Tag Archives: reject

Chile new constitution: Voters overwhelmingly reject proposal in referendum



CNN
 — 

Chilean voters resoundingly rejected a new, progressive constitution in a referendum on Sunday, following a nearly two-year process that aimed to reflect a broader array of voices in the nation’s document.

With almost all of the ballots counted, 62% of voters rejected the proposal with 38% voting in favor, according to the Chile Electoral Service.

The proposed constitution, which had the support of leftist President Gabriel Boric, included 388 articles that would have significantly extended social rights, increased environmental regulation and given the government wider responsibility for social welfare programs. It also would have provided full gender parity and added designated seats for indigenous representatives.

The document was rejected in all of Chile’s provinces, including the more progressive capital of Santiago and its metropolitan area, where voters had overwhelmingly supported Boric last December during the presidential election.

Boric responded to the defeat in a live televised address to the nation after the close of polling on Sunday.

“Today the people of Chile have spoken, and they have done so loudly and clearly,” Boric said. “They have given us two messages. The first one is that they love and value their democracy … The second one is that the people of Chile was not satisfied with the proposed constitution and, therefore, has decided to reject in a clear way at the polls.”

Images from Santiago on Sunday show a sombre mood among supporters of the constitution, while others celebrated the news it had been voted down.

The constitution currently in place was written under the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile with an iron fist from 1973 to 1990. Proponents of the new constitution wanted a break from Chile’s authoritarian past and a document that reflected the interests of communities that, according to them, had been ignored.

The proposed change was initiated in 2020 when then-president Sebastien Piñera called a referendum on creating a new constitution amid social turmoil and popular discontent sparked by a metro fare increase in October 2019.

In October 2020, more than 78% of Chilean voters approved a plebiscite that proposed constitutional change, and in June 2021, they cast their ballots again to pick the members for a constituent assembly.

The Constitutional Assembly was the first in the world to have full gender parity and the first in the country´s history to include designated seats for indigenous representatives.

Supporters were hopeful its progressive stance would be reflected in a new, updated constitution.

And the constitutional process itself was praised internationally for giving the country an institutional way out of a social crisis, and for responding to modern Chileans’ demands for more equality and a more inclusive and participatory democracy.

According to University of Chile professor Robert Funk, removing remnants of the past imposed by Pinochet was a key driver for creating a new constitution.

“The existing constitution in Chile was written originally in 1980 under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. Since then, it was amended many, many times; but it was always questioned because it was imposed during a dictatorship,” Funk said.

After much deliberation, the final draft of the revised constitution was submitted to Boric, Piñera’s successor, in July this year.

But although most Chilean voters supported the idea of constitutional change back in October 2020, divisions appeared over the proposed draft.

Soon after the draft was made public, different polls began showing an increasing trend toward the rejection of the charter, with the government publicly recognizing that scenario.

The defeated constitution would have been one of the most progressive in the world, giving the state a front-line role in the provision of social rights.

The draft put a strong emphasis on indigenous self-determination and on the protection of the environment, and would have dismantled the highly privatized water rights system. It had required gender equality in all public institutions and companies, and enshrined the respect for sexual diversity. It also envisaged a new national healthcare system.

But the project became bitterly divisive.

The right argued the draft would shift the country too far left, or that it was too ambitious and difficult to turn into efficient laws. In the lead-up to the vote, even some of its supporters on the left wanted adjustments made, with their slogan “approve to reform.”

The opposition has vowed to begin a new process to rewrite the constitution, promising voters the next one will better reflect their interests.

In his speech Sunday, Boric signaled this was not the end of efforts toward reform.

“This decision by Chilean men and women requires our institutions and political actors to work harder, with more dialogue, with more respect and care, until we arrive at a proposal that interprets us all, that is trustworthy, that unites us as country,” Boric said.

Read original article here

Chile votes overwhelmingly to reject new, progressive constitution | Chile

Chileans have voted comprehensively against a new, progressive constitution that had been drafted to replace the 1980 document written under Gen Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.

With 96% of the votes counted in Sunday’s plebiscite, the rejection camp had 61.9% support compared with 38.1% for approval amid what appeared to be a heavy turnout with long lines at polling states. Voting was mandatory.

Senator Ximena Rincón, one of the leaders of the reject campaign, described the victory as “clear and emphatic”, and called for a new constitutional convention to be convened.

