Op-Ed

Protecting Immigrants

Photography Courtesy of Julian Lucas
Originally Published for Vice Media ©2014

There are some very good bills just introduced in the California Assembly and Senate seeking to provide some protection for immigrants. California’s AB 49 and SB 48 aim to keep federal agents from detaining undocumented students or their families on or near school property without a warrant. While these bills, if passed, would not override federal law, they would work to make it safer for children of immigrants to attend school by making it harder and more time-consuming for agents to enter schools or daycare centers. It is limited—it would delay arrests, though it would not stop them.

In 2014, Murrieta, California, became the site of intense protests as demonstrators clashed over the arrival of buses carrying immigrant families. Protesters held signs with messages like “Save our children from diseases” and “U.S. citizens don’t get a free pass—why should illegals?” These slogans reflected the fear and resistance some Americans feel toward undocumented immigration, even as immigrant families seek safety and stability. That divide remains stark today.

It is important to keep students in school learning, documented or undocumented—not only for their future but for ours as well. Education is one of the most effective tools to create opportunity and stability, both for individuals and for communities as a whole.

There is also the fiscal side of things to consider. Right now (this changes in 2026), the money our schools receive is tied to attendance. Fear of detention or deportation discourages parents from sending their children to school, which not only disrupts their education but also puts school funding at risk.

Currently, 12% of California students have at least one undocumented parent. These children are part of our community and deserve access to a safe and stable education.

Contact your California Senator or Assembly member and ask for their support for AB 49 and SB 48. President Trump intends to “make good” on his campaign promises. Californians need to step up and do what we can.

Update: as of late Tuesday, January 21, 2015, the Trump administration has, according to Newsweek, " reversed longstanding policies that restricted immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as schools, churches, and hospitals."

Find Your California Representatives
California Legislative Information

Pamela Casey Nagler is currently finishing her book, A Century of Disgrace: The Removal, Enslavement, and Massacre of California’s Indigenous People 1769 - 1869.

Victory Gardens: Where Did They Go? Has Patriotism Traded Roots for Asphalt and Symbols?

Illustration by Julian Lucas ©2024

In the 1940s, American patriotism got their hands dirty. During World War II, “Victory Gardens” sprouted in backyards, empty lots, schoolyards, and public spaces. Although originally called war gardens during World War I beginning in 1917. At their peak, nearly 20 million gardens produced an estimated 40% of the fresh vegetables consumed in the United States. The phrase "victory garden" was first used by the head of the National War Garden Commission, Charles Lathrop Pack during the end of World War I. The word was so popular that it was used again during World War II, when victory gardeners returned to duty. It was more optimistic than "war garden. "These gardens were a response to wartime rationing and strained supply chains, but the gardens were also a powerful symbol of solidarity and resilience. Families, schools, and entire neighborhoods participated, showing that patriotism was a communal effort rooted in a palpable action. 

Victory Gardens were a source of food, but more over they were a cultural movement. Public campaigns encouraged Americans to see gardening as a civic duty, with posters urging citizens to Dig for Victory. Magazines published gardening tips, and communities came together to share seeds and tools. These efforts embodied elements of socialism prioritizing the collective good over individual profit. This means, the Silent Generation, parents of the Baby Boomers, was focused on mutual aid and ensuring that everyone had access to the resources and knowledge they needed to contribute. This sense of shared purpose was a stark contrast to the hyper individualism that dominates present American culture.

WWII Victory Garden Campaign 1942

A Resident of Southwest Washington, DC and her Victory Garden.” Note the service flag in her window. Two stars means two family members serving in the war. Photo by Joseph A. Horne, Office of War Information, June 1943.

Furthermore, the Black community also participated by growing food in their backyards as they were accustomed to gardening. Their resilience persevered during during the time of Victory Gardens because Jim Crow Laws, segregation, and lynching’s were still common. Segregation made it more difficult for Blacks because of the limited access to high quality seeds.

Additionally, Japanese Americans were also encouraged to grow gardens on camp property during the war, despite being forced to relocate to internment camps because of discrimination as well.

