#twu local 100

[rubyliquor]

Bus Drivers Refuse NYPD

2011: Bus Drivers Should Not Have to Transport Arrested Occupy Wall Street Protesters, Says TWU

2015: NYC bus drivers’ de Blasio protest brings traffic to a crawl

2020: Bus driver union says it won’t help NYPD transport arrested protesters

Minneapolis and New York Bus Drivers Stand Up To Cops, Refuse to Transport George Floyd Protesters to Jail

[nyrockstv]

(From The Eyes & Ears of NYC Plumber) September 11th 2001 First Respond...

[transpondster]

Webpage listing NYC Transit Workers lost to Covid-19. Three of the victims:

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

By Stephen Millies

New York, Oct. 30 — Ten thousand transit workers jammed Manhattan’s lower tip tonight to say “No!” to the Mass Transit Administration’s giveback demands. MTA chairman Pat Foye — also known as “Pat Fraud” — is demanding workers pay much more money for health insurance.

The 41,000 members of Transit Workers Union Local 100 move New York City. A trillion dollars worth of real estate would be worthless without their labor.

Yet the big business media has been running a hate campaign against TWU members, many of whom work in dangerous conditions underground in the subways and above the streets on elevated lines.

[harlemworldmagazine]

MTA Worker Dies After Fall At 125th Street Station In East Harlem

MTA Worker Dies After Fall At 125th Street Station In East Harlem

ABC reports that an MTA worker died while on the job at 125th Street on the Lexington Avenue line early Tuesday morning after falling nine feet and hitting his head while doing debris pickup. (more…)

[citymaus]

“tl;dr: Landlords are taking $1 of every $8 in venture capital investments due to well-organized NIMBYism that has captured San Francisco housing regulations in their favor. YIMBY has moved public opinion. Tech must now get involved.

In 2011, when Marc Andreessen wrote “Software is eating the world,” the average seed round was about $500,000, and the median rent was about $2,600. As of EOY 2018, seed rounds were up to $2.1MM and median rent $3,650.

Per employee, that’s an extra $1,050 ($1,521 pre-tax) per month sent directly to landlords. For a four-person startup, the yearly burn rate increased by roughly $73,000 (pre-tax) just in rent. If the seed round should last four years, that means an extra $292,000 in pre-tax expenses, with $201,600 of that being funneled directly to landlords instead of growing the company or other productive activity.

The 10-year view shows similar trends in both seed rounds and rents:

“While landlords are getting an extra $201,600, seed funding increased by about $1.6MM. In other words: landlords have captured $1 out of every $8 in venture capital investment. This unearned rent is gained with one simple trick: stopping the expansion of the housing stock.

the silicon valley economy. by alfred twu.

“Long-time landowners in San Francisco have rigged the game against new immigrants to the city. They control the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, and they’re insulated by Prop 13 which artificially caps their property taxes far below the market value of their land while stealing money from schools, infrastructure, and police.

ROI of Action

You see (and feel) the cost of inaction, what is the cost of action?

Consider the ROI of getting involved. Reducing each person’s monthly rent by $100 is worth about $1 billion statewide. Most CA ballot initiatives take <$10M in funding to pass.

That’s at least a 100:1 payoff. With a budget of a few $million per year, we could accomplish this statewide.

The numbers are just as good when you look only at San Francisco. A $100 rent reduction is worth about $60 million per year. A Board of Supervisors election costs about $250,000 per candidate, and local ballot initiatives can win for less than $500,000. We can pass a ballot prop which would rezone the entire city for dense housing for less than a single seed round.

How can we fix San Francisco

Tech must get involved. Here’s how:

Get pro-housing and pro-tech people on the DCCC.

Get six pro-tech and pro-housing people on the Board of Supervisors.

Join or Donate to YIMBY Action.

Donate to re-election campaigns of pro-housing elected officials.

Volunteer time or resources for YIMBY and YIMBY-aligned candidates.”

read more: steven buss, 22.08.19. 

[berniesrevolution]

JACOBIN MAGAZINE

On paper, the news out of New York last night for leftists was decidedly mixed. But it still felt good.