The “approve” campaign has accepted defeat and the country’s 36-year-old president, Gabriel Boric, has already called a meeting of party leaders for Monday morning at La Moneda, the presidential palace.

Chile’s president, Gabriel Boric, speaks to the nation on Sunday night. Photograph: Marcelo Segura/Chilean Presidency/AFP/Getty Images

“I commit to put my all into building a new constitutional itinerary alongside congress and civil society,” said Boric in a televised address to the nation, confirming that he would meet with the heads of political parties and both chambers of congresson Monday morning.

The 1980 document drawn up under Pinochet will now remain in force and Chile’s future looks decidedly uncertain.

In 2020, an initial plebiscite saw nearly 80% of voters opt to draft a new constitution, but after an arduous year of negotiations, people appear to have expressed their dissatisfaction with the end product.

As results trickled in and the reject camp’s lead grew, groups of jubilant reject supporters crowded street corners and filled squares up and down the country to celebrate their victory.

There were concerns that disgruntled approve supporters could stage a repeat of the 2019 demonstrations that started the constitutional reform process. But a crowd of no more than several hundred gathered in the main square in Santiago and they were quickly dispersed by police using water cannons and tear gas.

People supporting the new constitution draft accept defeat in Santiago. Photograph: Javier Torres/AFP/Getty Images

The proposed constitution included a long list of social rights and guarantees that had appeared to respond to the demands of that vast social movement.

It enshrined gender parity across government and other organs of the state – for the first time anywhere in the world – prioritised environmental protection and recognised Chile’s Indigenous peoples for the first time in the country’s history.

The decision to reject a constitution that guaranteed women’s rights and gender parity was made 70 years to the day since women were first given the vote in Chile.

“This is a badly written constitution,” said Carmen Fuentes, 61, who cast her vote in a wealthy north-eastern suburb of Santiago. “There’s been a division in this country for a long time, and this plebiscite won’t change that.”

Many criticised the document’s guarantees for Indigenous people, which they said would divide Chile. Others warned that the shakeup of the political system was unnecessary and experimental.

In the centre of the city, others were more optimistic that a change could be possible, citing the need to shed Chile of the Pinochet-era constitution and the model it enshrined, moving on to a more egalitarian, democratic future.

But that future now looks distant. Boric has expressed a willingness to repeat the constitutional process, but the basis for reform is still very much up for debate.

Some of the constitution’s most prominent critics have mooted allowing congress to reform the 1980 document or including experts in a new process, but details were light from both sides, with neither willing to commit to a possible way forward.

Read original article here

Elon Musk asks court to reject Twitter’s request for speedy trial

“The past two years have been an absolutely nightmare of supply chain disruptions, one thing after another, and we are not out of it yet,” Tesla CEO Elon Musk said.

Patrick T. Fallon | Reuters

Elon Musk wants time to prepare for a trial over his contentious withdrawal from an agreement to buy Twitter for $44 billion, according to a filing in a Delaware chancery court by his attorneys on Friday.

Musk’s team says the trial should wait until next year, after Twitter had requested expedited treatment and a hearing as early as this September.

In their filing, an opposition to a motion filed earlier by Twitter, Musk’s attorneys alleged the company made a “sudden request for warp speed after two months of foot-dragging and obfuscation,” and said this was Twitter’s “latest tactic to shroud the truth about spam accounts.”

An expedited hearing, Musk’s side says, would be an unfair tactic and a way to cover up the extent of the platform’s problems with fake accounts. Earlier this week, Twitter sued Musk, alleging the Tesla CEO was engaging a bad faith effort to back out of the deal.

Musk’s attorneys argued, “it would be an ‘extraordinary feat’ to try a complex busted deal case within even five to six months,” and they say “holding trial in February 2023 would balance the interests of the parties and the Court.”

Twitter was seeking a hearing within about 60 days.

Twitter declined to comment on the matter. Musk didn’t respond to a request for comment.

WATCH: Twitter accuses Musk of driving stock price lower

Read original article here

Enemy tongue: eastern Ukrainians reject their Russian birth language | Ukraine

Gamlet Zinkivskyi grew up speaking Russian in the city of Kharkiv, just like his parents. But when Vladimir Putin launched the invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, it was the final push for him to switch fully to Ukrainian.

“Unfortunately, I grew up speaking Russian, but it’s not pleasant to speak the same language as the army that is destroying whole areas of our country,” said Zinkivskyi, a 35-year-old street artist widely known to Kharkiv residents, who usually refer to him by his first name.

