California's prisoners mustn’t be subjected to abuse by their prison guards, but inmates also needs to not be required by law to find out what work they’re willing to do behind bars.

For this reason, voters should reject Bill 6, which is cloaked in language about slavery and compelled labor, but in point of fact goals to permit prisoners to refuse work assignments.

The fundamental query is whether or not prisoners ought to be required to do work that contributes to their room and board. We consider that they ought to be required to do that, just as the remaining of us in prison who haven’t committed crimes are required to do.

For this reason, the state prison system relies heavily on inmate labor. The alternative can be a fair greater burden on taxpayers to take care of our prisons and jails.

The 13^th An amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits slavery and compelled labor, “except as a punishment for crime whereof the person shall have been duly convicted.” Likewise, Article I, Section 6 of the California Constitution prohibits slavery, and “forced labor shall be prohibited, except as a punishment for crime.”

Proposition 6 seeks to redefine the state's constitutional protections by eliminating the criminal punishment exemption. The ballot bill would also add a provision stating that “the Department of Justice may not discipline incarcerated individuals for refusing a work assignment.”

The state's Attorney General, Rob Bonta, put his thumb on the voting dial when he introduced the title for the bill: “It eliminates the constitutional provision that allows forced labor.” He might as well have said that it “adds a constitutional provision that allows prisoners to refuse work.”

Remember, this will not be only a change in state law, this can be a change within the state structure. Not only is it bad policy in the primary place, but one can only imagine the legal battles that might arise if inmates attempt to push the boundaries of what constitutes a piece project.

Could it include, for instance, protecting prisoners from the duty to maintain their cells clean themselves? Could a court interpret the brand new constitutional provision to mean that prisoners on the minimum wagepotentially costing the state billions of dollars in work that essentially serves to take care of their very own housing facility?

Of course, work assignments mustn’t be assigned arbitrarily to unfairly punish prisoners. But if there’s an issue with abusive prison guards, it ought to be addressed through targeted laws, not a sweeping constitutional amendment which may allow prisoners to legally stage work stoppages that shut down prison facilities.

It is cheap to ask prisoners to brush the floors, clean the bathrooms, or cook within the kitchen. If we will expect the identical of ourselves and our youngsters, and demand that members of the military perform these tasks, then after all we will ask the identical of incarcerated convicted criminals.

Voters should reject Proposition 6.

Originally published: September 12, 2024 at 5:35 am

Thousands of Bay Area staff, mostly women from India and plenty of within the technology industry, can breathe a sigh of relief after a court ruling upheld their right to work. But the case, which affects spouses of H-1B visa holders and Silicon Valley's technology industry, could still find yourself before the U.S. Supreme Court.

A ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Friday puts a cap – a minimum of for now – on a years-long legal battle over work permits for the wives and husbands of H-1B staff. Since 2015, they’ve been allowed to work while their spouses are on the strategy to a green card.

Two months after holders of the H-4 visa – a residency permit for spouses of individuals with H-1B expert employee visas – were granted the fitting to work in 2015, a bunch of tech staff sued the federal government, arguing that the work permit illegally and unfairly forces them to compete with noncitizens for jobs.

The DC panel's ruling on Friday upheld a lower court ruling that H-4 labor rights remain in place.

“We want to be here, work and support our families,” said economic systems analyst Mebi Babu from San Ramon. “I have been living with this uncertainty for eight years.”

John Miano, a lawyer representing the group of tech staff suing under the name Save Jobs USA, said the appeals court ruling didn’t answer the crucial query within the case: whether the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which allowed the employment of H-4 staff, had the legal authority to accomplish that.

“If this continues, the Department of Homeland Security can allow anything,” Miano said Monday. “We now have a separate immigration system created by the administrative state.”

“The courts are now working with big business to eliminate protections for U.S. workers in the immigration system.”

The importance of this litigation for Silicon Valley's big tech firms was highlighted when Google, Apple, Cisco, HP, Intel, Salesforce and the previous Twitter took the bizarre step of asking the court hearing the case in 2021 to permit the estimated 90,000 H-4 staff to proceed working within the U.S. The majority of those staff are more likely to be based in Silicon Valley.

“This ruling is good news for thousands of families across the United States, including some of our own employees,” said Google attorney Halimah DeLaine Prado. “We are proud to have led a broad coalition of companies supporting families in this process. We will continue to advocate for the support of our employees and their families and continue to push Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to maintain U.S. economic competitiveness.”

The H-4 visa, just like the H-1B visa for expert staff, has grow to be entangled within the American immigration debate. Cases of U.S. staff being replaced by H-1B visa holders – as alleged in Save Jobs USA's lawsuit – have complicated the skilled futures of H-4 holders, as have abuses by staffing and outsourcing firms. Adding to the difficulties are the extremely long wait times for the green cards that allow H-1B and H-4 visa holders to be released from their visas and grow to be everlasting residents.

“You can't really expect people to stay home for 20 years,” said Pratima Joglekar, an assistant at an immigration law firm who lives in Fremont and received her green card in December after holding the H-4 card for seven years. “It took me 14 years to get my green card. It took my husband 19 years.”