Democratic socialist Julia Salazar defeated real-estate industry darling Martin Dilan, winning 59 percent of the vote to represent rapidly gentrifying working-class areas of North Brooklyn. Salazar will run unopposed in the general election, so barring anything unforeseen, she will be the next state senator for New York’s eighteenth district.

Progressive gubernatorial candidate Cynthia Nixon lost in a bid to replace Governor Andrew Cuomo, with the incumbent winning nearly two-thirds of the vote. Long-time social justice activist and current New York city councilor Jumaane Williams narrowly lost to incumbent Kathy Hochul in his bid for lieutenant governor.

A slate of progressive mainstream Democrats known as No IDC achieved several victories over a group of Democrats who had caucused with Republicans in the state senate, with challengers Alessandra Biaggi, Rachel May, Jessica Ramos, John Liu, Robert Jackson, and Zellnor Myrie all defeating the incumbents.

With Salazar’s victory, the Democratic Socialists of America continued its winning streak, overcoming (especially in Salazar’s race) unprecedented smears against the candidate from the press. What lessons do Thursday’s results hold for the Left?

Workers Can’t Be an Afterthought

Nixon made upgrading the subway her signature issue. But less than two weeks after announcing her campaign in March, she went on the attack against union workers building a new train line: “With the deals [building trade unions] have now, you can’t hope to make improvements to the trains in a fiscally responsible way. . . . Everybody’s got to pull together, and everybody’s got to make sacrifices.”

This quote was, in effect, one of Nixon’s first public statements as a candidate. Union leaders quickly struck back.

“What does Cynthia Nixon know about the construction industry? What does she know about the subways and the MTA? She says that she’s a progressive, but this kind of anti-union rhetoric shows that she is no friend of working men and women,” Gary LaBarbera, president of the Building and Construction Trade Council of Greater New York, told Politico. The heads of Transit Workers Union Local 100, TWU international, and the president of the New York AFL-CIO were all quick to denounce Nixon as well.

Well before March, Cuomo had cultivated intense loyalty from high-level union officials, and there was never a serious chance of any major union officially endorsing Nixon. But while Nixon issued a tepid correction to her initial statement, she remained essentially silent on labor issues until August.

Her eventual labor platform was in many ways a model for progressives running at the state level. But by the time it came out, it was too late for her to make serious inroads among rank-and-file union workers.

Nixon left union militants who agreed with her other policies hamstrung when it came to talking to coworkers about her. If the only thing she had to say about workers for four months of the campaign was that they should be paid less, why listen to her on other issues?

Future candidates running as democratic socialists — or merely progressives — must emphasize the concerns of workers, unionized or not. Socialist organizations especially must make a priority of consistently pushing candidates they endorse to advance aggressive, class-wide demands in their labor platforms.

They’re Coming For Us

Right-wing and centrist smears on prominent leftists are nothing new. But after Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s surprise victory this summer in her congressional primary, the notoriously corrupt, insular, and convoluted New York Democratic Party pulled no punches against yesterday’s left candidates.

In the last days of the campaign, the New York State Democratic Committee sent a postcard to Jewish voters suggesting Nixon is “silent on the rise of anti-Semitism.” (There is no evidence Nixon holds antisemitic views, and she has two Jewish children.)

It is unfair and inappropriate for a state party to actively support one candidate over another in a party primary at all, let alone to baselessly accuse a contender of bigotry. Still, with the Democratic Party barely maintaining even a pretext of neutrality and internal democracy, such propaganda was deplorable but not surprising.

More surprising was the intensity of the attacks on democratic socialist state senate candidate Julia Salazar. Salazar likely received more national and local coverage than any state legislative candidate in history. However, late in the race — the time when most voters are paying attention — very little of it focused on her platform to dramatically expand rent stabilization, pass the single-payer New York Health Act, expand labor rights, or reform New York State’s untransparent and undemocratic campaign-finance laws.