The switch of language is part of a broader journey towards a more pronounced Ukrainian identity for Zinkivskyi, something shared by many in the largely Russian-speaking areas of east and south Ukraine. It is a process which has become more pronounced in the past three months, but it has been brewing for some years.

As a young artist, Zinkivskyi had a longstanding dream: an exhibition in Moscow. Kharkiv is just a few dozen miles from the border with Russia and has long been almost entirely Russian-speaking. Culturally, Moscow felt like the centre of the universe. But when Zinkivskyi finally made it to a gallery there in 2012, he was horrified. “They were obnoxious and patronising about Kharkiv and Ukraine, and frankly I thought: fuck them,” he said. He returned to Kharkiv and became more focused on the Ukrainian art scene.

After the annexation of Crimea, in 2014, Zinkivskyi started trying to speak some Ukrainian with a few friends. Now he has fully switched, and for the first time is also introducing political and patriotic themes into his art.

The language issue is something that comes up again and again in Kharkiv. Oleksandra Panchenko, a 22-year-old interior designer, said that since 2014 she had been trying hard to improve her Ukrainian, but conceded that she still often speaks Russian with friends.

However, she is adamant that by the time she has children, she will be fluent enough to speak only Ukrainian at home. “I grew up in a Russian-language family, my kids will grow up in a Ukrainian-language family,” she said.

Back in 2014, there were separatist rumblings in Kharkiv, with some people looking to the swift annexation of Crimea and wondering if all of eastern Ukraine might not be better off inside Russia. But eight years of observing the miserable conditions in the Russian proxy states of Donetsk and Luhansk dampened those feelings, and Russia’s invasion has almost entirely extinguished them.

One of Gamlet’s murals in the centre of Kharkiv, with the title ‘I work as nobody’. Photograph: Alessio Mamo/The Observer

Panchenko, who has painted her nails blue and yellow and describes herself as a staunch patriot, made a guess at the political allegiances of Kharkiv residents before the war, based on her broad circle of acquaintances. About 10% of the city used to be what are disparagingly known as vatniki – aggressively pro-Russian – she said. She described 30% as being like her, “Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine”, and 50% were “neutral – they felt Ukrainian but not that strongly”.

Russia’s war on Ukraine has pushed people in this neutral category more firmly into the patriotic camp, creating a much broader and more passionate pro-Ukrainian base than ever existed previously, particularly in the east of the country.

“There were a lot of neutral people here, but as soon as it came to the war, a lot of them decided to fight,” said Vsevolod Kozhemyako, a businessman who runs an agricultural company and once featured on the Forbes list of the 100 richest Ukrainians.

Kozhemyako was skiing in Europe when the war began, and left his family to return to Ukraine and set up a volunteer battalion. His unit has been based close to the frontline outside Kharkiv, in settlements that have come under relentless Russian fire.

Three out of four of Kozhemyako’s grandparents were Russian, and during the Soviet era his passport listed his nationality as Russian. However, he said that ever since the Orange Revolution of 2004 he had been a strong Ukrainian patriot and rejected the influence of Russia in Ukraine.

“Russians and Ukrainians are absolutely different. I am Russian-speaking, I think in Russian and I have three-quarter Russian blood, but the part of Ukrainian blood in me made its mark,” he said in an interview in Kharkiv city centre, where he now allows himself the occasional day away from his unit.

Kozhemyako and Zinkivskyi are old acquaintances, and when the artist told the businessman he wanted to sign up, Kozhemyako welcomed him to the battalion, but told him he should fight with a paintbrush and not a gun. Since then, Zinkivskyi has been busy painting slogans on buildings damaged by Russian missiles. He also crossed out the street signs on Pushkin Street and renamed it English Street, which he says is recognition of British military support for Ukraine.

“Gamlet is very patriotic and his works are quite philosophical,” said Kozhemyako. “They make people think in the direction of a new Ukraine. This is very important, especially now.”

The geographical and cultural variations inside Ukraine were one of the reasons why Putin and other Russian leaders tried to claim the country was an artificial construct. Instead, they now find their bloody invasion has done more than anything to bring the different parts of Ukraine together under a common identity, in opposition to Moscow.

The Russian invasion has simultaneously given those who might be neutral in their allegiances a stark choice about what kind of country they want to identify with, and provided a rallying point that allows for a broad and inclusive idea of what it means to be a Ukrainian patriot.