In the modern day, collaborative attitudes have diminished. Instead of repurposing public and private land for food production, modern America has embraced privatization and industrialization, additionally consumerism and performative patriotism. Big trucks with American flags as large as king-size bed sheets flapping in the wind, along with social media posts proclaiming allegiance to the nation. The symbols of patriotism are everywhere, flags hanging from houses or planted in green suburban lawns, campaign signs with slogans draped over freeways, and president-branded t-shirts and caps becoming a fashionable trend. However, the substance, acts of service, community building, and self reliance, is increasingly absent. Meanwhile, growing your own food, once seen as a patriotic duty and some has also associated to poverty as it was a necessity for people who couldn’t afford to purchase food from the grocery stores on a regular basis, more so in rural areas. Today, the concepts of growing your own food and farm-to-table dining are often viewed by some as leftist, socialist, or liberal niche interests and are not always taken seriously. However, those who truly understand the value of these practices, particularly people from densely populated and diverse cities, view them as a more health conscious and environmentally responsible alternative to industrialized food, which is commonly served at chain restaurants. Many local restaurants have embraced the farm to table concept. At such places, the commitment to sourcing fresh, local ingredients is evident from the moment you sit down, with servers often highlighting that their food comes directly from local farms.

"Sow the Seeds of Victory!" poster by James Montgomery Flagg, c. 1917. Library of Congress.

The rise of neoliberal policies, championed by politicians on both sides of the aisle, has prioritized privatization over public welfare. Food production has been monopolized by massive corporations focused on profits. Urban food deserts have been flooded with unhealthy processed options, while fresh, affordable produce remains scarce. Land once accessible for community or agricultural use has been parceled out for private development, turning potential gardens into parking lots, strip malls, and luxury housing, all done in the name of the almighty dollar.

Public spaces like parks and sidewalks, which were integral to the Victory Garden movement, are now largely overlooked as resources for combating food insecurity. During World War II, parks and other communal spaces were repurposed for food production, serving as hubs for community gardening. Today, these same spaces are either privatized, with the use of a BID (Business Improvement District) heavily policed by the BID with the use of private security, or restricted in ways that make them inaccessible for urban agriculture. For example, beautification ordinances or privatization deals often prioritize aesthetics and corporate interests over utility and community needs. Sidewalks, which could host planter boxes or small-scale gardens in dense urban areas, are treated as commercial spaces or are heavily regulated to limit community use.

'Dig for Victory' campaign was set up during WWII by the British Ministry of Agriculture. Published 1939

The Victory Garden movement wasn’t just about food, it was about empowerment and resilience. It showed that, in times of crisis, communities could take action to address their own needs. It provided a sense of control and pride at a time when global events felt overwhelming. Imagine how this ethos could transform neighborhoods in food deserts today, where access to healthy food is limited by systemic neglect and corporate-driven policies.

In neighborhoods like Pomona and Claremont, and other surrounding cities vacant lots and neglected public spaces could be transformed into thriving urban farms, although it is understandable the empty lots are privately owned. Instead of being seen as an eyesore or impractical, these spaces could become the heart of a modern “Victory Garden” movement, one that combats food deserts, fosters community, and challenges the dominance of profit-driven food systems.Additionally, Victory Gardens can go as far as to broaden its reach by collaborating with restaurants, bringing the farm to table culinary experience to life. This would mean instead of your salad coming from bagged treated lettuce, it would come directly down the street from the Victory Garden. 

Published 1917 Courtesy of Library of Congress

If patriotism is about having pride and loving your country, it must also mean caring for all its people, not just protecting corporate profits or only a certain group of people. A modern “patriotic gardening” movement could reclaim urban spaces, empowering all disinvested communities throughout America to combat food insecurity. By reinvesting in public spaces and rejecting neoliberal policies that prioritize profit over people, we could bring the spirit of Victory Gardens back to life.

Real patriotism isn’t performative. It’s all about action, getting your hands dirty to build something sustainable. Today, planting a garden could be one of the most radical acts of modern patriotism, opposing privatization and empowering communities. The seeds of a more equitable America are waiting to be sown, it’s time we planted them.