(Continue Reading)

[iowafed]

Labor Quote: Roger Toussaint “An agreement will never ever, ever, ever be resolved by fear and intimidation.” Roger Toussaint was president of TWU Local 100 on this date in 2005 when thousands of workers began what was to be a two-day strike of the New York City transit system over retirement, pension and wage issues. The strike violated the state’s Taylor Law; Toussaint was jailed for ten days…

[citylifeorg]

MTA, TWU Local 100 Unveil NYC Subway Customer Service Centers

MTA, TWU Local 100 Unveil NYC Subway Customer Service Centers

[jdpink]

But officials with Transport Workers Union Local 100, which reps bus operators, said they are not on board with the baby push because of concerns that the updated layout could lead to disputes over seats reserved for strollers, potentially forcing drivers to keep the peace.

“These situations could get ugly very quickly,” said Donald Yates, a TWU representative for Manhattan and The Bronx, told THE CITY. “Bus operators are enduring far too many assaults already and we don’t need to throw gasoline on the fire.”

[nyrockstv]

Mario Galvet TWU Local 100 @ 9/11 Museum Medallion Ceremony

[lenasai]

fyi, image quality is really bad on desktop, so here’s a transcription under the read more:

“what have these protests accomplished so far?

the largest civil rights movement the world has ever seen:

5/26: 4 officers fired for murdering george floyd

5/28: university of minnesota cancels contract with police

5/28: 3rd precinct police station neutralized by protestors

5/28: atu local 1005 refuses to bring police officers to protests or transport arrested protestors

5/29: activists commandeer hotel to provide shelter to homeless

5/29: officer chauvin, who killed floyd, arrested

5/29: louisville mayor suspends “no-knock warrants” in response to 3/12 [police murder of breonna taylor]

5/30: us embassies across africa condemn police murder of floyd

5/30: minnesota ag ellison takes over prosecution of the murdering officer

5/30: twu local 100 bus operators refuse to transport arrested protestors

5/31: 2 abusive officers fired for pulling a couple out of their car and tasing them

6/1: minneapolis schools end contract with police

6/1: confederate monument removed in birmingham, al

6/1: ca protestors launch campaign to stop da’s from accepting police union money

6/1: tulsa mayor agrees to not renew live pd contract

6/1: louisville police chief fired after shooting of david mcatee at bbq joint

6/1: dems and reps begin push to shut down a pentagon program that transfers military weaponry [to police]

6/2: minnesota afl-cio calls for the resignation of bob kroll, the president of the minneapolis police union (bob kroll is a vocal white supremacist)

6/2: atu local 85 announces refusal to transport police officers or arrested protestors

6/2: racist ex-mayor rizzo statue removed

6/2: 6 abusive officers charged for violence against residents and protestors - atlanta, ga

6/2: confederate soldier statue removed - alexandria, va

6/2: robert lee statue removed

6/2: civil rights investigation of minneapolis police department launched

6/2: resolution to prevent law enforcement from hiring officers with history of misconduct announced by san fran da boudin and supervisor walton

6/2: survey indicating 64% of polled sympathetic to protestors, 47% disapprove of police handling, 54% think burning down of precinct fully or partially justified

6/2: nj ag announces policing reforms

6/2: minneapolis city council members publicly call for disbanding the police and [replacing with] safety and outreach capacity

6/3: 1 officer fired for tweets promoting violence against protestors - denver, co

6/3: minneapolis institute of art, first avenue, walker art center end use of mpd for events

6/3: officer chauvin charged and taken into custody

6/3: officer chauvin charges upgraded to second degree murder, remaining officers also charged and taken into custody

6/3: va gov announces removal of robert e lee statue

6/3: richmond va mayor stoney announces rpd reform measures: establish “marcus” alert for folks experiencing mental health crises, establish independent citizen review board, an ordinance to remove confederate monuments, and implement racial equity study

6/3: county commissioners deny proposal for $23 million expansion of fulton county jail

6/3: minneapolis parks and rec cut ties with minneapolis police department

6/3: us army tells soldiers to disobey any orders to attack peaceful protestors nationwide

6/3: la announces $100-150 million cut from lapd budget reinvested into communities, moratorium on gang database, sharper discipline against abusive cops, in effect immediately

6/3: seattle changes mind and withdraws request to to end federal oversight/consent decree of police department

6/4: breonna taylor case reopened?

