GOOD NEWS FROM THE ELECTION

There was a lot of good news from the election for Democrats, progressives, and America. First, one piece of semi-good news: Despite what Trump and his supporters may claim, Trump did not win with a landslide or a mandate. He did win the popular vote but got less than half of the votes cast. His margin of victory was about 1.5%; not a landslide in any rational analysis. It was one of the closest presidential elections in history. Moreover, almost a third of eligible voters didn’t vote, which means Trump was elected by about one-third of eligible voters. Finally, Republican margins of control in both the House and the Senate are very thin. If four Republicans in either chamber don’t vote in lock step with their party, the Republicans don’t have a majority to pass legislation. In the Senate, seven Democrats would have to vote with all the Republicans to overcome a filibuster. In conclusion, Trump’s and the Republicans’ win in the election was quite narrow.

Now for the real bright spots in the election.

State supreme courts will be a key firewall for protecting civil rights and democracy, given the U.S. Supreme Court’s controlling majority of six radical, right-wing reactionary justices. Democrats won state supreme court races in Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan (2 seats, each by over a 20 percent margin), Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, and North Carolina. These wins occurred despite Trump winning in all these states except Minnesota.

There are some interesting stories that emerge from these races. In Mississippi, an outsider, populist, and public defender promoting criminal justice reform ran against an incumbent ultra-conservative woman. He won by roughly ten percentage points. In Montana, two seats were up for election. One of the Democrats ran as a moderate, pledging to work cooperatively with the Republican legislature. The other ran as a progressive, promising voters she would stand up to attacks on individual rights, especially women’s rights. The progressive won and the moderate lost. [1]

In North Carolina, Democrats won the races for governor, attorney general, and secretary of state.

There were a range of state ballot issues where progressive positions won. Reproductive rights won in multiple states in multiple ways. In Arizona and Missouri, voters overturned state abortion bans. In Colorado, Maryland, Montana, and Nevada, voters passed measures establishing a state constitutional right to abortion. In New York, voters strengthened constitutional protections for women’s rights, including abortion rights. In Florida, a ballot measure to add protection for reproductive rights to the state constitution got over 57% of the vote but failed to achieve the 60% threshold required to amend the constitution. [2]

In Alaska and Missouri, voters approved increases in the minimum wage to $15 an hour. In Alaska, Missouri, and Nebraska, voters approved access to paid sick leave. In Alaska and Oregon, voters passed measures supporting unionization efforts. In Colorado, Kentucky, and Nebraska, voters rejected school voucher initiatives that would have taken steps to undermine funding for public schools and to privatize K-12 education. These are some examples of progressive measures that were approved by voters at the state level; there were also progressive measures passed at the local level. [3]

All of this underscores that progressive policies, particularly economic ones, are broadly popular. For Democrats to win nationally, they need to be loud and clear in their messaging about their support for progressive policies, especially economic ones. They also have to stop sending a mixed message by expressing support for wealthy corporations and individuals. They must be loud and clear about calling out corporations for price gouging that consumers experienced as inflation. They must be loud and clear about their support for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which protects consumers from big banks that charge onerous overdraft fees and monopolistic credit card companies that charge usurious interest rates and late fees, for example. Democrats must be loud and clear about their support for increasing the minimum wage, fairer overtime pay, stopping wage theft, and ending non-compete clauses that prevent workers from switching jobs to advance their careers.

President Biden and his administration have taken important steps to promote these progressive policies. They have taken stronger action to rein in monopolistic corporations, to support unions, and to mitigate the negative effects of global trade than any president in over 50 years. However, most workers haven’t felt the effects yet and their distrust of Democrats runs deep, given Democrats’ years of support for huge corporations over workers and consumers, promotion of global trade that undermined good jobs and wages in the U.S., and failure to support unions.

To win nationally, Democrats need to improve their messaging and work diligently to promote progressive economic policies, even in the face of blockades from the Trump administration and Republicans in Congress. Democrats also need to clearly and loudly point out how the policies of Trump and Republicans are hurting workers, consumers, and families, i.e., everyday Americans. This could and should lay the groundwork for capturing at least one house of Congress in 2026 and the presidency in 2028.