Julian Lucas, is a photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer, but mostly a photographer. Don’t ever ask him to take photos of weddings or quinceaneras, because he will charge you a ton of money.

Rest in Power: Former President Jimmy Carter on Israel/Palestine

President Carter was a supporter of Israel - and Palestine. In March 1977, at the beginning of his presidency, he announced, “The first prerequisite of a lasting peace is the recognition of Israel by her neighbors, Israel’s right to exist, Israel’s right to exist permanently.” 

Carter never wavered from that position, despite condemnations hurled at him by Israelis and Israel’s
American boosters for the rest of his life because Carter also supported Palestinian rights.

Later, in his book published in 2006, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, the former President advocated for the Palestinians:

“Peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law…It will be a tragedy – for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world—if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid, and sustained violence is permitted to prevail.”

And he told journalist Amy Goodman in 2007:

“And the word “apartheid” is exactly accurate. Within Palestinian territory, they are absolutely and totally separated, much worse than they were in South Africa, by the way. And the other thing is, the other definition of “apartheid” is, one side dominates the other. And the Israelis completely dominate the life of the Palestinian people.”

RIP, President Jimmy Carter. We are grateful for your service.

Pamela Casey Nagler, Pomona-born, is an independent scholar, currently conducting research on California’s indigenous people, focusing on the Spanish, Russian, Mexican and US invasions between 1769 and the 1860s. The point of studying this history is to tell us how we got here from there. 

Turning Back the Pages: 15 (or so) Takeaways from Jimmy Carter's 1976 Playboy Interview

Playboy Magazine, founded by Hugh Hefner on April 9, 1926, became an iconic publication celebrated not only for glamor nude photography, but also for its exceptional journalism. On March 18, 2020, just days after the world shut down due to the pandemic, CEO Ben Kohn announced that the Spring issue would be the last to be printed, marking the publication’s transition to an online-only format.

Hugh Hefner, a Chicago-born publisher and editor, created more than just a magazine he built one of the most recognizable global platforms of its kind, offering content that appealed to diverse audiences. Hefner once explained his view of obscenity as “racism, war, and bigotry,” rejecting the notion that sex was taboo. He famously stated, “What a cold world this would be if we weren’t sexual beings. That’s the heart of who we are.”

Hefner was also a passionate supporter of civil rights, though that deserves a deeper exploration in another article.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter made an unexpected and bold move during his presidential campaign, by giving an interview to Playboy magazine. It was a surprising choice, given the magazine’s provocative reputation, but Carter wasn’t one to shy away from connecting with people, even through unconventional means. At a time when trust in government was at an all-time low, Carter saw this as an opportunity to speak directly to Americans about who he was, his values, struggles, and hopes for the country.

One of the most talked about moments from the interview was Carter’s admission of having “lust in his heart.” It was a raw and deeply personal statement, rooted in his Christian faith, where he confessed that, like everyone else, he wasn’t perfect. He struggled with temptations, just as we all do. By sharing this, Carter wasn’t just baring his soul he was reaching out to voters in a deeply human way, showing that even a man running for president had flaws and wrestled with moral challenges.

Carter also wanted to make one thing clear, his faith shaped his values, but it wouldn’t dictate how he governed. He strongly believed in the separation of church and state. To him, America was a place for everyone, no matter what they believed. His faith gave him the foundation to serve others, but he wasn’t about to impose those beliefs on anyone else. It was a balancing act, but one he thought was essential for fairness and unity.

At the center of Carter’s campaign was a promise of honesty and transparency. He had seen how scandals like Watergate and the Vietnam War had shattered the public’s trust in government. Carter wanted to change by turning the page on that chapter of American politics. He spoke openly about his frustration with the lies and secrecy that had become so common, and he promised to lead with integrity. For Carter, leadership wasn’t about power it was about trust and service. Wished more presidents were like this, including state and city politicians.

Though many people would think the goal of a president is to be a fixer of politics, however, Carter’s vision wasn’t just about fixing Washington, it was about people. He cared deeply about human rights, both in other parts of the world and at home. On the global stage, he promised to stand up for freedom and justice. At home, he was committed to civil rights, a passion that came from growing up in the segregated South. Carter had witnessed racism up close and knew it wasn’t just a Southern problem it was a moral failing that the entire nation needed to address.

