Photo:  Sarah Hofius Hall.  WVIA News.

Dear Commons Community,

My colleague, David Bloomfield, had a guest essay yesterday in Chalk Beat, entitled,  “NYC teachers are told to foster ‘politically neutral’ classrooms. How should they talk about Trump?” The piece is his advice about how teachers should broached a Trump discussion in their classes. The entire piece is below and contains excellent information on what teachers can say about political and social issues in their classrooms.

Well-worth a read!

Thank you, David!

Tony

———————————————————————–

A few weeks after Election Day, a former student of mine, now a New York City public school teacher, reached out by email. She had just hosted a group of teacher friends at her apartment to think about and discuss “where we go from here as educators. One thing that kept coming up is the insistence from the city and their administrators alike that teachers remain “neutral” when talking to students about the election results and the upcoming Trump administration.”

She called the instructional guidance presented on a slide at her school “murky,” because, referencing city policy, it advised:

“Schools have an obligation to create a politically neutral learning environment. While presidential elections are a time to help teach and foster civic engagement, NYCPS employees must refrain from advocating for their preferred candidates or political parties, including refraining from wearing any items advocating for a candidate or political party.”

She went on to tell me that “warnings that our school administrations have issued make it feel as if no speech related to Trump’s policies or the impact that they may have on our school communities is permissible.” Her colleagues, she said, were “fearful about speaking truth,” lest it be labeled political speech.

Despite the guidance’s vague reference to a “politically neutral learning environment,” the rest of the text refers to partisan campaigning and not generic political issues.

Classroom teachers are, in fact, obligated to address political issues under New York State law and the state’s Civic Readiness Initiative. A city regulation, meanwhile, states that the expectation of neutrality “does not preclude school personnel from discussing or distributing information about election issues in connection with legitimate instructional programs and activities.” Post-election, New York City Public Schools updated its ”civics for all” resources for this purpose.

Within that framework, teachers are not only encouraged but also required to teach post-election matters in a factual manner within the context of the curriculum. These lessons can take place in social studies but also in science, math, English language arts, and arts — whenever they are relevant. Even if the city’s neutrality guidance is interpreted to go beyond partisan electioneering, the word used is “neutral,” not “neutered.” Teachers should take strength from that difference and meet the moment accordingly.

This is not Florida, and even there, a recent settlement over “Don’t Say Gay” legislation makes clear that discussion of so-called banned topics, such as sexual orientation and gender identity, is permissible, even if those topics cannot be part of the formal curriculum in certain grades.

In New York, marginalized individuals and groups are protected and may have full representation in the curriculum, as do hot-button issues, such as climate, trans rights, gun violence, and immigration. Educators must present this material responsibly and without demeaning individual students or those with differing views, but those considerations should enrich classroom discussions, not silence them.

I’d add that when planned, intentions to teach controversial topics might be brought to the attention of parents and school leadership, not for a veto but for possible discussion, and so those involved are prepared for any student or community response. Similarly, after-the-fact notification of unplanned classroom conversations may be advisable.

New York State law and curriculum standards — along with the ethical obligation to help students understand their world and build critical thinking skills — obligate teachers to resist perceived pressures to avoid controversial topics in context. This takes skill, and school leaders should provide professional development to help teachers navigate these hard conversations.

But to answer the question posed by my former student turned elementary school science teacher: There is a need for educators to present “speech related to Trump’s policies or the impact that they may have on our school communities” despite warnings from administrators. It’s probably unhelpful — though hard to resist — to say, “Here’s what I think,” but it’s constructive to discuss differing opinions supported by facts and ethical considerations.

David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education Leadership, Law and Policy at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. A former elementary and middle school teacher, he was General Counsel to the New York City Board of Education.

Caleb Williams, Angel Reese, and Shedeur Sanders cashed in on their NIL.   Photo: MarketWatch photo illustration/Getty Images, iStockphoto

Dear Commons Community,

When the page turns on 2024, it will be time to say goodbye to the amateur athlete in college sports.

In theory, the concept held on stubbornly via the quaint and now all-but-dead notion that student-athletes played only for pride, a scholarship and some meal money.