Joglekar, a neighborhood leader of an advocacy group that works to preserve the H-4 work permit, said allowing visa holders to work boosts the economy. “People are making money – they are putting the money into the economy in different ways, either by buying things or by providing for their families,” said Joglekar, 39.

The Save Jobs case was dismissed in March 2023 by U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Tanya Chutkan, citing federal immigration and nationality law in addition to “decades of executive branch practice and both explicit and implicit ratification of that practice by Congress.”

“They are taking power away from Congress and giving it to bureaucrats,” Miano said. “We have the courts taking democracy away from the American people.”

Many H-4 holders would love to see Congress take motion to make sure they’ll work. Employers are sometimes reluctant to rent them because their right to work — which can be under threat from former President Donald Trump, who has promised to strip it away — is uncertain, said Babu, 40. Employment brings not only more financial stability and infrequently medical health insurance, but in addition financial independence and self-confidence, Babu said. Speeding up the green card process would solve the underlying problem, Babu added.

Trump's promise to strip H-4 visa holders of their work permits was never kept, but they still fear losing their work permits if he wins the presidency again.

“It scares me a lot,” said Babu, whose husband also works in technology. “I'm pretty sure we'd have to leave California – it's so expensive here.”

Originally published: August 5, 2024 at 16:02

Why did Ghana need a clause in its 1992 structure geared toward banning ethnicity from electoral politics?

Ethnicity has had a destructive impact on Ghana since colonial times. The British used ethnicity to indirect regulatory policyKwame Nkrumah, the country’s first post-colonial leader, inherited this struggled with the predominantly Asante National Liberation Movement about whether the newly independent Ghana must be a federal or a unitary state. A federal state would have prevented dominant chiefs and ethnic groups reminiscent of the Asantes. Nkrumah didn’t want that. The one-size-fits-all model won.

However, the event of the unitary state was hampered by vulnerabilities related to multiple social identities and socioeconomic decline. five coups Since 1966, all conflicts have been mediated by ethnic conflicts to various degrees. Ghana has nine major ethnic groups. The largest are the Akan, including the Asantes (47.5%), Mole-Dagbanli (16.6%) and Ewe (13.9%). Religious diversity also exists. Christians make up two thirds of the whole population. There are also Muslims (17.6%), those that describe themselves as non-religious (5.2%) and Traditionalists (5.2%).

Successive governments, each democratic and military, have taken steps to contain the ethnic crisis in public life. For example, Nkrumah dissolved ethnic and regional political parties through the Law to stop discrimination in 1956. The country’s military leader from 1972 to 1978, Ignatius Kutu Acheampongethnic symbols or expressions were banned from official documents. The current structure of 1992 followed this instance.

The de-ethnicization of party politics in 1992 was accompanied by the abolition of party politics and ethnicity on the local government level. This meant that officials to administer cities and native authorities were elected without regard to political party affiliation. recently analyzed this innovation and its significance for political stability.

How did this work out based in your research within the Ashanti and Volta regions?

My findings confirm that ethnicity has been largely curbed in Ghanaian politics.

In 14 of the country's 16 regions, the electoral margins are smaller or there are swing electorates. The exceptions are the regions of Ashanti and Volta, that are home to around 1 / 4 of the voting population. 76.4% and 71.7% of the inhabitants of the Ashanti and Volta regions are Asantes or Ewes. Since 1992, the Asantes have consistently fought for the New Patriotic PartyThe sheep have now National Democratic CongressThese two parties have won every election because the country returned to democracy.

I actually have examined several possible explanations for this ethnic voting behavior. These include the background of party candidates, the ownership structures of political parties, and the allocation of resources to strongholds. I actually have also examined tensions between one's group identity and national identity (citizenship). And I actually have examined prejudice among the many Asantes and Ewes.

None of those, on their very own, provides a sufficient explanation.

What conclusions do you draw out of your findings?

In Ghana, ethnicity still influences electoral outcomes, but that is to a limited extent and is to be expected in a multi-ethnic society. To silence ethnic voices in party politics, the 1992 Constitution introduced several alternative routes for multi-ethnic groups to precise themselves. These include the establishment of locally run local government bodies and the devolution of traditional land administration to chiefs and families.

These opportunities provide local (and ethnically homogeneous) communities with the chance to make decisions about their development. They may also take part in local politics without explicitly referring to party politics.

As a result, most Ghanaians don’t see national elections as a zero-sum game, although there are specific ethnic elements in party politics. Local government elections are also peaceful in comparison with national, party-controlled elections.

What significance do your findings have for the upcoming elections?

Ethnicity, together with other socio-economic aspects, will proceed to influence party politics in Ghana, including the upcoming Elections in DecemberHowever, it will not have any security consequences reminiscent of ethnically motivated clashes or impact on the country's democracy.