6/4: portland schools superintendent “discontinues” presence of armed police officers in schools

6/4: mbta (metro boston) board orders that buses won’t transport police to protests, or protestors to police

6/4: king county labor federation issues ultimatum to police unions: to admit to and address racism in seattle pd, or be removed”

This is how we get change. Together.

[jasonsocialist]

Some notes relevant to Janus

A case called Janus that will accelerate the decline of organized labor in the U.S. is set to pass the Supreme Court in the coming months. Below are some notes I compiled on a similar case named Friedrichs. Most labor and left writers seemed to assume Friedrichs was going to pass, with Scalia’s death leading to a split decision. As some noted however, Scalia was actually the consertative judge whose vote was least sure due to some specifical legal concerns he had previously expressed--but with his replacement, there is no such doubt. I had thought there was a chance Clarence Thomas could vote with the more liberal judges but with a separate opinion for the simple reason is that the core argument is that Abood (the existing decision) violates free speech rights of public employees and Thomas basically doesn't think public employees have strong free speech rights on the job (this is partly how the existing decision passed in the first place). However, we now know that Friedrichs lost due to a split vote, making it as certain as it can be that Janus will pass with Gorsuch’s new vote. I also thought there was some possibility that general social concerns could influence one of the conservative judges to vote no. Besides knowing now their vote was split, the social winds have shifted with Trump’s election and there’s no real basis for thinking that could happen now.

At the time I compiled these notes, I had a take on the Democratic Party similar to those now calling for “#Demexit”. For those that still profess after Trump’s election that we should never vote for Democrats against Republicans, I hope they sit with and reflect on this specific outcome: Trump’s victory ensured a Supreme Court appointment that will have profoundly negative effects on unions in this country.

Also still of note is some of the left posited that the end of dues checkoff could be a good thing, I think these arguments are dangerously mistaken and note that below--but don’t give a thorough argument. (Updated to add: Here I go some more into this though it’s still not a complete argument.)

Background

A right-wing version of the ACLU cold called California teachers to find those who disagreed with their union's stances on issues such tenure and charter schools and brought the case Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association to the Supreme Court. They are asking the court to overturn a 1977 decision that allowed public unions to require non-members covered by a contract pay a fee covering the costs of collective bargaining, grievances, etc. but not pay for lobbying costs.

Until the 60's public unions were weak and had few legal rights. Due to a wave of strikes and struggles, public workers in about half the states won union rights similar to those already held by the private sector. One of the immediate legal counter-arguments was that since public union activity is inherently "political"--about public policy--it is a question of First Amendment "free speech" and therefor, to force a worker to give money to the union is to coerce "speech."

In the 1977 Abood decision the core compromise was that in the interests of labor peace (note well the basis), workers could "opt-out" of union dues to pay a lesser amount called an "agency fee" meant to cover collective bargaining but not lobbying (one of the issues is how to draw the lines, so that calling a rally over a collective bargaining issue is "chargeable" to the agency fee even if it is an issue of public policy whereas sending a delegation to elected officials for the same reason would be "lobbying").

A key thing to understand is that in the whole private sector under the NLRA and under most parallel state public union laws, unions have what is called "exclusive representation," meaning that once a union is recognized as the bargaining agent through a majority-election or other means, they have to "fairly" represent all workers in the bargaining unit, even if they are not members. So for instance if there's a wage raise for a certain title, everyone gets the raise. If someone has a grievance and isn't a member, the union still has to "fairly" defend them in the hearings (or can be sued).

So the general set up is that in private and public sector, no one can be forced to join a union but the union has to represent everyone. The compromise is that if they opt-out, they pay not dues but a lesser "agency fee". Under so-called "right-to-work" provisions that have been common throughout the south and have been spreading since Wisconsin, non-members don't even have to pay the agency fee. So under "right-to-work" non-members pay nothing and get representation, hence this is called the "free-rider" problem.