In practice, the amateurs have been disappearing for years, washed away by the steady millions, now billions, that have flowed into college athletics, mostly through football and basketball both through legitimate and illicit means.  As reported by The Associated Press.

In the coming year, the last vestiges of amateur college sports are expected to officially sputter out — the final step of a journey that has felt inevitable since 2021. That’s when the Supreme Court laid the foundation for paying college players in exchange for promotions — on social media, TV, video games, you name it — featuring their name, image or likeness (NIL).

The changes have come in spasms so far, not always well thought out, not always fair and not regulated by any single entity like the NCAA or federal government, but rather by a collection of state laws, along with rules at individual schools and the leagues in which they play.

But on April 7, the day final approval is expected for the landmark, $2.8 billion lawsuit settlement that lays the foundation for players to receive money directly from their schools, what was once considered anathema to the entire concept of college sports will become the norm.

David Schnase, the NCAA’s vice president for academic and membership affairs, acknowledges that maintaining the unique essence of college sports is a challenge in the shifting landscape.

“You can use the word ‘pro,’ you can use the word ‘amateur,’ you can attach whatever moniker you want to it, but those are just labels,” Schnase said. “It’s much less about labels and more about experiences and circumstances. Circumstances are different today than they were last year and they are likely going to be different in the foreseeable future.”

Do athletes get rich off these new deals?

Few would argue that college athletes should get something back for the billions they help produce in TV and ticket revenue, merchandise sales and the like.

But is everyone going to cash in? Are college players really getting rich?

Recent headlines suggest top quarterback recruit Bryce Underwood was lured to Michigan thanks to funding from billionaire Oracle founder Larry Ellison, and that a top basketball recruit, A.J. Dybantsa, is heading to BYU — not a hoops powerhouse — for the reported price of $7 million.

For every Underwood or Dybantsa, though, there are even more Matthew Slukas and Beau Pribulas.

Sluka’s agent says his son agreed to play quarterback at UNLV after a promise of receiving $100,000 and quit three games into the season after the checks never came.

Pribula was the backup quarterback at Penn State who abruptly entered the transfer portal earlier this month, choosing the college version of free agency over a chance to play with the Nittany Lions in the College Football Playoff. He’s not the only one hitting the portal in hopes of getting rich before new regulations related to the NCAA settlement take effect.

“We’ve got problems in college football,” Penn State coach James Franklin said.

The settlement will overhaul the current system. Currently, players receive money via third-party collectives that are booster-funded groups affiliated with individual schools. Coming up fast: the schools paying the athletes directly — the term often used here is “revenue sharing” — with collectives still an option, but not the only one.

“It’s going to be more transparent,” said Jeff Kessler, the plaintiffs’ attorney and antitrust veteran who helped shape the settlement. “If anything, having the schools handling all the payments is only going to improve the system.”

The NCAA has started collecting data about NIL payments, which date to July 2021. Its first set of numbers, which includes data from more than 140 schools across more than 40 sports in 2024, show a bracing disconnect between have and have-nots.

For instance, average earnings for football and men’s and women’s basketball players is nearly $38,000. But the median earning — the middle number among all the data points on the list — is only $1,328, a sign of how much the biggest contracts skew the average.

Women make vastly less than men

The statistics also show a vast difference in earnings between men and women, an issue that could impact schools’ ability to comply with Title IX. That 1972 law requires schools to provide equal athletic scholarships and financial aid but not necessarily that they spend the same dollar amount on men and women. Heading into 2025, there is no clarity on how this issue will play out.

Regardless, the numbers are jarring. The NCAA data set shows the average earnings for women in 16 sports was $8,624, compared with $33,321 for men in 11 sports. Men,’s basketball players averaged $56,000 compared with $11,500 for women.

Paying players could cost some and benefit others

The biggest losers from this move toward a professional model could be all the swimmers and wrestlers and field hockey players — the athletes in the so-called non-revenue sports whose programs also happen to serve as the backbone of the U.S. Olympic team.

Only a tiny percentage of those athletes are getting rich, and now that universities have to use revenue to pay the most sought-after players in their athletic programs, there could be cuts to the smaller sports.

Also, someone’s going to have backfill the revenue that will now go to the players. Well-heeled donors like Ellison are not around for every school, nor have private equity firms started sending money.