[1] Stern, M. J., 11/19/24, “This election’s surprising bright spot for progressives is a very big deal,” Slate (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/2024-election-progressives-judicial-races-allison-riggs.html)

[2] Warren, E., 11/17/24, “Update on statewide election results for abortion rights,” Email newsletter

[3] Cohn, E., & Sherer, J., 11/7/24, “A review of key 2024 ballot measures,” Economic Policy Institute (https://www.epi.org/blog/a-review-of-key-2024-ballot-measures-voters-backed-progressive-policy-measures/)

WHAT’S UP WITH TRUMP’S CABINET NOMINATIONS?

President-elect Donald Trump has been announcing picks for his cabinet. They are, for the most part, remarkably unqualified; they lack expertise and experience relevant to the agencies’ missions, as well as experience running any sort of large organization.

Many people are wondering why he is nominating such unqualified individuals. Although I certainly don’t understand Trump, I can think of a range of possible answers. It’s probably a combination of these reasons. Trump may be:

Trying to be outrageous to generate media and public attention.
Trying to see how far he can push Republicans in the Senate to confirm unqualified nominees. This would be an exercise to exert and demonstrate his power and dominance.
Setting up a negotiating strategy where the pressure to confirm some of his unqualified nominees grows after the most outrageous ones are rejected.
Concerned only about loyalty. His sole or main criterion may be individuals who will do whatever he asks regardless of legality, ethics, or precedents.
Engaged in psychological warfare. He may be trying to scare, terrorize, and traumatize people who are worrying about the effects of having these individuals running the agencies. Trump will engage in “a shock and awe presidency” where he “will bombard this nation with so many reprehensible actions in rapid succession [that] many may cower in a kind of shell-shocked inaction. We’ll still be recovering from one blow when the next one lands.” [1]
Trying to make government dysfunctional. Not only do Republicans want smaller, less effective government so regulation of for-profit corporations is reduced, they want to privatize government functions so private providers can profit off them (e.g., Medicare Advantage plans). They also want the public to distrust government and even democracy. What better way to accomplish all of this than to have blatant examples of government dysfunction.
Wanting to have the second-in-command individuals, who he can appoint without Senate confirmation, run the agencies. This strategy is included in the Project 2025 plan for the Trump presidency. If the top positions go unfilled (because the Senate won’t confirm or is slow in confirming his nominees), his next-in-line appointees will be in charge.

Whatever happens with Trump’s nominees, there will be significant damage to the agencies and the government. The Democrats need to point out specific examples of actions that hurt the public – and the mainstream media need to report them. For example, if Trump imposes tariffs that drive up prices, Democrats and the media need to highlight this inflation and that it’s caused by Trump’s tariffs. If Trump doesn’t protect consumers from price gouging by monopolistic corporations and abuses by financial institutions, Democrats and the media need to highlight this.

The Democrats also need to point out specific examples of actions that hurt workers and to counter Trump’s claims that he is standing up for workers. For example, if Trump doesn’t support an increase in the minimum wage, doesn’t support unions and efforts to unionize, opposes covering more workers under overtime pay rules, and doesn’t support banning non-compete provisions in contracts employees are required to sign (this is what right-to-work should really be about), Democrats and the media need to highlight this. And so forth.

We cannot allow ourselves to be stunned or overwhelmed into inaction. Every little action and bit of resistance makes a difference and is a contribution to a whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. There are elections for the U.S. House and Senate coming up in 2026 that will determine control of both chambers. Needless to say, if Democrats could take back control of one or both chambers that would serve as a powerful check on Trump and his supporters in the federal government and in the judiciary.

The effort to communicate with voters about the differences between Democratic policies and Trump and Republican policies needs to begin now. And Democrats need to be clear and unequivocal that they are standing up for consumers, workers, and everyday Americans, NOT for wealthy corporations and individuals.

We, as believers in democracy, need to identify firewalls and hurdles to block or slow the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine democracy and elections, harm vulnerable people, and implement harmful policies (including on climate change). Legal action through lawsuits will be necessary. These can serve to slow implementation of bad programs and policies, even if, ultimately, they get to a politicized Supreme Court that sides with Trump. This is using the classic Trump technique of using the court system to delay action.

Ultimately, there may need to be big demonstrations and even, perhaps, a general strike. Although there haven’t been big demonstrations since the Women’s March in 2016 and although these are rare in recent times in the U.S., it may be time. The general strike is a tactic unheard of in recent times in the U.S. However, in France, there were huge, mass demonstrations and a general strike in 2023 over efforts to increase the retirement age from 62 to 64. We face far more extreme political and policy changes than that, so perhaps we need to step up our level of engagement and action.