In sum, Friedrichs [and now Janus] is looking to make the whole public sector "right-to-work."

An aside: Ironically, a core “philosophical” argument often used against the idea of socialism is the this same “free-rider” idea: if everyone's free and equal with access to all of society's resources, then what about the people that won't contribute but will take? In this case, the main conservative legal argument has been that enough people will pay that the system will still work (legally the anti-union forces aren’t arguing in court that unions should be destroyed, but that some members shouldn’t have to pay and that this will not destroy the unions completely).

Some more details

The anti-union side is led by the Center for Individual Rights, which is bankrolled by various right-wing forces like the now-cliche Koch brothers.

The pro-Abood side is being represented directly by the California government arguing that the government wants Abood to stand in the interests of labor peace, the California Teacher's Association (which did choose to represent itself separately from the state but with a similar legal argument) and the Solicitor General, the representative of the federal government.

The Solicitor General argued before the Supreme Court:

[I]f you were to take [Abood] away, ....the union is going to have a different set of incentives [than maintaining labor peace], trying to trying to ensure that the maximum number of people are willing to pay union fees.

And the way that the unions are likely to try to do that is through trying to convince employees...that they need the union because otherwise management is going to do them harm. And I do think that that's a significant problem here for public employer perspective now, in a time of budgetary constraints, when difficult decisions have to be made and cuts have to be made.

It's of great benefit to the employer, to the government as employer, to have the union participate in those judgments so that they are perceived as fair as the by the workforce, and so that the union then, in effect, vouches for management with the workforce and prevents disruption.

Some left responses

A minority of left opinion holds that the decision could be helpful.

Jacobin published an article https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/seattle-teachers-friedrichs-harris-quinn/ that said:

*  “Rank-and-file dissidents have long had doubts about most forms of automatic dues collection, worrying that such a set-up helps create an ossified system in which a complacent top never comes face-to-face with a demobilized bottom.”, and

* “If anything, the fear Friedrichs inspires could force unions to do the type of everyday, internal organizing that dissidents and reform activists often complain doesn’t happen. While this could distract from other efforts, it could also drive unions to reconnect with their membership — actually improving their chances of surviving in the long term.”

This requires a fuller response but though I used to harbor similar views I see them now as completely mistaken. Partly there’s a simple logical failure: yes, unions were often more militant before checkoff and checkoff does allow a stronger degree of ‘bureaucratization’ but that doesn’t mean removing checkoff brings back militancy nor undermines the separation between officials and members. In TWU Local 100 which lost checkoff as punishment for striking, it just as much became a tool the top leaders could use against dissidents in different ways and though it forced them into more “contact” with the ranks, it didn’t force them to thereby become more democratic or militant.

The same Jacobin article claims based on an example from TWU Local 100 that "Sometimes voluntary dues collection can even bolster reform efforts" because “in part because dues collection allowed them to engage in grassroots organizing”. Skipping over how its only concrete example actually calls into question it’s main thesis, the organizing conversations that did happen around dues collection could have happened the same way if dues checkoff had not been lost and could have been had over more productive, forward-looking issues.

Another article (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/18796/friedrichs-v-california-teachers-association-free-speech-strikes) even argues that unions could turn the free speech argument to their advantage in terms of right to strike and against collective bargaining restrictions. On collective action, I think they legally-constitutionally have a point abstractly speaking--if the first amendment rights of public workers are so strong they can't be compelled to give money to a union, why should their right to association not trump anti-strike legislation? However, one need only look at the history of how that is applied to the private sector to see how out of touch this idea is with any possible Supreme Court. The NLRA (the private sector labor law) is justified legally under the interstate commerce clause (for the stability of profit-making), not the First Amendment. Private workers can "strike"--walk off the job, but they cannot "freely associate" to stop scabs from going in to take their jobs, who can then become permanent replacements under police protection and after a year even vote out the union. There is no reason to think--however constitutionally correct it may be--that in the public sector where union rights are also not grounded in the First Amendment in court decisions, where additionally arguments for restricting first amendment rights parallel to those restricting shouting fire in a public theater (arguing a public worker striking endangers the public) would abound, that any Supreme Court would overturn legislation restricting striking by public workers.