The average fan will have to pony up, and the last six months have seen dozens if not hundreds of athletic directors begging alumni for money and warning them of changes ahead. Already there are schools placing surcharges on tickets or concessions.

How will fans respond to a more transactional model of college sports?

“I don’t know that fans have this really great love for the idea of 100% pure amateurism,” said Nels Popp, a University of North Carolina sports business professor. “I think what they care about is the colors and the logos and the brand. I don’t know that it matters to them if the players are making a little bit of money or a lot of money. They’ve been making money for the last couple years, and I don’t know that that’s making fans really back off.”

Money, Money, Money!

Tony

Joe Manchin

Dear Commons Community,

As Joe Manchin prepares to leave Congress after nearly 15 years, the West Virginia senator — who left the Democratic Party and registered as an independent earlier this year — is further distancing himself from his former party, calling the Democratic brand “toxic.”

“The D-brand has been so maligned from the standpoint of, it’s just, it’s toxic,” Manchin told CNN’s Manu Raju in an interview that aired yesterday, citing the shift as the reason why he left the party.

Adding that he no longer considers himself a Democrat “in the form of what Democratic Party has turned itself into,” Manchin — who has long been a pivotal swing vote in the Senate — said the party’s brand has become about telling people what they can and can’t do, blaming progressives for the change.

“They have basically expanded upon thinking, ‘Well, we want to protect you there, but we’re going to tell you how you should live your life from that far on,’” Manchin added.

Manchin cast progressives — a small number of lawmakers within the party who he claims have an outsize influence — as being out of touch with the majority of Americans.

“This country is not going left,” he said.

The former West Virginia governor-turned-senator shared that he was a lifelong Democrat because the party used to focus on kitchen-table issues such as “good job, a good pay,” but claimed Democrats are now too worried about sensitive social issues, such as transgender rights, while taking “no responsibility at all” for the federal budget during the election.

But Manchin said Republicans don’t take responsibility for the national debt either, criticizing them further for lacking common sense on the issue of guns.

“They’re too extreme, it’s just common sense,” Manchin said. “I’m not going to ban you from buying it, but you’re going to have to show some responsibility.”

“So the Democrats go too far, want to ban. The Republican says, ‘Oh, let the good times roll. Let anybody have anything they want,’” Manchin added. “Just some commonsense things there.”

When asked about incoming House Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar’s remarks that Democrats would have won the election if the party was more like outgoing caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal and less like Manchin, the senator told Raju: “For someone to say that, they’ve got to be completely insane.”

“The people in America voted,” Manchin said. “They had that opportunity, you know, to vote with Kamala Harris and with Donald Trump. Donald Trump, there’s not much hasn’t been said. You know exactly what you’re getting. He hasn’t made any bones about it.”

He added: “You might say, ‘That’s too far right.’ OK. If that’s the case, then why did they go too far right when Kamala was trying to come back to the middle a little bit?”

Instead, Manchin blamed Vice President Harris’ loss on her inability to cast herself as a moderate candidate after championing progressive issues during her first presidential run in 2019.

“If you try to be somebody you’re not, it’s hard,” Manchin said. He declined to endorse the vice president ahead of the election.

Good luck to Mr. Manchin!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Pope Francis had a guest essay in yesterday’s New York Times entitled, “There Is Faith In Humor” in which he provides commentary on the important role of humor in our lives.  He uses several stories that will surely give the  reader a chuckle or two.  Below is the entire essay.

Enjoy a laugh!

Tony 

———————————————————–

The New York Times

There Is Faith in Humor

Dec. 17, 2024

By Pope Francis

Life inevitably has its sadnesses, which are part of every path of hope and every path toward conversion. But it is important to avoid wallowing in melancholy at all costs, not to let it embitter the heart.

These are temptations from which not even clerics are immune. And sometimes we unfortunately come across as bitter, sad priests who are more authoritarian than authoritative, more like old bachelors than wedded to the church, more like officials than pastors, more supercilious than joyful, and this, too, is certainly not good. But generally, we priests tend to enjoy humor and even have a fair stock of jokes and amusing stories, which we are often quite good at telling, as well as being the object of them.

