May 16, 2012
If you’re looking for one of the reasons why the United States imprisons more people — by miles — than any other nation, you can look to the development of private prisons as a means of making some people rich. Those people spend millions of dollars to lobby elected officials to do two things: Convert government-run prisons to private prisons, and lock up more people for longer periods of time. Because that makes them even richer.
read more »
May 14, 2012
By JOSH SANBURN
Former intern Diana Wang is suing the Hearst Corporation for minimum and overtime wages.
In August 2011, when Diana Wang began her seventh unpaid internship, this time at Harper’s Bazaar, the legendary high-end fashion magazine, she figured that her previous six internships – at a modeling agency, a PR firm, a jewelry designer, a magazine, an art gallery and a state governor’s office – had prepared her for the demands of New York’s fashion world.
“I was so determined to make this one really worth my while,” says the 28-year-old Wang, who moved from Columbus, Ohio, to New York, where she was living with her boyfriend (also working as an unpaid intern at one point) and living off of her savings. “I knew I couldn’t do anymore internships after this.”
As it turned out, Wang’s internship was just like many of the thousands of others: unrewarding in terms of both pay and marketable experience — not to mention the lack of a job offer. In fact, the only difference between her internship and most others was what happened about a month after it ended. Wang sued.
On Feb. 1, the law firm Outten & Golden filed a class-action lawsuit against the Hearst Corporation, which owns Harper’s Bazaar, on behalf of Wang and any other unpaid and underpaid intern who worked at the company over the past six years. The lawsuit alleges that, among other things, Hearst violated federal and state labor laws by having Wang work as many as 55 hours a week without compensation.
read more »
May 3, 2012
Author Jon Talton wrote two interesting pieces for the Seattle Times yesterday, one in anticipation of the May Day anti-capitalist march, and the other reflecting on it afterwards.
The latter was precisely what you would expect from the Times. Lazy, poorly researched non-sense which, had it been written on any other subject, would have been considered unpublishable.
The previous article - although equally uninformed - was more interesting, however, because it came closer to the heart of the disagreement between the liberal establishment and anarchists, and, in fact, demonstrates precisely the opposite view the author intends it to.
read more »