The article’s point on collective bargaining is even worse, unless I’m missing something: "They could throw their old contracts on the table and sue every school board and state agency that refuses to discuss those items." Labor leaders aren't arrested for asking for things at the bargaining table that state law bars from bargaining, the state is just not legally obligated to listen (i.e. the issue can’t used as a basis to hold up a contract or used as as basis to make a collective action legal/protected if such collective action is possible at all). Giving a broader reign to a public union's "free speech" would not change that.

Possible consequences

This ruling will be a defeat if it goes through.

There will likely be an initial drop of membership leading to reduced budget for representation, bargaining, etc., leading to dissatisfaction and more people leaving.

Right now, few are agency fee payers because it's only about a small reduction and often requires annual re-certification to leave, and given the small difference the argument that you might as well pay the full amount to have the right to vote carries some weight. Further, many people don’t know about it or don’t encounter strong arguments to opt opt but these same right wing networks are already planning a canvassing program to tell union members to “give themselves a raise” by opting-out of paying anything but keeping all the benefits. Combine this with the common legal restraints on collective action for public workers (such as NY state’s Taylor Law), "right-to-work" in the public sector would likely have greater negative consequences than it has had in private sector.

This would also encourage passing even more state-level private sector "right-to-work" laws.

A further effect would be that with decreasing union membership, a workplace could move to de-certify the union, which even if successfully resisted would consume yet more already depleted union resources.

Given that currently about 1 out of every 2 workers are public sector workers, the declining effects of union density and membership on the overall labor movement would be extreme and negatively reinforcing.

It would mean a significant shift of union resources to doing anything to stop the hemorrhaging and away from political activity, from donating to workers’ centers or initiatives like Fight for 15.

All the direct consequences I see are negative which is why I think some of the articles I referred to above are so dangerous. However, that does not mean I think the overall picture for organized labor is solely negative nor that there can be no possible “unintended consequences” from a destabilization of the currently-existing unions leading to changes that do have good long-term effects--but such possibilities should not obscure just how bad this decision could be.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

New York City: ‘ The Subways Belong to the People’ protest at MTA Board meeting, September 27, 2017.

Photos: The People's MTA

Summer has ended -- but for subway riders, it might as well still be the summer of hell. Massive subway breakdowns still occur every week like clockwork. This Wednesday, September 27 at 9 AM, the next MTA board meeting will be the site of a protest demanding that public transportation serve the people. The demonstration has brought together members of disabilities rights groups, anti-gentrification activists and members of the NYC Black Lives Matter movement. The new MTA head’s “plan” to fix the subway has only yielded reduction in service, such as the elimination of seats – in addition to plans that further criminalize riders, like the use of the NYPD to issue more summons for littering. “The constant subway delays and breakdowns get the headlines,” said Mary Kaessinger, an activist with Disability Pride and a wheelchair user. “Of course, they are the public symptoms of a system that is not serving the public, especially the 10% of the population who are disabled.” Protesters will call for an end to Broken Windows Policing in the subway – a policy that was responsible for the racist harassment and incarceration of 25,000 people in 2015, 90% of them people of color – as well as a reduction of the fare; opening the MTA books; and 100% accessibility for riders with specific transportation needs. “Even if there were no delays, more than 75% of New York subway stations would still lack elevators, lifts or other ways to make the subway available to people who can't navigate stairs,” Kaessinger said. “Even in a station with working elevators, sometimes the gap between the platform and the train is too wide, making getting on a subway car extremely hazardous for wheelchair users like myself.” Activists will also call out the role of Wall Street in looting hundreds of millions of dollars from public transportation on the form of debt service. “MTA’s debt is $35 billion,” said Teresa Gutierrez of Workers World Party. “Much of that is interest payments, money that Wall Street gets for literally doing nothing.” “The MTA board has proven itself capable only of serving bankers and real estate moguls. We need a form of community control, a People’s MTA Board. It is workers -- the 35,000 members of TWU Local 100 -- who do the hard, dirty and sometimes dangerous job of operating the subway and public transportation in general,” Gutierrez said. “And it is workers who ride it. This necessary public service should be made to work for the benefit of the workers who run it and ride it.”

