Worker Centers

George Wittman’s newest blog post

These Latino workers, members of a workers’ center, cheer.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, business organizations are now mounting an aggressive campaign to curb “worker centers”.  As America’s labor unions have lost members and power, these new types worker advocacy groups have sprouted, pressing businesses on things like wages and working conditions.  These “worker centers” have gotten on the nerves of many businesses, who claim that they are fronts for organized labor.  According to them, these groups wrongly and unfairly demonize companies.  The US Chamber of Commerce issued a report this past November criticizing these groups.

In recent years, worker centers have spiked in prevalence, popularity and power.  Richard L. Trumka, the President of the AFL-CIO, announced that unions would start cooperating closely with these various worker centers.  This has terrified many businesses, who accuse the worker centers of using such tactics as intimidation to get what they want.  They argue that worker centers should deal with the same scrictures that labor unions do, such as detailed financial disclosure, regular election of leaders and bans on certain types of picketing.  According to them, it’s unfair that these groups are enjoying the privileges of being a union without having to deal with the regulations that come with being a union, allowing them to get away with tactics and practices that unions couldn’t.

Many of the worker centers were formed to help out immigrant workers, who had been long overlooked by unions.  So far, millions of dollars have flowed to worker centers from 21 different foundations.  Worker centers have started using strategies to antagonize business leaders who treat their workers “unfairly”, which could prove to be a dangerous strategy.  Nonetheless, many of these new organizations feel empowered by the strong reaction from these businesses, since it shows that their tactics are making them feel threatened.

The Fund to Fight AIDS, TB and Malaria

George Wittman’s newest blog post

In late November, the world’s donor countries pledged $12 billion over three years to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  The amount was more than the fund took in at its previous pledge conference three years earlier, but nonetheless less than the $15 billion that it had hoped for.  And it is far from the ambitious goal of $10 billion a year set back when the fund was first created in 2002.

Even though the Obama administration insists that an AIDS-free generation is in sight, and Bill Gates’ 2007 call to eradicate malaria, $4 billion a year for each of the three fronts on which the fund is fighting epidemics probably won’t drastically alter any of them.  Nonetheless, the fund’s executive director, Dr. Mark Dybul, called the $12 billion “incrdible”, and hoped to pry more soon from several countries and wealthy individuals.  Nonetheless, he doesn’t yet know if the fund will get to the ambitious goal of $15 billion.

While some advocates for the poor were grateful that the amount raised by the fund had gone up, others were bitter that rich countries continued to contribute much less than is needed for ultimate victory.  Chris Collins, director of public policy at an anti-AIDS group known as amfAR, called the $3 billion gap “disappointing”, but nonetheless said that the $12 billion raised showed that there’s a growing optimism that the fund is effective.

But Mr. Collin’s counterpart at the Health Global Access Project, Matthew Kavanagh, said it was “inexcusable that we are not yet on track to halt the AIDS crisis because of lack of funding”.  A spokeswoman for Doctors Without Borders said that the fights against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria took a “big hit”.

So far, only about $9.2 billion of the funds recently generated are confirmed to come through; approximately $2.5 billion more has been “pledged”, but it is unclear if that money will actually come through.  During previous years, countries had reneged pledges, while unexpected donations came in as well.

In red are areas where there is a risk of contracting malaria.

While the funds are nonetheless great, the fund still needs more money.  In April, they estimated that $15 billion would help 85% of the people in need; therefore, this new round of funding would help approximately 68%.  The combat AIDS alone, the UN estimated that at least $24 billion a year would be needed.  At the same time, malaria deaths have dropped dramatically, thanks to insecticide-impregnated nets, indoor spraying and new drugs.  Nonetheless, lack of funds could threaten the progress made in combatting malaria.

Theoretically, tuberculosis is easier to tackle because first-line drugs are cheap, but the number of cases has been on the rise with H.I.V. infections since latent tuberculosis can be activated when the immune system is depressed.

At the current moment, the largest donor to the fund was the United States, Britain, France, Japan, Sweden, Norway, Bill Gates and Dato Sri Tahir (an Indonesian billionaire).  Another large hitter was Nigeria, a country with a terrible AIDS epidemic.