Popes, too. John XXIII, who was well known for his humor, during one discourse said, more or less: “It often happens at night that I start thinking about a number of serious problems. I then make a brave and determined decision to go in the morning to speak with the pope. Then I wake up all in a sweat … and remember that the pope is me.”

How well I understand him. And John Paul II was much the same. In the preliminary sessions of a conclave, when he was still Cardinal Wojtyła, an older and rather severe cardinal went to rebuke him because he skied, climbed mountains, and went cycling and swimming. The story goes something like this: “I don’t think these are activities fitting to your role,” the cardinal said. To which the future pope replied, “But do you know that in Poland these are activities practiced by at least 50 percent of cardinals?” In Poland at the time, there were only two cardinals.

Irony is a medicine, not only to lift and brighten others, but also ourselves, because self-mockery is a powerful instrument in overcoming the temptation toward narcissism. Narcissists are continually looking into the mirror, painting themselves, gazing at themselves, but the best advice in front of a mirror is to laugh at ourselves. It is good for us. It will prove the truth of the proverb that there are only two kinds of perfect people: the dead, and those yet to be born.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter  Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

Jokes about and told by Jesuits are in a class of their own, comparable maybe only to those about the carabinieri in Italy, or about Jewish mothers in Yiddish humor.

As for the danger of narcissism, to be avoided with appropriate doses of self-irony, I remember the one about the rather vain Jesuit who had a heart problem and had to be treated in a hospital. Before going into the operating room, he asks God, “Lord, has my hour come?”

“No, you will live at least another 40 years,” God says. After the operation, he decides to make the most of it and has a hair transplant, a face-lift, liposuction, eyebrows, teeth … in short, he comes out a changed man. Right outside the hospital, he is knocked down by a car and dies. As soon as he appears in the presence of God, he protests, “Lord, but you told me I would live for another 40 years!” “Oops, sorry!” God replies. “I didn’t recognize you.”

And I’ve been told one that concerns me directly, the one about Pope Francis in America. It goes something like this: As soon as he arrives at the airport in New York for his apostolic journey in the United States, Pope Francis finds an enormous limousine waiting for him. He is rather embarrassed by that magnificent splendor, but then thinks that it has been ages since he last drove, and never a vehicle of that kind, and he thinks to himself: OK, when will I get another chance? He looks at the limousine and says to the driver, “You couldn’t let me try it out, could you?” “Look, I’m really sorry, Your Holiness,” replies the driver, “but I really can’t, you know, there are rules and regulations.”

But you know what they say, how the pope is when he gets something into his head — in short, he insists and insists, until the driver gives in. So Pope Francis gets behind the steering wheel, on one of those enormous highways, and he begins to enjoy it, presses down on the accelerator, going 50 miles per hour, 80, 120 … until he hears a siren, and a police car pulls up beside him and stops him. A young policeman comes up to the darkened window. The pope rather nervously lowers it and the policeman turns white. “Excuse me a moment,” he says, and goes back to his vehicle to call headquarters. “Boss, I think I have a problem.”

“What problem?” asks the chief.

“Well, I’ve stopped a car for speeding, but there’s a guy in there who’s really important.”

“How important? Is he the mayor?”

“No, no, boss … more than the mayor.”

“And more than the mayor, who is there? The governor?”

“No, no, more.”

“But he can’t be the president?”

“More, I reckon.”

“And who can be more important than the president?”

“Look, boss, I don’t know exactly who he is, all I can tell you is that it’s the pope who is driving him!”

The Gospel, which urges us to become like little children for our own salvation (Matthew 18:3), reminds us to regain their ability to smile.

Today, nothing cheers me as much as meeting children. When I was a child, I had those who taught me to smile, but now that I am old, children are often my mentors. The meetings with them are the ones that thrill me the most, that make me feel best.

And then those meetings with old people: Those elderly who bless life, who put aside all resentment, who take pleasure in the wine that has turned out well over the years, are irresistible. They have the gift of laughter and tears, like children. When I take children in my arms during the audiences in St. Peter’s Square, they mostly smile; but others, when they see me dressed all in white, think I’m the doctor who has come to give them a shot, and then they cry.