Furthermore, humility was another cornerstone of Carter’s beliefs. He didn’t see leadership as a stage for self-promotion but as a duty to serve others. He talked about the dangers of pride in politics, warning that arrogance and self righteousness could lead to destructive choices. Instead, he championed humility and forgiveness, believing that progress came from understanding, not division.

Being raised in rural Georgia, was a big part in shaping who he was. He often credited his early years with teaching him the values of hard work, honesty, and empathy. Those lessons stayed with him, guiding his vision for America, a country where people worked together, treated each other with kindness, and overcame challenges as one.

Additionally, Carter wasn’t afraid to push back against the superficiality of politics. Carter believed voters deserved sincerity, not empty promises or the usual cony political commentary. He wanted people to see him as he was flawed, honest, and genuinely trying to do the right thing.

Even his decision to give the Playboy interview reflected his approach. Carter knew the magazine had a controversial reputation, but he also recognized its broad reach. He didn’t shy away from the opportunity to engage with people where they were, even if it meant raising a few eyebrows. To him, it was worth it if it allowed him to connect authentically with a wider audience.

Ultimately, Carter’s Playboy interview was more than just a campaign moment, it was a reflection of who he was as a human. It showed his willingness to be vulnerable, his commitment to integrity, and his belief in leading with humility. At its core, it captured the tension between a nation that publicly clings to puritanical values but often struggles with contradictions behind closed doors, which is more prevalent in the political landscape today. Carter wasn’t afraid to confront those complexities, offering a vision of leadership that was as real and human as he was.

Julian Lucas, is a darkroom photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer, but mostly a photographer. Don’t ever ask him to take photos of weddings or quinceaneras, because he will charge you a ton of money.

Claremont: Your Theater is Circling the Drain – Rediscover the Magic Before It’s Gone

Run Lola Run
Laemmle Claremont 5
Photography Julian Lucas ©2024

Claremont, California, has long prided itself on being a hub of intellectual vibrancy. Surrounded by a cluster of colleges with a three billion dollar endowment, and a rich history of creativity. Claremont used to be an artistic exploration that thrived. The emphasis here is on "used to be." These days, it feels like everything dope (cool) has been plundered. Those who were lucky enough to experience Claremont’s once bustling art scene probably yearn for the good ol' days when it was more avant-garde and less chain consumerism focused entities. Ironically, Claremont is often called the "City of Trees and PhDs." You’d think a city that bills itself this way would have at least one bookstore, right? But Claremont did have bookstores! In fact, it used to have several. Like anything else good, those have whistled away with the wind.

But this article isn’t really about bookstores, although I have to say, Mirrored Society Bookstore was something else. It was a fine art bookstore that specialized in limited edition photobooks, and let's just say it was probably the most artistically innovative, avant-garde, and dare I say controversial bookstore in all of suburbia. I mean, where else could you walk in and buy a signed book by Nobuyoshi Araki, imported straight from Japan, or pick up a title like Street Walker by Scot Sothern. Yeah, that last one definitely earned us many side eyes and warnings from the suburban crowd. But hey, we were pushing the envelope right off the table and into uncharted territory. Although we thought we'd be embraced given Claremont’s cultural history, we weren't. It was quite the opposite.

Today, Claremont has transformed, and in the process, it has lost its creatives. What was once a thriving hub for artistic expression has begun to change in ways that risk stifling that very spirit. The arrival of more corporate chains and the growing trend toward mainstream establishments are slowly reshaping Claremont’s unique cultural landscape. The 1990s era of the dimly lit coffee shops has vanished and for those who remember, the bohemian, feminist, and "hippie art” paintings of trees or abstract self nudes adorning the off white walls, mismatched chairs surrounding coffee stained tables, and teas from around the world lining the entire counter. Additionally, these spaces were home to uncensored conversations about anything and everything, free from someone becoming triggered, offended, or distractedly reaching for their phone to scroll due to a dwindling attention span.