Support for the New Patriotic Party and the National Democratic Congress within the Asante and Volta regions is unlikely to vary, despite the departure of a distinguished Asante politician. Alan Kyerematenfrom the ruling New Patriotic Party to form a brand new political party after losing to the Vice President, Mahamadu Bawumiawithin the primaries. It is telling that the 2 major parties are led by candidates with a Mole Dagbanli background.

The ethnicity of politicians didn’t play a significant role within the election final result in Ghana, and that is unlikely to vary.

Outside the Ashanti and Volta regions, support for the 2 principal political parties has been strongly influenced in recent a long time by aspects reminiscent of the socio-economic conditions of the urban population and the electoral guarantees of the parties. The recent economic policies of the ruling government, reminiscent of its Debt exchange program and that Banking crisis which mainly affected the urban middle class, are more likely to have a greater influence on the voting decisions of the urban population.

US Charities may spend a few of their money and time lobbyingso long as these organizations should not primarily there to Influence on federal lawsThis rule applies to all non-profit charities, from hospitals and social service providers to museums and environmental organizations.

Charities can lobby by contacting legislators or other public officials on to propose, support or oppose laws. They may engage in indirect – or basis – Lobbying by encouraging their supporters and others to contact public officials to influence laws.

Two tests available

The Internal Revenue Service assesses the lobbying activities of charities in two ways. First, the IRS determines that lobbying, including staff time and organizational expenses, just isn’t a “Essential part” of what a charity does. There isn’t any official definition of how much lobbying is just too much.

Because the term “substantial part” is unclear, non-profit organizations that often engage in lobbying may Spending test, called 501(h electionIt sets specific limits on the quantity of money and time charities can spend on lobbying, depending on their size.

For example, if a charity's annual expenses are lower than $500,000, it could possibly spend as much as 20% of its budget on lobbying. Charities with budgets of $17 million or more cannot spend greater than $1 million per yr on lobbying.

Charities must report their lobbying activities, including all related expenses of their employees or volunteers, together with the 990 tax return. These documents are mandatory for all charities except churches and municipalities.

Churches, that are routinely considered charities, must Essential parts test.

The Johnson Amendment

While charities can lobby to some extent, a measure from 1954, the so-called Johnson Amendment, Political activities are taboo for charitiesincluding the churches. They may neither support nor oppose political candidates nor campaign for them without jeopardizing their tax exemption. They also cannot make donations to lawmakers or policymakers.

However, charities, including churches, can conduct nonpartisan voter registration drives to register voters.

Some charities are affiliated with other tax-exempt organizations that Charitieswho’re allowed to lobby without restrictions.

However, charities are free to spend as much staff money and time as they need on what the IRS calls “public policy issues,” so long as those educational efforts should not tied to a political party, specific candidates or specific pieces of laws.

For example, a homeless shelter can organize community forums and publish reports on the causes of homelessness without jeopardizing its status as a charity. It may engage in educational campaigns on best practices for reducing homelessness without supporting a specific legislative proposal or political party.

Similarly, an environmental group can hold workshops and seminars on the results of plastic pollution. It can encourage the general public to make use of less plastic without supporting any particular environmental laws or political figures.

States may regulate lobbying by nonprofit organizations. For example, the Secretary of State’s Office requires nonprofit employees who engage in lobbying to Register with the state and pay a registration fee.

How much lobbying do charities do?

In a study on nonprofit advocacy and lobbying in 2023, conducted by our research team on behalf of Independent sector — a coalition of nonprofits, foundations, and company giving programs — we found that just one in 4 nonprofits has ever formally lobbied the federal government. That's a giant drop from 2000, when three in 4 organizations reported doing at the very least some lobbying.

We imagine, Misunderstanding of the legal regulations Lobbying is one factor that has contributed to this decline.

Why any such lobbying is vital

If the IRS finds that charities are lobbying an excessive amount of, those groups can be fined and even lose their tax exemptionThis is amazingly rare, but when it does occur, it has a chilling effect on the non-profit sector.

Many charities feed the hungry, protect the environment, and supply legal advice to low-income people. Through lobbying, charities can attempt to be certain that the problems vital to the people they serve and the causes they represent are reflected in government decisions and laws.

The hush money mandate

Ongoing restrictions

A housekeeper at a Concord nursing home who was allegedly banned from speaking her native Spanish at work will receive damages as a part of a settlement together with her employer, in keeping with a federal labor regulator.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which announced the settlement, said it investigated and located evidence that Pennsylvania-based Healthcare Services Group had implemented an “English-only” policy in violation of federal civil rights law.

Following this result, the corporate, which operates in 48 states, negotiated with the housekeeper to comply with pay her damages, the commission announced on Wednesday. The amount of the damages and the name of the worker weren’t disclosed.

Employers can impose restrictions on the languages ​​spoken by their employees whether it is vital to conduct business safely or efficiently, but not for discriminatory reasons, says Rosa Salazar, acting director of the agency's Oakland office.

“Customer relationships and customer preferences do not justify discriminatory actions,” Salazar said, adding that the settlement requires the corporate to coach its workforce in California “to recognize and prevent this form of national origin discrimination.”

The company didn’t reply to questions on allegations of an English-only workplace policy.