They are examples of spontaneity, of humanity, and they remind us that those who give up their own humanity give up everything, and that when it becomes hard to cry seriously or to laugh passionately, then we really are on the downhill slope. We become anesthetized, and anesthetized adults do nothing good for themselves, nor for society, nor for the church.

Bison were first shipped to Catalina Island in 1924. GC Images

Dear Commons Community,

California’s bison were brought out west 100 years ago by Hollywood producers filming westerns — but now on Catalina Island they’re dying off.

What began as a herd of 14 bison, shipped in for 1925’s “The Vanishing American,” their numbers soon exploded. At one time, thousands of them roamed the island off the coast of Southern California, reports SFGate.

And they were also a boon to the island’s tourism.

As of the early 2000s, bus and Jeep tours of the interior parts of Catalina brought in more than $4.2 million in annual ticket sales, according to a report.

But the bison are also an invasive species, not native to the Golden State.

The mammals’ very existence threatens Catalina Island’s entire ecosystem, scientists said.

The bison — designated the official national mammal in 2006 — have stopped reproducing, however, and their numbers have shrunk fast.

Efforts began back in the 1970s to reduce the bison population on Catalina Island, with the many of the animals being removed to the mainland.

More aggressive tactics have been taken in recent years to reduce the herd to a more manageable size, including birth control vaccines administered to the females in an effort to stabilize the population at about 150 of them.

It was thought the vaccine effects would reverse over time — but that hasn’t happened, SFGate reported.

The last bison was born on Catalina Island in 2013. Today, about 80 remain.

Scientists don’t expect the last bison on Catalina Island to die off for another 30 years.

I somehow knew there were bison on Catalina Island but I never knew their origin. And soon they will be gone!

Tony

Joy Reid and Stephanie Ruhle

Dear Commons Community,

MSNBC is negotiating pay cuts with night anchors Joy Reid and Stephanie Ruhle as the cable channel nosedives in the ratings after the election according to The Huffington Post.

Rachel Maddow, arguably the star of the network, previously agreed to pare down her $30 million salary, it was reported.

The Ankler’s report this week about Reid and Ruhle negotiating pay cuts should come as no surprise.

Parent company Comcast generated concern over MSNBC’s future by announcing a plan to spin off MSNBC and some other NBCUniversal properties into a new company.

But perhaps more urgent is the station’s plummeting viewership. Its prime-time audience tanked 55% from Nov. 4 through Dec. 15, according to Nielsen ratings cited by The Wrap. (CNN, a mainstream counterpart, experienced a 46.7% drop.)

“The ReidOut” host Reid and “11th Hour” host Ruhle, whose salaries are believed to be considerably lower than Maddow’s, are experiencing audience declines in line with the network’s overall numbers.

Newly promoted “Morning Joe” co-host Jonathan Lemire has also been presented with a new deal at a lesser salary, according to Ankler.

Sad times at MSNBC!  Not sure if it will survive?

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Facing a government shutdown deadline, the Senate rushed through final passage early this morning of a bipartisan plan that would temporarily fund federal operations and disaster aid, dropping President-elect Donald Trump’s demands for a debt limit increase into the new year.

House Speaker Mike Johnson had insisted Congress would “meet our obligations” and not allow federal operations to shutter ahead of the Christmas holiday season. But the day’s outcome was uncertain after Trump doubled down on his insistence that a debt ceiling increase be included in any deal — if not, he said in an early morning post, let the closures “start now.”

The House approved Johnson’s new bill overwhelmingly, 366-34. The Senate worked into the night to pass it, 85-11, just after the deadline. At midnight, the White House said it had ceased shutdown preparations.  As reported by CNN and other news media.

“This is a good outcome for the country, ” Johnson said after the House vote.

President Joe Biden, who has played a less public role in the process throughout a turbulent week, was expected to sign the measure into law later today.

“There will be no government shutdown,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said.

The final product was the third attempt from Johnson, the beleaguered House speaker, to achieve one of the basic requirements of the federal government — keeping it open. And it raised stark questions about whether Johnson will be able to keep his job, in the face of angry GOP colleagues, and work alongside Trump and billionaire ally Elon Musk, who called the legislative plays from afar.