We need to monitor what Trump and his cronies are doing, but we shouldn’t let ourselves be unduly stressed by hypotheticals. We need to respond in ways that are effective and not waste time on minutia and tilting at windmills.

So, for starters, tell your Senators that you want a meaningful confirmation process for Trump’s nominees, who should be held to traditional criteria. Tell your Senators and Representative that you want them to stand up for democracy, for equality and fairness under the rule of law, for equal opportunity, for the Bill of Rights (including separation of church and state), and for government of, by, and for all the people – workers, families, and consumers – not just wealthy business people.

There’s much at risk: democracy, vulnerable people, and important policies, including addressing climate change, enforcing anti-trust laws to block abusive practices by monopolistic corporations, and ensuring free and fair elections where all citizens are encouraged to and facilitated in voting. I hope you agree. There’s much to be done and having all hands on deck will be important.

You can find contact information for your US Representative at http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ and for your US Senators at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

[1] Graham, R., 11/24/24, “Disqualifying, extreme, and incompetent – Trump’s DEI Cabinet picks,” The Boston Globe

AMERICAN PRINCIPLES AND DEMOCRACY ARE IN DANGER

Oligarchy Definition A small group of people having formal and informal power based on (1)wealth; (2) connections; and (3) privilege.

Trump’s election is the culmination of decades-long efforts to roll back America’s progress toward achieving its founding principles of democracy; equality under the rule of law; equal opportunity for all to pursue life, liberty, and happiness; and government of, by, and for the people.

In modern political history, these efforts began in the 1960s with Nixon’s southern strategy with dog whistles to racism, accelerated in the 1980s with Reagan’s supply side economics, turned nasty in the 1990s with Gingrich’s demonization of the political opposition, and exploded in 2016 with Trump’s emergence. Historians like Heather Cox Richardson trace anti-democracy efforts back to the southern plantation and slave owners of the pre- and post-Civil War periods. [1]

The rejection of democracy is based on the belief that some people (or some men) are better than others and that they deserve to rule over the lesser human beings. This rejects the Declaration of Independence’s assertion that all people (or even all men) are created equal. This belief in oligarchy (rule by a small group) has led to the use of a range of tactics by elites to assert their control and supremacy – from slavery, to Jim Crow laws, to anti-immigrant laws, to voter suppression, to gerrymandering, to buying elections and elected officials. The latter three have been used very effectively in recent years.

For example, a long-standing voter suppression technique has been barring convicted felons from voting for life and creating a criminal justice system that disproportionately convicts Blacks of felonies. As you may remember, the 2000 presidential race between Al Gore and George W. Bush was decided by a few hundred votes in Florida. At that time, there were over 800,000 disenfranchised felons in Florida who were disproportionately Black and who most likely would have changed the outcome of the election if any significant number of them had been allowed to vote.

Current gerrymandering of congressional districts probably gives Republicans 15 to 20 more seats in the U.S. House than they would have with fairly-drawn districts. This determined which party had control of the House after both the 2022 and 2024 elections.

To some degree, money from wealthy individuals has been corrupting our elections probably forever. However, this was exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision that allows unlimited spending on campaigns by wealthy individuals and corporations. One clear cut, current example of wealth purchasing political office is J. D. Vance. He almost certainly wouldn’t have been elected to the U.S. Senate in 2022 without the $15 million or so his key backer, billionaire Peter Thiel, spent on his behalf. And he almost certainly wouldn’t have been Trump’s vice-presidential pick if Thiel and billionaire Elon Musk hadn’t pledge tens of millions of dollars to Trump’s campaign on the condition that he pick Vance for vice president.

In large part, Trump, his campaign, and the Republicans have been able to sell the rejection of democracy and equality under law by appealing to the frustration, anger, and grievance of the primarily, but not exclusively, white, working class. Workers are angry because their economic security and well-being has been stripped from them. Meanwhile, the rich have gotten much richer and huge, monopolistic corporations and private equity financiers have exerted more and more power over workers. Workers’ jobs have been shipped out of the country, their union memberships have been taken away or denied, and their pensions have been lost to corporate and private equity bankruptcies. Furthermore, their costs of living, for housing, health care, and everyday goods, have skyrocketed. Their wages have been stagnant in the face of inflation and record-setting corporate profits, including in the essential-for-living food and gasoline industries. [2]

Trump is a master of demagoguery and, with significant success, he and his campaign have blamed the struggles of workers on immigrants, minorities, non-Christians, LGBTQ+ and transgendered people, and even women who don’t adhere to a patriarchically defined role.