The pro-Russian Viktor Medvedchuk, arrested in the early days of the war. Photograph: Serhii Nuzhnenko/Reuters

In the early days of the war, Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, passed a decree banning the activities of a number of pro-Russian parties, and the country’s most notorious pro-Russian politician, Viktor Medvedchuk, was arrested.

Medvedchuk, whose daughter is Putin’s goddaughter, has long been seen as Putin’s man in Kyiv. But even some of his close associates have rebranded themselves as patriots in the wake of the invasion.

Yuriy Zagorodny, a member of parliament, had been at Medvedchuk’s side since they both worked in the administration of former president Leonid Kuchma in the early 2000s. However, he said, he made a decision in the early days of the war that his relationship with Medvedchuk was over. “Ukraine is my homeland, Russia is an aggressor and Putin is the main criminal of the 21st century,” he said in an interview in Kyiv, employing dramatically different rhetoric to what he had used during a previous interview in mid-February.

Zagorodny said he had joined the territorial defence unit in his home town, south of Kyiv, in the first days of the war. He had spent some nights on a checkpoint and other days overseeing the construction of trenches.

He said he had spent hours checking the documents of drivers of passing cars; then when he had to travel to Kyiv for parliamentary sittings, he was stopped at another checkpoint, where the men pulled him out of the car and subjected him to verbal abuse when they saw he was an MP from Medvedchuk’s party. He assured the men he was a firm patriot. “I do have a feeling of guilt, but what we wanted was peaceful coexistence between the countries. Of course, now, that’s all over,” said Zagorodny.

“Changing shoes in mid-air” is the Ukrainian expression for this kind of rapid transformation in views to fit in with the prevailing climate, but for all that there may be cynical self-preservation at work, there is also a sense that people have had to make a choice: either come down on the side of a Ukraine that is fighting for the right to exist, or on that of a Russia that launches missiles and bombs on sleeping cities, and where freedom of expression is no longer legal.

For many, it is an easy choice, and by launching the attack on Ukraine in the way he did, Putin has deprived Russia of many of its natural supporters in the country.

“My 11-year old nephew talks about ‘Putler’ – a mix of Putin and Hitler. He will spend his whole life hating Russia, and his children will too. Maybe in several generations that will change, but not sooner than that,” said Zagorodny.

In the port of Odesa, the mayor, Hennadiy Trukhanov, widely seen as pro-Russian, released an angry video in the early days of the war in response to the Kremlin’s claims that it was defending Russian speakers in the country. “Who the fuck are you planning to defend here?” he asked. In the central city of Kryvyi Rih, the mayor, Oleksandr Vilkul, previously seen as pro-Russian, has also rebranded himself as a patriot and taken up defence of the city.

As well as strengthening the sense of Ukrainian identity among politicians and the general population in the south and east of the country, the war has also helped increase respect for these areas in the patriotic strongholds of western and central Ukraine, where some doubted the loyalty of parts of the east, particularly after 2014.

Kozhemyako said any doubts about these regions should now be considered settled: “A lot of people in western Ukraine saw how Kharkiv fights,” he said.

Read original article here

Primary election: Kemp and Raffensperger will win Georgia GOP primaries, CNN projects, as voters reject Trump-backed challengers

The losses of election deniers backed by Trump in the Peach State — one of five states holding primaries Tuesday — offers clues about Republican voters’ willingness to spurn the former President’s vanity campaigns and move on from his lies about the 2020 election.

The Trump-backed candidate in the Republican primary for Georgia attorney general, John Gordon, will also lose to incumbent Chris Carr, CNN projects.

Kemp will face Democrat Stacey Abrams, who ran unopposed in Tuesday’s primary, in a rematch of their 2018 race, which Abrams narrowly lost.

The governor made no explicit mention of Trump in his victory speech Tuesday night.

“Even in the middle of a tough primary, conservatives across our state didn’t listen to the noise,” the governor said to a few hundred supporters at the College Football Hall of Fame in downtown Atlanta. “They didn’t get distracted; they knew our record of fighting and winning for hard-working Georgians.”

Kemp thanked Perdue, whom Trump had recruited to run against him, for a gracious concession call and his pledge to work together to keep the governor’s office in Republican hands.