Now coffee shops have the aesthetics of a dentist office with lifeless blank white walls. iPads are used for cash registers, matching furniture, youngsters trying to live a hippie life, however are more sensitive to conversations, everyone gets triggered, and now more than ever humans have lost conversation to scrolling or constantly checking their phones.

But let's get into it. Now is a crucial time for the community to recognize what it stands to lose especially when it comes to independence.

Laemmle Theatre, a haven known for its independent, international, and art house cinema serves as a sharp reminder that Claremont’s film scene is at a crossroads. Laemmle is more than just a movie theater; it's a cultural hub, offering an array of films, but it's time for Laemmle to start pushing the boundaries a bit and offer more films that represent the LGBTQ+ community and more indie and foreign films. How about showcasing films shot on 35mm? Why not take it back to the old school with screenings of films like Y Tu Mamá También? It might piss a few people off, but who cares, it would undoubtedly attract and broaden the range of audiences who can love and appreciate those kinds of films. And yes we understand old films can be streamed. But you can also pop popcorn at home. That has never stopped anyone from buying theater pop corn.

Anyway, Claremont continues to face a void that needs to be filled. Maybe more screenings of independent films out here in the 909? Make those cool actors drive 30 miles east to do talks out this way, because doesn’t suburbia matter? 

The shift towards conformity has threatened and has drowned the free-spirited essence that has defined the city’s charm. The soul of Claremont has slowly been redefined by chain driven consumerism, and the cultural vibrancy that once drew artists, thinkers, and nonconformists to the area is in danger of becoming a mere shadow of its former self.

This cultural shift highlights the significance of the arts, including galleries, museums, indie films, and the cultivation of an environment where alternative voices can thrive. This is not just about cinema; it's about preserving Claremont’s identity as a place where creativity is celebrated, controversy is embraced, and nonconformity isn’t just tolerated, but actively encouraged. In a world where mainstream entertainment often leans toward homogenized, feel-good content, Claremont’s film scene needs to be a place that challenges its audience, that sparks discussion, and yes—sometimes creates controversy.

The recent events of Laemmle Theatre announcing its closure and most recently being added to an auction which failed, doesn’t have to signal the end of independent films in Claremont. Rather, it should be a catalyst for reinvention. However, with reinvention comes creativity, yes money as well, it's understandable. 

But the question remains, is there still a driving culture of creativity within a city that prides itself as “the city of trees and PhDs? Is there enough interest that would spark more interest for indie films to thrive? 

What about such initiatives as a film festival? It would not only fill the cultural void but also attract diverse audiences from around the world to celebrate creativity, and put Claremont on the map as a hub for independent and artistic cinema. With its intellectual resources and diverse population, Claremont is uniquely positioned to host a festival that celebrates films which push boundaries, provoke thought, and explore new ways of storytelling. By focusing on the kind of films that are often sidelined by major studios, Claremont could carve out a niche for itself as a cultural hotspot for filmmakers and film lovers alike.Claremont is a college town, how about partnering with the colleges, maybe Pitzer College? This is a potential rallying point for Claremont’s creative community, providing a platform for local filmmakers and drawing audiences who crave more than just commercial blockbusters.

But to make this a reality, the community must step up. It’s not enough to hope for change from the top down; residents, students, and local leaders need to show active support for indie cinema by attending screenings, encouraging local theaters to take risks, and advocating for more diverse programming. Claremont must recognize that this city isn’t just a place where people go to eat burgers, drink beer and ladies go to get their hair done, it’s a space where art should challenge, inspire, and at times, provoke.

Moreover, Claremont must remember that part of what makes it special is its willingness to embrace controversy and nonconformity. It’s time for Claremont to make a stand. The city should become a place where unconventional stories can be told and where the celebration of art doesn't have to come with a safe, mass-market appeal. We need more films that question the status quo, more films that engage with pressing social issues, and more films that stir the pot.

In short, Claremont’s film scene needs to evolve to match the intellectual and fill the void of the artistic energy in the city. By embracing indie films, hosting a film festival, and supporting unconventional storytelling, Claremont can assert itself as a city that values culture over convenience and creativity over conformity. It’s time to push back against the growing tide of uniformity and reclaim Claremont's place as a haven for free thinkers, artists, and filmmakers.