Trump, personally, doesn’t appear to have any political ideology other than wanting power, prestige, and wealth, including the power to take revenge against anyone who would stand in his way. J. D. Vance’s and Trump’s billionaire backers, however, are committed to establishing an oligarchy. Thiel and Musk are openly anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian. They believe American democracy is a failed experiment and should be replaced by an authoritarian government. They view democracy as inefficient and wasteful. They believe that its commitment to equality and justice erodes (their desired) social values and order. [3]

Thiel wrote in 2009, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” (That begs the question of freedom for whom.) He also wrote that democracy and capitalism are no longer compatible, in part because women have been granted the right to vote. [4]

Thiel, Musk, and other wealthy backers of Trump (and probably more importantly as backers of J. D. Vance), view Trump as ineffective due to his erratic, impulsive nature and cognitive limitations, including a lack of knowledge and attention span. They see him as a transitional means to an end, with Vance as their power behind the throne and as the next president. So, keep your eyes on Vance, Musk, and the other powerful people around Trump. Trump is a master at creating distractions to get the media and the public to pay attention to little, often outrageous stuff, while the important action is going on behind this obfuscation screen.

In future posts, I’ll discuss what can and needs to be done to constrain Trump and his cronies. For example, hopefully, at least some Republicans in the Senate will take their responsibility to vet and approve Trump’s cabinet nominees seriously. State governments and Attorneys General can take action to protect vulnerable people, to move forward on important policies (such as climate change), and to block the Trump administration’s egregious actions.

[1] Richardson, H. C., 4/7/21 and 7/3/24, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/april-7-2021 and https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-3-2024)

[2] Reich, R., 11/11/24, “How to root out Trumpism,” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/the-root-of-trumpism)

[3] Reich, R., 10/3/24, “Vance and the future of the anti-democracy movement,” (https://robertreich.substack.com/p/vance-and-the-future-of-the-anti)

[4] Richardson, H. C., 7/30/24, “Letters from an American blog,” (https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/july-30-2024)

CONCERNED FOR OUR DEMOCRACY AND THE WELL-BEING OF MANY

This is a post I never thought I’d write. In January, the United States of America will unequivocally become a plutocratic oligarchy with strong elements of fascism. Before getting into details of what this means, I want to acknowledge that we and our country are in for some dark and difficult times. Take care of yourself and nurture the strength for the fights ahead.

I’m not giving up hope or the values and principles I espouse in this blog. Things will get worse, perhaps much worse, before we can turn things around. The fight for democracy has often been hard, and, as I’ve written before, democracy is not a spectator sport.

After a period of mourning and to rest and recuperate from the shock and horror, we all need to get to work fighting for our democracy and the vulnerable members of our society. We’ll need to roll up our sleeves, knowing that at times it will get ugly, down and dirty. This is our generation’s fight for democracy. It’s different than my parents’ fight of World War II, but we may need to show the same resolve and courage as they did in the 1940s in the face of what appeared at times to be overwhelming odds.

Here are some thoughts and messages that have helped me in this dark time and I hope will help you.

Kamala Harris in her concession speech: “ … in our nation, we owe loyalty not to a president or a party, but to the Constitution of the United States, and loyalty to our conscience and to our God. … My allegiance to all three is why I am here to say, while I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fuels this campaign, the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness and the dignity of all people, a fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. …

“We will never give up the fight for our democracy, for the rule of law, for equal justice, and for the sacred idea that every one of us, no matter who we are or where we start out, has certain fundamental rights and freedoms that must be respected and upheld. … We will continue to wage this fight in the voting booth, in the courts and in the public square. … On the campaign, I would often say when we fight, we win. But here’s the thing, sometimes the fight takes a while. That doesn’t mean we won’t win. The important thing is don’t ever give up. Don’t ever give up.”

Liz Cheney, former U.S. Republican Representative from Wyoming, wrote: “We now have a special responsibility, as citizens of the greatest nation on earth, to do everything we can to support and defend our Constitution, preserve the rule of law, and ensure that our institutions hold over these coming four years. Citizens across this country, our courts, members of the press and those serving in our federal, state and local governments must now be the guardrails of democracy.”