“Everything I said about Brian Kemp was true, but here’s the other thing I said that’s true: He is a much better choice than Stacey Abrams and so we are going to get behind our governor,” Perdue said Tuesday night. “Let’s take a few hours, lick our wounds, and tomorrow morning, you are going to hear me going to work for Brian Kemp and making damn sure that Stacey Abrams is never governor of Georgia.”

Kemp devoted the majority of his victory speech to assailing Abrams.

“Tonight, the fight for the soul of our state is to make sure that Stacey Abrams will not be our next governor or next President,” Kemp said.

Kemp may have charted a new GOP playbook for candidates burdened by Trump’s grievances. He kept Republican voters focused on the conservative policies he has championed: from his early re-opening of Georgia in the midst of the pandemic, to the law he signed restricting mail-in voting, to his backing of a law allowing most Georgians to carry a concealed firearm without a license.
A cavalcade of high-profile current and former GOP governors, including Chris Christie of New Jersey and Pete Ricketts of Nebraska, vouched for Kemp on the stump. And in that proxy war between Trump and the Republican establishment, former Vice President Mike Pence told Georgians on Monday night that a vote for Kemp would “send a deafening message all across America that the Republican Party is the party of the future.”

Former Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican, said the results of the gubernatorial primary show that Republican voters appreciate Kemp’s accomplishments in his first term and demonstrate the limits of Trump’s influence.

“Georgia Republicans have spoken about how they feel about Trump,” said Chambliss, who served two terms in the Senate.

It had been more challenging for Raffensperger to disentangle himself from Trump’s obsession with the 2020 election given the infamous call where the former President demanded that the Republican secretary of state “find” enough votes for him to win the state, which is still very much in the news as part of the ongoing Fulton County special grand jury investigation of Trump’s election interference.
Trump had backed Rep. Jody Hice, who continues to falsely claim that Trump would have won Georgia if the election had been “fair,” for secretary of state.

The Republican Senate primary offered less drama since Trump and the GOP establishment long ago united behind former football star Herschel Walker, who easily won the nomination Tuesday night, CNN projected. As Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock runs for a full six-year term, Republicans are eying Georgia’s Senate seat as a key pickup in their quest to win control of the Senate.

In the first House primary between two Democratic incumbents, Rep. Lucy McBath will defeat Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux in Georgia’s 7th Congressional District, CNN projects. McBath, a gun control advocate who flipped the current 6th District in 2018, decided to run in the 7th District after the GOP-controlled legislature redrew her district to be more safely red.

Alabama

In another race that has underscored the limits of Trump’s influence, Rep. Mo Brooks will advance to a runoff in the GOP primary to replace retiring Republican Sen. Richard Shelby, CNN projects. He’ll face former Shelby aide Katie Britt.

In the days ahead of Tuesday’s primary, Brooks appeared to be back in contention even after Trump had rescinded his endorsement of the congressman. Though Brooks was once one of Trump’s strongest defenders and voted against certifying the 2020 election results, the former President said he was pulling his endorsement in March because Brooks had urged voters to put the 2020 election behind them.

Despite losing Trump’s endorsement, Brooks continued his campaign with the support of the Club for Growth and prominent conservative backers such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who vouched for the congressman’s conservative bona fides at a campaign rally on Monday.

Arkansas

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Trump’s former White House press secretary, will win the GOP nomination for governor of Arkansas, CNN projects.

She’s well positioned to carry the state, which Trump won by nearly 28 points, in November.

A win in the general election would be a homecoming for Sanders, whose father Mike Huckabee spent more than 10 years in that role from 1996 to 2007.

Texas and Minnesota

Texas voters cast their ballots in runoff elections on Tuesday amid news of a shooting at an elementary school. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott said 14 students and one teacher were killed.
In one of the more notable contests in the state, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who filed a failed lawsuit to overturn the 2020 presidential results, will win the Republican primary runoff, CNN projects. He was facing a challenge from Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush, the son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and grandson of former President George H.W. Bush. Bush had argued that Paxton’s extensive legal troubles could complicate the GOP’s ability to hold the seat in November. Paxton had led the field in Texas’ March primary but hadn’t cleared the threshold to avoid a runoff.
The most closely watched contest on the Democratic side is the runoff between moderate Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, the only Democratic congressman who votes against abortion rights in the House, and his progressive challenger Jessica Cisneros in Texas’ 28th Congressional District.
The debate over reproductive rights has intensified in that race since Politico published a draft majority opinion from the Supreme Court that suggested the court is poised to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing the right to an abortion.
Minnesota is holding a special election in the 1st Congressional District, which has been vacant since Rep. Jim Hagedorn died in February. His widow, Jennifer Carnahan, is one of the Republican candidates attempting to replace him.