Claremont can’t stand to lose Laemmle Theatre. This is an opportunity, It’s a call to take action, a chance for the Claremonters to step up and ensure that the city remains a place where independent cinema can thrive. But to do so, residents and leaders must recognize what they stand to lose, and take deliberate steps to ensure that Claremont continues to be a space where controversy is welcomed, and creativity is celebrated. If the city wants to preserve its unique identity, it must embrace the films that reflect the diverse, intellectual, and nonconformist spirit that made Claremont great in the first place.

Julian Lucas, is a photographer, a purveyor of books, and writer, but mostly a photographer. Don’t ever ask him to take photos of weddings or quinceaneras, because he will charge you a ton of money.

In the Face of Rising Heat, OSHA’s New Rule is an Indispensable Protection for Workers 

Photography courtesy of Julian Lucas

So far, 2023 has been the hottest year on record. With wet-bulb temperature heatwaves and heat-related ailments on the rise, it becomes ever more obvious that capitalist-caused climate change is an existential threat to the human race, and to the majority of life on Earth. Immediately - indeed, in the past - it has already been an existential threat for those most vulnerable to extreme weather conditions, and most especially the global working class. Day laborers, construction workers, farmworkers, warehouse workers, just to name a few, all face the dangers of extreme heat at the workplace every single day. It is for this reason that the Pomona Economic Opportunity Center has devoted such time and effort to outreach to its members and community about newly proposed heat-related OSHA regulations. 

“The Biden-Harris administration has unveiled a proposed OSHA rule aimed at protecting roughly 36 million workers from health risks posed by extreme heat,” the Occupational Health and Safety Magazine (OHS) reported on July 9th, 2024. “If finalized, this would cover indoor and outdoor work settings, aiming to reduce heat-related injuries, illnesses and fatalities.” 

According to the OHS, the new OSHA regulations include more thorough evaluations of heat risks in the workplace, as well as the wider application of measures to improve workplace conditions, such as mandatory provision of free drinking water on-site, enforced rest breaks and controls on indoor temperature. New and returning employees not yet acclimated to extreme heat would receive extra attention. 

In a recent statement in regards to these new nationwide regulations, Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health Doug Parker said “Workers all over the country are passing out, suffering heat stroke and dying from heat exposure from just doing their jobs, and something must be done to protect them.” 

The new rules were proposed on July 2nd, 2024, under the name “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings.” Along with the regulations discussed above, the new rules would mandate that workplaces “implement control

measures at two distinct heat exposure thresholds.” Morgan Lewis reports that the two heat exposure thresholds are the following: 

“An ‘initial heat trigger’ equal to a heat index of 80 degrees Fahrenheit or a ‘wet bulb globe temperature’ equal to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Recommended Alert Limit 

A ‘higher heat trigger’ equal to a heat index of 90 degrees Fahrenheit or a ‘wet bulb globe temperature’ equal to the NIOSH Recommended Exposure Limit” 

When these thresholds are reached, Morgan Lewis goes on to provide the full list of control measures discussed briefly above. In addition to the threshold-control measures, employers are required to draft and present a plan for their workplace, “referred to as the Heat Injury and Illness Prevention Plan (HIIPP), containing worksite-specific information developed with the input of ‘non-managerial employees and their representatives.” That workers themselves would be consulted in the drafting of these on-site plans, should this new rule be implemented, would be a significant victory for the working class, a testament to our capacity to fight for our demands and make our voices understood by employers and the state. 

Among other things, HIIPPs must include: (a) A comprehensive list of all work activities covered; (b) All policies and procedures necessary to comply with the standard; and (c) A heat illness and emergency response plan.

However, this new set of rules, despite the glaring and obvious need of them in the face of the growing ecological crisis, will likely meet with opposition in the Supreme Court. In a recent court-ruling, Republican-led states and anti-regulatory interests have contended that Congress unconstitutionally delegated its powers to the executive branch by giving “such broad authority to the agency [OSHA],” the agency responsible for setting and enforcing all workplace standards. In other words, while this charge was dismissed by the court, two dissenting justices - Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch - are questioning OSHA’s right to exist, let alone expand upon already insufficient controls.