Trump’s last-minute demand was almost an impossible ask, and Johnson had almost no choice but to work around his pressure for a debt ceiling increase. The speaker knew there wouldn’t be enough support within the GOP majority to pass any funding package, since many Republican deficit hawks prefer to slash federal government and certainly wouldn’t allow more debt.

Instead, the Republicans, who will have full control of the White House, House and Senate next year, with big plans for tax cuts and other priorities, are showing they must routinely rely on Democrats for the votes needed to keep up with the routine operations of governing.

“So is this a Republican bill or a Democrat bill?” scoffed Musk on social media ahead of the vote.

The drastically slimmed-down 118-page package would fund the government at current levels through March 14 and add $100 billion in disaster aid and $10 billion in agricultural assistance to farmers.

Gone is Trump’s demand to lift the debt ceiling, which GOP leaders told lawmakers would be debated as part of their tax and border packages in the new year. Republicans made a so-called handshake agreement to raise the debt limit at that time while also cutting $2.5 trillion in spending over 10 years.

It’s essentially the same deal that flopped the night before in a spectacular setback — opposed by most Democrats and some of the most conservative Republicans — minus Trump’s debt ceiling demand.

But it’s far smaller than the original bipartisan accord Johnson struck with Democratic and Republican leaders — a 1,500-page bill that Trump and Musk rejected, forcing him to start over. It was stuffed with a long list of other bills — including much-derided pay raises for lawmakers — but also other measures with broad bipartisan support that now have a tougher path to becoming law.

House Democrats were cool to the latest effort after Johnson reneged on the hard-fought bipartisan compromise.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said it looked like Musk, the wealthiest man in the world, was calling the shots for Trump and Republicans.

“Who is in charge?” she asked during the debate.

Still, the House Democrats put up more votes than Republicans for the bill’s passage. Almost three dozen conservative House Republicans voted against it.

“The House Democrats have successfully stopped extreme MAGA Republicans from shutting down the government, crashing the economy and hurting working-class Americans all across the nation,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said, referring to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” slogan.

In the Senate, almost all the opposition came from the Republicans — except independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who said Musk’s interference was “not democracy, that’s oligarchy.”

Trump, who has not yet been sworn into office, is showing the power but also the limits of his sway with Congress, as he intervenes and orchestrates affairs from Mar-a-Lago alongside Musk, who is heading up the new Department of Government Efficiency.

The incoming Trump administration vows to slash the federal budget and fire thousands of employees and is counting on Republicans for a big tax package. And Trump’s not fearful of shutdowns the way lawmakers are, having sparked the longest government shutdown in history in his first term at the White House.

“If there is going to be a shutdown of government, let it begin now,” Trump posted early in the morning on social media.

More important for the president-elect was his demand for pushing the thorny debt ceiling debate off the table before he returns to the White House. The federal debt limit expires Jan. 1, and Trump doesn’t want the first months of his new administration saddled with tough negotiations in Congress to lift the nation’s borrowing capacity. Now Johnson will be on the hook to deliver.

“Congress must get rid of, or extend out to, perhaps, 2029, the ridiculous Debt Ceiling,” Trump posted — increasing his demand for a new five-year debt limit increase. “Without this, we should never make a deal.”

President Biden has been in discussions with Jeffries and Schumer, but White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said: “Republicans blew up this deal. They did, and they need to fix this.”

As the day dragged on, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell stepped in to remind colleagues “how harmful it is to shut the government down, and how foolish it is to bet your own side won’t take the blame for it.”

For a recap of the what is in and out of the new funding bill, check out this recap at:  https://www.aol.com/news/government-funding-agreement-144719808.html

It is a shame that every year federal workers have to go through the agony of whether or not there will be a shutdown.

Tony

Amazon workers on strike in New York City.

Dear Commons Community,

Amazon workers affiliated with the Teamsters union launched a strike at seven of the company’s delivery hubs less than a week before Christmas.

The Teamsters said the workers, who voted to authorize strikes in recent days, joined picket lines yesterday after Amazon ignored a Sunday deadline the union had set for contract negotiations.

The company says it doesn’t expect the strike to impact holiday shipments.

Amazon has a couple hundred employees at each delivery station. The Teamsters mainly have focused on organizing delivery drivers, who work for contractors that handle package deliveries for the company. But Amazon has rebuffed demands to come to the negotiating table since it doesn’t consider the drivers to be its employees.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters also says the union represents some Amazon warehouse workers.