This story has been updated with additional developments.

Jeff Zeleny and Mike Warren contributed to this report.

Read original article here

JPMorgan shareholders reject $52M payout to CEO Jamie Dimon

NEW YORK – In an unusual rebuke for Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co, shareholders on Tuesday clearly disapproved of the special $52.6 million stock option award directors gave him last year to stay on the job for at least five more years.

Ticker Security Last Change Change %
JPM JPMORGAN CHASE & CO. 122.28 +4.02 +3.40%
BAC BANK OF AMERICA CORP. 36.03 +1.23 +3.53%
C CITIGROUP INC. 51.13 +3.64 +7.66%
WFC WELLS FARGO & CO. 43.74 +1.56 +3.70%

In an advisory say-on-pay referendum, only 31% of votes cast endorsed JPMorgan executive payments for 2021, according to a preliminary count announced at the company’s annual meeting.

Because of the special award this year two major advisory firms, from which investors take their cue when voting, had recommended “no” votes on pay.

Institutional Shareholder Services Inc and Glass Lewis & Co criticized Dimon’s options as lacking performance criteria for vesting.

JAMIE DIMON WARNS US ECONOMY FACES MAJOR RISKS FROM INFLATION, RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

In eight of the last 12 years JPMorgan had won approval from more than 90% of votes cast in its annual compensation ballots.

In an unusual rebuke for Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co, shareholders on Tuesday clearly disapproved of the special $52.6 million stock option award directors gave him last year to stay on the job for at least five more years. (REUTERS/Jeenah Moon/File Photo / Reuters Photos)

Dimon, 66, will keep the award, but such votes are closely followed as a test of investors’ attitudes toward executive pay and what payouts they will tolerate.

Average support for pay packages at S&P 500 companies was 88.3% in 2021, down from 89.6% in 2020 and 90% in 2019, according to consulting firm Semler Brossy.

In response to the vote, JPMorgan directors pointed out through a spokesman the special award was extremely rare and the first for Dimon in more than a decade.

JPMORGAN PROFIT FALLS 42% ON SLOWDOWN IN DEALS, TRADING

Directors said before the vote that the special award would not be recurring and “reflects the board’s desire for him to continue to lead the firm for a further significant number of years.”

The board said before the vote it made the award in consideration of Dimon’s performance, his leadership since 2005 and “management succession planning amidst a highly competitive landscape for executive leadership talent.”

The JP Morgan Chase & Co. headquarters, The JP Morgan Chase Tower in Park Avenue, Midtown, Manhattan, New York. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is an American multinational banking and financial services holding company. It is the largest bank in th ( Tim Clayton/Corbis via Getty Images / Getty Images)

If Dimon, a billionaire, keeps working at the bank for five years the options will vest, although he could still receive them if he leaves to work for the government or to run for public office.

Stock from the options must be held until 10 years after being granted.

The award was separate from Dimon’s usual annual pay package, which was up 10% to $34.5 million for 2021.

The board prevailed in its recommendations on all other issues. All directors, including Dimon, were re-elected with more than 92% of the votes cast, according to preliminary figures.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Two shareholder proposals on fossil fuel financing received only 11% and 15% of votes cast, consistent with weak support recently for initiatives at Bank of America, Citigroup and Wells Fargo, as well as at big oil companies.

Read original article here

Amazon workers in NYC reject union in a reversal of fortune

NEW YORK (AP) — Amazon workers at a warehouse on New York City’s Staten Island overwhelmingly rejected a union bid on Monday, dealing a blow to organizers who last month pulled off the first successful U.S. organizing effort in the e-commerce giant’s history.

This time around, warehouse workers cast 618 votes — or about 62% — against the union, giving Amazon enough support to fend off a second labor win and raise questions as to whether the first victory was just a fluke.

According to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees the process, 380 workers — or 38% — voted in favor of the grassroots union. Turnout was 61%, with about 1,600 workers eligible to vote, according to a voter list provided by Amazon.

The few ballots that were challenged by either the company or the nascent Amazon Labor Union, which led the organizing effort, were not enough to sway the outcome. Both parties have until next Monday to file objections. The ALU is weighing whether to object, said Seth Goldstein, a union attorney who provides pro-bono legal assistance to the group.