Taking the long view, it is no exaggeration to say the most basic and essential right of working people - the right to life and safety - is in jeopardy. Not only is it a question if these vital regulations will be implemented in the near future, but OSHA’s capacity to function in any capacity may be undermined, if the two dissenting Justices - and the rapacious business interests they represent - have their way in a future court ruling. As always, it is class struggle, the willingness of working people everywhere to organize, fight and take command, that will decide these vital questions. The clock is ticking.

SPANISH TRANSLATION 

Ante el Aumento del calor, la Nueva Regla de OSHA es una Protección Indispensable para los Trabajadores

Hasta ahora, el 2023 ha sido el año mas caluroso en registrado. Con el aumento ahumento  de las olas de calor de bulbo húmedo y las dolencias relacionadas con el calor, se vuelve cada vez más obvio que el cambio climático causado por el capitalismo es una amenaza existencial para la raza humana y para la mayoría de la vida en la Tierra. Inmediatamente -de hecho, en el pasado- ya ha sido una amenaza existencial para los más vulnerables a las condiciones climáticas extremas, y muy especialmente para la clase trabajadora mundial. Los jornaleros, trabajadores de la construcción, trabajadores agrícolas, trabajadores de almacenes, solo por nombrar algunos, enfrentan los peligros del calor extremo en el lugar de trabajo todos los días. Es por esta razón que el Centro de Oportunidad Económica de Pomona ha dedicado tanto tiempo y esfuerzo a comunicar a sus miembros y a la comunidad sobre nuevas propuestas sobre medidas relacionadas con la calor por Cal OSHA 

“La administración Biden-Harris ha presentado una regla propuesta de OSHA destinada a proteger a aproximadamente 36 millones de trabajadores de los riesgos para la salud que plantea el calor extremo”, informó la Revista de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional (OHS) el 9 de julio de 2024. “Si se finaliza, esto cubrirá entornos de trabajo interiores y exteriores, con el objetivo de reducir las lesiones, enfermedades y muertes relacionadas con el calor”.

Según la OHS, las nuevas regulaciones de OSHA incluyen evaluaciones más exhaustivas de los riesgos de calor en el lugar de trabajo, así como la aplicación más amplia de medidas para mejorar las condiciones del lugar de trabajo, como el suministro obligatorio de agua potable gratuita en el lugar, descansos obligatorios y controles. sobre la temperatura interior. Los empleados nuevos y recurrentes que aún no se hayan aclimatado al calor extremo recibirán atención adicional.

En una reciente declaración  con respecto a estas nuevas regulaciones a nivel nacional, el Subsecretario de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional, Doug Parker, dijo: "Los trabajadores de todo el país se están desmayando, sufriendo insolación y muriendo por exposición al calor simplemente por hacer su trabajo, y se debe hacer algo". hecho para protegerlos”.

Las nuevas reglas se propusieron el 2 de Julio de 2024  , bajo el nombre "Prevención de enfernedades y lesiones por calor en trabajos interiores o exteriores."  Junto con las regulaciones discutidas anteriormente, las nuevas reglas exigirán que los lugares de trabajo “implementen controles medidas en dos umbrales distintos de exposición al calor”. Morgan Lewis informa que los dos umbrales de exposición al calor son los siguientes:

“Un ‘desencadenante de calor inicial’ igual a un índice de calor de 80 grados Fahrenheit o una ‘temperatura global de bulbo húmedo’ igual al límite de alerta recomendado por el Instituto Nacional de Seguridad y Salud Ocupacional (NIOSH) 

Un 'desencadenante de calor más alto' igual a un índice de calor de 90 grados Fahrenheit o una 'temperatura global de bulbo húmedo' igual al límite de exposición recomendado por NIOSH”.