Here are some takeaways and what you need to know if you are an Amazon customer:

Where are the strikes happening?

The strikes are taking place at three delivery hubs in Southern California, and one each in San Francisco, New York City, Atlanta, Georgia, and Skokie, Illinois, according to the union’s announcement.

The union hasn’t said how many workers are participating in the strike, nor how long it will go on. Vinnie Perrone, the president of a local Teamsters union in metro New York, said Thursday that the walkout would continue “as long as it takes.”

The union, which claims to represent 10,000 Amazon workers at 10 facilities, said workers in more locations were prepared to join the fight.

Employees at a company air hub in California have authorized a strike. So have workers at an Amazon warehouse in New York, which unionized with the nascent Amazon Labor Union in 2022 and has since affiliated with the Teamsters.

The Teamsters says its local unions are also putting up picket lines at other Amazon warehouses. A company spokesperson said yesterday the strikers were “almost entirely outsiders, not Amazon employees or partners, and the suggestion otherwise is just another lie from the Teamsters.”

What do the workers want?

The striking workers are fighting for higher wages, better benefits, and safer work conditions.

The Teamsters have tried to get Amazon to come to the negotiating table since last year, when the labor organization first said it had unionized a group of delivery drivers in California who work for a contractor. Amazon — which denies it employs the workers — refused, leading the union to file unfair labor charges against the company at the National Labor Relations Board.

In August, prosecutors at the federal labor agency classified Amazon as a “joint employer” of subcontracted drivers. In September, the company boosted hourly pay for the drivers amid the growing pressure.

Amazon warehouse workers who voted to unionize in the New York City borough of Staten Island also have tried to get the company to engage in contract negotiations.

The National Labor Relations Board certified the Amazon Labor Union election, but the company objected to the representation vote and refused to bargain. In the process, Amazon also filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the labor board, which it accused of tainting the vote.

Some organizers involved with the unionization effort there have long believed Amazon would not come to the negotiating table unless workers went on strike.

What about holiday deliveries?

Amazon says it doesn’t expect the strike to impact its operations, but a walkout — especially one that lasts many days — could delay shipments in some metro areas.

An Amazon spokesperson said Thursday that the company intentionally builds its sites close to where customers are, schedules shipping windows and works with other large carriers, such as UPS, to deliver products.

“We believe in the strength of our network and plan for contingencies to minimize potential operational impact or costs,” the spokesperson said.

Tony

Neil Cavuto Waves Goodbye to Viewers.

Dear Commons Community,

Neil Cavuto, a  journalist, who hosts a weekday afternoon show on the Fox News Channel and has been with the network since its inception in 1996, is leaving the cable news network. Yesterday was his last show.

A workhorse at the network, Cavuto also hosts programs at Fox’s sister, the Fox Business Network. As reported by Fox News and the Associated Press.

“Neil Cavuto’s illustrious career has been a master class in journalism and we’re extremely proud of his incredible 28-year run with Fox News Media,” the network said. “His programs have defined business news and set the standard for the entire industry. We wish him a heartfelt farewell and all the best on his next chapter.”

Unlike many at Fox, he has not interviewed President-elect Donald Trump since 2017 and sometimes has angered him. Trump said on social media that Cavuto “is one of the WORST on television” after the Fox host said on his show that Trump had “decisively lost” his debate with Democrat Kamala Harris.

Cavuto’s contract was coming to an end and he and Fox could not agree on an extension, said a person at the network with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk about contracts.

The exit had nothing to do with Trump taking office next month for a second term, the person said.

Cavuto, 66, has stayed on the job despite a number of health issues through the years. He has multiple sclerosis, underwent heart surgery and had bouts of long COVID.

There’s no immediate word on who will replace Cavuto at 4 p.m. Eastern on Fox’s schedule.

I watched his  show last evening.  He gave  a classy farewell thanking Fox News for standing with him during his past and ongoing medical episodes.  He will be missed.  He is the only Fox News personality to present “fair and balanced” reporting.  There is no reason to ever turn on Fox News again unless you want to watch Republican Party spin.

Tony