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel said the company was glad workers at the warehouse “were able to have their voices heard.”

“We look forward to continuing to work directly together as we strive to make every day better for our employees,” Nantel said.

A separate election held last month gave the ALU a surprise victory when workers at a different Staten Island facility voted in favor of unionizing. That was a first for Seattle-based Amazon in the U.S.

For the union, Monday’s defeat will surely sting. A second labor win was expected to fuel more organizing at the nation’s second largest employer, and cement the power and influence of the ALU.

But despite the momentum after the first win, it was unclear whether the group would be able to replicate its success. Organizers said they had lost some support at the warehouse after filing for an election in February because they directed more energy to the nearby facility that voted to unionize last month. There were also fewer organizers working at the warehouse — roughly 10 compared with the nearly 30 employed at the other warehouse.

Some experts believed part-time workers, who organizers say the smaller facility relies on heavily, would potentially offer less union support because they might have other sources of income outside Amazon.

Kate Andrias, professor of law at Columbia University and an expert in labor law, said it can also be harder to organize part-time workers because they “have less of a stake in improving the workplace” and “may be less likely to have strong relationships with co-workers.”

Despite the loss, Chris Smalls, the fired Amazon worker who leads the ALU, wrote on Twitter Monday that he was proud of the organizers who participated, saying they had a tougher challenge after the group’s prior win.

“Nothing changes we organize!” Smalls tweeted. “do not be discouraged or sad be upset and talk to your coworkers”

The same obstacles that plagued the effort the first time, including Amazon’s aggressive anti-union tactics, were at play again. In the lead-up to the election, Amazon continued to hold mandatory meetings to persuade its workers to reject the union effort, posted anti-union flyers and launched a website urging workers to “vote NO.”

Goldstein, the attorney working with the ALU, argues Amazon stepped up its “union-busting” campaign after the last election, disciplined organizers for engaging in union activities and barred them from displaying a pro-union sign in the breakroom. The union is also taking issue with the retailer’s use of mandatory anti-union meetings for its workers. The NLRB has allowed companies to mandate such meetings, but the labor board’s top prosecutor is currently trying to get them outlawed.

Kent Wong, the director of the UCLA Labor Center, anticipated that there will be setbacks and victories in organizing Amazon. He contrasted it to Starbucks, where several stores have voted to unionize. Wong noted Amazon’s famously high turnover rate makes it hard to organize and unlike individual Starbucks locations, with 15 to 20 workers, there are far more workers at each Amazon warehouse who must be persuaded to form a union.

“This one setback is not going to stall the momentum,” Wong said. “But if Amazon can block three or four or five in a row, it will be a message to other Amazon workers, it is going to be really hard.”

John Logan, director of labor and employment studies at San Francisco State University, said he wasn’t entirely surprised by the union’s loss. He said he believes that the ALU was stretched thin. A second union victory would have solidified the union’s position, he said, but the results in many ways were more important to Amazon than the fledgling labor group.

“A second defeat could have proved fatal to the company’s efforts to stop the organizing from spreading like wildfire, just as it has done at Starbucks,” Logan said. But he noted there’s no question that “the ALU’s organizing campaign will continue and that labor activism at Amazon will continue to spread across the country.”

Andrias said she believes the loss “highlights the fundamental problems with labor law and the extent to which employers are able to exercise coercive power over workers during the course of these union campaigns.”

Even after a victory is secured, it’s still an uphill battle. Amazon has disputed the first election organized by the ALU, arguing in a filing with the NLRB that the vote was tainted by organizers and by the board’s regional office in Brooklyn that oversaw the election. The company says it wants a new election, but union supporters believe it’s an effort to delay contract negotiations and potentially blunt some of the organizing momentum. A separate NLRB regional office in the Southwest will hold a hearing later this month over the company’s objections.

Meanwhile, the final outcome of a separate union election in Bessemer, Alabama, is still up in the air with 416 outstanding challenged ballots hanging in the balance. Hearings to review those ballots are expected to begin in the coming weeks.

Read original article here

Berkshire shareholders vote to keep Buffett as chairman, reject climate disclosures

OMAHA, Neb., April 30 (Reuters) – Berkshire Hathaway Inc (BRKa.N) shareholders on Saturday rejected proposals to have an independent chair replace Warren Buffett, and require his company to disclose more about its climate-related risks and efforts to improve diversity.