Rebecca Solnit, writer and author of Hope in the Dark, wrote: “They want you to feel powerless and to surrender and to let them trample everything and you are not going to let them. You are not giving up, and neither am I. The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything and everything we can save is worth saving. You may need to grieve or scream or take time off, but you have a role no matter what, and right now good friends and good principles are worth gathering in. Remember what you love. Remember what loves you. Remember in this tide of hate what love is. The pain you feel is because of what you love. …

“People kept the faith in the dictatorships of South America in the 1970s and 1980s, in the East Bloc countries and the USSR, women are protesting right now in Iran and people there are writing poetry. There is no alternative to persevering, and that does not require you to feel good. You can keep walking whether it’s sunny or raining. Take care of yourself and remember that taking care of something else is an important part of taking care of yourself, because you are interwoven with the ten trillion things in this single garment of destiny that has been stained and torn, but is still being woven and mended and washed.”

From the son of a friend who was with Obama after the 2016 election: “But I mostly remember Obama talking about how growing up biracial in America in the 60s and 70s he had lived through setbacks and agonizing, searing zigs and zags in history, and ultimately he had decided to stay in the fight and stay in the work and stay hopeful. And he challenged us — after taking some time to care for ourselves and mourn — to think about what we were going to do about it in the coming weeks and years.”

We need to fight and persevere because our federal government is going to be run by a small group (oligarchy) of wealthy (plutocracy), primarily white, supposedly Christian, men. They want this power so they can rule like kings, enhancing their wealth and their privileged status. They believe they deserve power because they think they are better people, including smarter and better decision makers, than the rest of us. They don’t really care about working people beyond conning them into voting for them by parroting populist rhetoric.

Although fascism doesn’t have a clear, agreed upon definition, the rhetoric and apparent plans for governing of Trump and his supporters have many elements of fascism. A key one is that the means of production of goods and services, as well as land and other property, remain in private hands. The owners of businesses and the holders of wealth typically work in coordination with government officials to mutually increase their wealth and power.

Fascism is authoritarian, a dictatorship or an oligarchy. Political and intellectual opposition are suppressed, sometimes violently. Other elements of fascism include a social hierarchy often based on race, national origin, and/or religion. It is built on extreme nationalism and a set of “traditional” social values. It denigrates pluralism and democracy that give voice and power to “others.” The nation’s interests (as defined by the rulers) supersede those of the individual, which is, of course, in direct contradiction to the Bill of Rights that America’s founders ensconced in our Constitution.

I’m all in for democracy and for protecting the vulnerable members of our society. I hope you are too. We’ve got our work cut out for us.

EXTREME CAPITALISM OF PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS DOES GREAT HARM Part 2

Illustration of a vulture sitting on a falling graph. Concept for vulture capitalists, economic crisis, recession, bankruptcy and insolvency.

This post provides an overview of how the private equity financial model works. It includes two examples of its detrimental effects, one in the chemical industry and the other in communications services for the 500,000 deaf people in the U.S.

(Note: If you find my posts too long to read on occasion, please just skim the bolded portions. Thanks for reading my blog! Special Note: The new, more user-friendly website for my blog is here.)

My previous post provided a high-level summary of the harm being done by private equity (PE) firms. It then focused on the Stop Wall Street Looting Act in Congress as an important step to stop the harm being done to patients, consumers, employees, and communities by the PE financial model.

Here’s an overview of how the private equity financial model works. The PE firm, using mostly borrowed money, buys a company. The debt and interest of the borrowed money are then made the responsibility of (and often an overwhelming burden on) the purchased company. The PE owners also pay themselves exorbitant fees (usually for “management”) and pay large dividends to themselves and their other investors. They often sell the company’s assets, such as real estate, to raise money to pay for these payments or to make debt payments. Typically, the company’s real estate is leased back to it at an exorbitant cost.

All this forces the purchased company to engage in (often severe) cost-cutting to be able to make the payments on the debt, the lease, and to the PE owners and investors. This cost-cutting often involves major layoffs and cuts in compensation for employees. Abusive employment practices, union busting, and unsafe workplaces are not uncommon. The quality of the company’s products or services is often compromised to reduce costs. Despite all this cost cutting, the companies often go bankrupt, leaving employees without jobs and often without owed pay and benefits, including retirement benefits.

U.S. laws and policies aid and abet this process by granting tax and other benefits to elements of this model. PE firms are much more loosely regulated than publicly-owned companies or mutual funds that sell shares to the public. Given their private ownership, PE firms have basically no requirements for public disclosures or transparency. The Stop Wall Street Looting Act (see this previous post for an overview) would change this, regulating PE firms and holding them accountable.