[xavier-lamont]

What have these protests accomplished so far?

•

5/26 - 4 officers fired for murdering George Floyd

5/28 Univ of Minn cancels contract with police

5/28 3rd precinct police station neutralized by protestors

5/28 ATU Local 1005 refuses to bring police officers to protests, or transport arrested protesters

5/29 Activists commander hotel to provide shelter to homeless

5/29 Officer Chauvin who killed Floyd arrested

5/29 Louisville Mayor suspends “no-knock” warrants in response to polices 3/12

5/30 US Embassies across Africa condemn police murder of Floyd

5/30 MN AG Ellison takes over prosecution of the murdering officer

5/30 TWU Local 100 bus operators refuse to transport arrests protestors

5/31 2 abusive officers fired for pulling a couple out of car and tasing them

6/1 Minn public schools end contract with police

6/1 Confederate Monument removed - Birmingham, AL

6/1 CA prosecutors launch campaign to stop DA’s from accepting police union money

6/1 Tulsa Mayor Bynum agrees to not renew Live PD contract

6/1 Louisville police chief fired after shooting of David Mcatee at BBQ joint

6/1 Dems and reps begin push to shut down a Pentagon program that transfers military weaponry to cancels contract with police

6/2 Minn AFL-CIO calls for the resignation of Bob Kroll, the president of the Minn police union (Bob Kroll is a vocal white supremest)

6/2 ATU Local 85 announces refusal to transport police officers or arrest protestors

6/2 Racist Ex-Mayor Rizzo statue removed

6/2 6 abusive officers charged for violence against residents and protestors - Atlanta, GA

6/2 Confederate soldier statue removed - Alexandire, VA

6/2 Robert Lee statue removed

6/2 Civil Rights investigation of Minn Police Dept launched

6/2 Resolution to prevent law enforcement from hiring officers with history of misconduct announced by San Fran DA Boudin and Supervisor Walton

6/2 Survey indicating 64% of polled sympathetic to protestors, and 47% disapprove of police handling + 54% think burning down of precinct fully or partially justified

6/2 NJ AG announces policing reforms

6/2 Minn City Council members publicly call for disbanding the police and replace safety and outreach capacity

6/3 1 officer fired for tweets promoting violence against protestors - Denver, Co

6/3 Minn Institute of Art, First Avenue, Walker Art Center end use of MPD for events

6/3 Officer Chauvin charged and taken into custody

6/3 Officer Chauvin charges upgraded to 2nd Murder, ad remaining 3 officers also charged and taken into custody

6/3 VA Gov announces removal of Robert E Lee statue

6/3 Richmond VA Mayor Stoney announces RPD reform measures: establish "Marcus" alert for folks experiencing mental health crisis, establish independent Citizen Review Board, an ordinance to remove Confederate monuments, and implement racial equity study

6/3 County commissioners deny proposal for $23 million expansion of Fulton County jail

6/3 Minn Parks and Rec cut ties with the Minn Police Dep.

6/3 US Army tells soldiers to disobey any orders to attack peaceful protestors - nationwide

6/3 LA Announces $100-150 million cut from LAPD budget, Reinvested into communities, moratorium on gang database, sharper discipline against abusive cops, in effect immediately

6/3 Seattle changes mind and withdraws request to end federal oversight/consent decree of police department

6/4 Breonna Taylor case reopened?

6/4 Portland schools superintendent 'discontinues' presence of armed police officers in schools

6/4 MBTA (Metro Boston) board orders that buses wont transport police to protests, or protestors to police

6/4 King County Labor Federation issue ultimatum to police unions, to admit to and address racism in Seattle PD, or be removed

Share with copy/paste