Cuando se alcanzan estos umbrales, Morgan Lewis proporciona la lista completa de medidas de control analizadas brevemente anteriormente. Además de las medidas de control de umbrales, los empleadores deben redactar y presentar un plan para su lugar de trabajo, “denominado Plan de Prevención de Enfermedades y Lesiones por Calor (HIIPP), que contiene información específica del lugar de trabajo desarrollada con el aporte de 'no profesionales'. empleados directivos y sus representantes”. Que los propios trabajadores sean consultados en la redacción de estos planes in situ, en caso de que se implemente esta nueva regla, sería una victoria significativa para la clase trabajadora, un testimonio de nuestra capacidad para luchar por nuestras demandas y hacer que los empleadores entiendan nuestras voces. y el estado.

Entre otras cosas, los HIIPP deben incluir : (a) Una lista completa de todas las actividades laborales cubiertas; (b) Todas las políticas y procedimientos necesarios para cumplir con la norma; y (c) Un plan de respuesta a emergencias y enfermedades causadas por el calor.

Sin embargo, este nuevo conjunto de reglas, a pesar de su evidente y evidente necesidad ante la creciente crisis ecológica, probablemente encontrará oposición en la Corte Suprema. En un fallo judicial reciente, los estados liderados por los republicanos y los intereses anti-regulatorios han sostenido que el Congreso delegó inconstitucionalmente sus poderes al poder ejecutivo al otorgar "una autoridad tan amplia a la agencia [OSHA]", la agencia responsable de establecer y hacer cumplir todas las leyes. estándares laborales. En otras palabras, si bien el tribunal desestimó este cargo, dos jueces disidentes, Clarence Thomas y Neil Gorsuch, están cuestionando el derecho de OSHA a existir, y mucho menos a ampliar controles ya insuficientes.

A largo plazo, no es exagerado decir que el derecho más básico y esencial de los trabajadores -el derecho a la vida y a la seguridad- está en peligro. No sólo es una cuestión si estas regulaciones vitales se implementarán en el futuro cercano, sino que la capacidad de OSHA para funcionar en cualquier capacidad puede verse socavada, si los dos jueces disidentes - y los intereses comerciales rapaces que representan - se salen con la suya en el futuro. fallo de la Corte. Como siempre, es la lucha de clases, la voluntad de los trabajadores de todas partes para organizarse, luchar y tomar el mando, lo que decidirá estas cuestiones vitales. El reloj está corriendo.

Beau Zinman is a Pitzer Graduate of Philosophy and a Volunteer at Pomona Economic Opportunity Center.

Government Funds Mismanagement

Photo Courtesy of Veronica Cabrera

Published February 6, 2024 | 11:48am PST

No money will ever be enough when there is mismanagement of city funds. It’s not that different from one’s personal finances.

Governments often outsource public services. Sometimes they privatize public property with the fallacy that it will save costs, but the reality is that with these economic practices, the private sector is the sector that benefits the most. Privatization opens doors to potential corruption, monopolies, loss of citizens' autonomy, and citizens' financial distress.

Cambridge Dictionary defines outsourcing as paying privately-owned companies to get some work or services done for the public. Privatization is selling a service provided by the government to the private sector for their control and management.

Here in Pomona, we can talk about one recent example, the privatization of the city-owned trash company to Athens Co.

Pomona has had its own city trash company since the city was founded, but In 2022, the current Mayor and five city council members decided to transfer the trash service to Athens, a privately-owned trash company. By speaking with hundreds of small business owners, commercial property owners, and residents, I learned that their trash company bills went up from 200% to 400%. In this instance, evidently, Athens Co. charged the citizens more than enough to provide service, they charged them to make a profit, and, in this case, also cover the city’s franchise fees. Athens received an exclusive contract with the City of Pomona. The citizens of Pomona are stuck. Nobody can  hire any other trash company apart from Athens, and since the company is not accountable to the citizens, the risk of corruption runs high. 

The City of Pomona has not provided a decent explanation to the citizens about how they have created a monopoly, an aberrant practice that violates the antitrust laws. To learn about antitrust laws, click here. The citizens, businesses, and property owners in this transaction have lost the right to have direct contract with those who are providing their service.

The Pomonan sent an open invitation to all candidates to submit substantive op-eds stating their position on an issue (or issues) that they consider critical to our community.

Veronica Cabrera is a resident of Pomona. She is also running for the mayoral seat for the city of Pomona.