Previous posts have reported on PE ownership and its effects in pet care, retail, and health care (here, here, here, and here). Here are two additional examples.

EXAMPLE #1: Centerbridge Partners, a PE firm, bought KIK Custom Products, the parent company of BioLab Inc., in 2015 for $1.6 billion. In late September, 2024, a BioLab chemical plant in Conyers, Georgia, had a massive explosion. Toxic clouds of smoke spread over the area and 17,000 residents had to be evacuated and another 90,000 were told to shelter-in-place. In 2020, an explosion at another BioLab plant in Georgia released a cloud of toxic chlorine gas and there was also a major fire at a plant in Louisiana. Under PE firm Centerbridge’s ownership, BioLab has a long history of explosions, fires, and workplace safety violations. [1]

Centerbridge and its investors have gotten at least $3.45 billion in dividends; a return of more than double their investment – in dividends alone. In the last four years, Centerbridge has added over $2.6 billion in debt to BioLab, primarily to pay for dividends paid to Centerbridge and its investors. In addition, in July, 2024, it sold off a separate subsidiary of KIK for $850 million, which was used to pay Centerbridge and its investors another large dividend and had the effect of increasing the debt load on BioLab. With interest rates rising, this significantly undermines BioLab’s financial stability and makes bankruptcy more likely.

If this most recent plant explosion pushes BioLab into bankruptcy, the company’s workers, including their pensions, as well as contractors and suppliers, will end up losing money that is owed to them. Furthermore, if BioLab goes bankrupt, anyone suing BioLab for personal or environmental harms from the toxic explosions will likely get nothing. It will be left up to the government and the taxpayers to pay for the harm and damage done, as well as the clean-up.

EXAMPLE #2: Two companies, Sorenson Communications and ZP Better Together, separately owned by PE firms, run the service that allows deaf people to communicate by phone using sign language via the Video Relay Service (VRS). The phone companies are required by the Americans with Disabilities Act to make the VRS available for free to the 500,000 deaf people in the U.S. A small fee on all phone calls pays for it and the funding is funneled through the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The FCC pays a fixed rate per minute for the video calls. The VRS must be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and must answer 85% of calls within ten seconds.

The VRS companies were targeted for acquisition by the PE firms because of their steady cashflow with effectively guaranteed profits. [2] Furthermore, the two companies have pushed the FCC to increase reimbursement rates and, in 2023, it announced a new five-year deal with rate increases of 30% to 49%. The rate for the first million minutes of calls will now be $6.27, up from $3.92. After the first million minutes, the rate declines.

Sorenson’s annual revenue is projected to be $2.1 billion and ZP’s about $400 million. Nonetheless, the two PE-owned firms have presided over declining service quality and deteriorating working conditions for employees in their efforts to maximize profits. There have been layoffs, under staffing, and under-training of staff. For example, some staff are specially trained to handle difficult calls, such as notifying a deaf person of the death of a loved one. Some are specially trained to handle translation and communication of legal documents. However, because of staff and training shortages, interpreters are being asked to do work they are not trained for. Workers typically have quotas for the number of minutes per hour they must be on calls to get paid. In some call centers, quotas have been increased because of labor shortages.

The companies have engaged in unfair labor practices and have aggressively resisted efforts to unionize. Labor representatives report that the FCC has not responded to a request for a meeting to discuss working conditions for months, while FCC staff and Commission members have met with the companies’ executives 16 times in the last two years.

Most of the sign language interpreters are part-time employees, with lower pay and benefits than full-time employees, who are usually managers. Although the FCC said that pay for interpreters would increase 65% over five years due to the rate increase, interpreters haven’t received wage increases and therefore are pushing to unionize. Several months after the 2023 rate increase, ZP closed two call centers in Minnesota after workers tried to unionize. ZP also closed two centers in California after settling a case of wage theft and retaliation for $320,000.

Sorenson has laid off workers, including middle management, many of whom were deaf people who had started as interpreters and worked their way up. The middle managers are some of the few employees who are typically full-time workers with decent pay and benefits.

More examples of PE ownership and its detrimental effects, including the Steward Health Care fiasco, will be shared in future posts.

[1] Tkacik, M., & Goldstein, L., 10/2/24, “A toxic explosion in private equity payouts,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/power/2024-10-02-conyers-biolab-explosion-private-equity/)

[2] Goldstein, L., 9/30/24, “Private equity is taking your calls,” The American Prospect (https://prospect.org/power/2024-09-30-private-equity-is-taking-your-calls/)