," Elise Willacker, Senior QA Tester Temp, said in a statement. "We call on the company to make all temporary employees permanent and return to the bargaining table in good faith. There is no other just alternative." As Kotaku notes, the organization's complaint is now in the hands of the National Labor Relations Board, but it may take a while to resolve and may not prevent the layoffs from taking place.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/sega-faces-unfair-labor-practice-complaint-for-planned-mass-layoff-of-union-members-073046095.html?src=rss
For many of us, working from home is the new normal. If you know someone who spends most of their days inside their home office, the holiday season is a good opportunity to help make their day-to-day routine a little more convenient. As a group of remote workers ourselves, we’ve rounded up a few gift ideas that should make the WFH life a little more delightful.
The state agencies of Maine had fallen victim to cybercriminals who exploited a vulnerability in the MOVEit file transfer tool, making them the latest addition to the growing list of entities affected by the massive hack involving the software. In a notice the government has published about the cybersecurity incident, it said the event impacted approximately 1.3 million individuals, which basically make up the state's whole population. The state first caught wind of the software vulnerability in MOVEit on May 31 this year and found that cybercriminals were able to access and download files from its various agencies on May 28 and 29.
While the nature of stolen data varies per person based on their interaction with a particular agency, the notice says that the bad actors had stolen names, Social Security numbers, birthdates, driver's license and state identification numbers, as well as taxpayer identification numbers. In some cases, they were also able to get away with people's medical and health insurance information. Over 50 percent of the stolen data came from the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, followed by the Maine Department of Education.
The state government had blocked internet access to and from the MOVEit server as soon as it became aware of the incident. However, since the cybercriminals were already able to steal residents' information, it's also offering two years of complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services to people whose SSNs and taxpayer numbers were compromised. As TechCrunch notes, the Clop ransomware gang that's believed to be behind previously reported incidents, has yet to release data stolen from Maine's agencies.
Clop took credit for an earlier New York City Department of Education hack, wherein the information of approximately 45,000 students was stolen. Cybercriminals exploiting the vulnerability haven't only been targeting the government, though, but also companies around the world. Sony is one of them. There's also Maximus Health Services, Inc, a US government contractor, whose breach has been the biggest MOVEit-related incident, so far.
The Securities and Exchange Commission is already investigating MOVEit creator Progress Software, though it only just sent the company a subpoena in October and is still in the "fact-finding inquiry" phase of its probe.
This article originally appeared on Engadget at https://www.engadget.com/basically-all-of-maine-had-data-stolen-by-a-ransomware-gang-061407794.html?src=rss