Shareholders supported letting Buffett keep both the chairman and chief executive roles by a nearly 6-to-1 margin, Berkshire said at its annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

Buffett, 91, has run Berkshire since 1965.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

The National Legal and Policy Center, a Berkshire shareholder, had said it was poor corporate governance for the legendary investor to retain both roles.

Its proposal gained greater attention when Calpers, which invested $460 billion on April 28 and is the largest U.S. public pension fund, expressed support, as it has at other companies.

Berkshire’s board, however, said Buffett should keep both roles. Buffett’s oldest son Howard Buffett, a Berkshire director, is expected to become non-executive chairman when his father is no longer in charge.

By approximately 3-to-1 margins, shareholders also rejected proposals to have the company disclose more about the climate-related risks, greenhouse gas emissions and diversity efforts in its dozens of businesses.

Berkshire’s board also opposed those proposals, saying its operating businesses already disclosed or appropriately managed environmental risks, and were committed to diversity, equity and inclusion.

The proposals faced long odds to pass, given Buffett’s control of 32% of Berkshire’s voting power. He owns approximately 16% of Berkshire’s stock.

Berkshire’s slate of 15 people to serve as directors won shareholder approval by an overwhelming margin.

Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Register

Reporting by Carolina Mandl and Jonathan Stempel in Omaha, Nebraska
Editing by Nick Zieminski

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Read original article here

Google is rolling out new cookie popups with “reject all” option in Europe

Google is changing its cookie popups on Google Search and YouTube in Europe. The new cookie banner is rolling out already, and the main change that it introduces is the integration of an “reject all” button to block all non-essential cookies from being set and non-essential data from being collected.

Right now, when you visit a Google-owned Internet site for the first time, you will see the before you continue cookie banner. The banner informs you about the use of cookies on the property. The classic banner has two buttons, one to customize the data collection and the “I agree” button.

Users who want to reduce the use of cookies and data collecting need to select the “customize” option to change the defaults. The “I agree” option gives Google full control over the collecting.

The customize page displays several options, including YouTube History, Search customization, or ad personalization, that can be turned on or off on the property.

Rolling out now in Europe is a new cookie banner that is giving users an easier option to block all cookies except necessary ones.

Google notes in the announcement that this is coming to Google Search and YouTube in Europe for visitors who are not signed-in to a Google account at the time or are in Incognito mode. The rollout has started in France and Google plans to bring the updated cookie banner to all member states of the European Economic Area, the United Kingdom and Switzerland soon (Google did not provide specifics).

The cookie overlay provides details on the use of cookies and the collection of data when users select the reject all or accept all buttons.

According to it, Google will use a base set of cookies and data regardless of the user choice. The data is used to “deliver and maintain Google services, “track outages and protect against spam, fraud and abuse”, and to “measure audience engagement and site statistics”.

The optional set of cookies and data is only used if the user selects “accept all” or keeps certain options on the customize page turned on. Users who select the new “reject all” button won’t have these collected anymore:

  • Develop and improve new services.
  • Deliver and measure the effectiveness of ads.
  • Show personalized content, depending on your settings.
  • Show personalized ads, depending on your settings.

Closing Words

Some companies and organizations make it hard for users to reject all non-essential cookies. The introduction of an “reject all” option that is displayed as prominently as the “accept all” button is a step in the right direction.

Internet users have a number of options to deal with cookies and data collecting on their end. They may disable third-party cookies in their browsers, clear cookies regularly, use extensions to bypass and deny cookie prompts automatically, or use different services, e.g., Brave Search instead of Google Search, Invidious instead of Youtube. Extensions like Privacy Redirects help with that automatically.

Now You: how do you handle cookie and data collections on the Internet?

Summary

Article Name

Google is rolling out new cookie popups with “reject all” option in Europe

Description

Google is changing its cookie popups on Google Search and YouTube in Europe. The new banner displays an option to reject everything with a single click.

Author

Martin Brinkmann

Publisher

Ghacks Technology News

Logo

Advertisement

Read original article here

National Urban League urges Twitter to reject Musk bid

National Urban League President and CEO Marc Morial.

Getty Images

Twitter’s board of directors should consider rejecting Elon Musk’s bid for the social media company because of the harm his ownership could have on users’ civil rights, said Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League.

In a letter Monday to Twitter Chairman Bret Taylor, Morial said Musk has “expressed concerning views” around content moderation and free speech that are counter to the principles “of creating an online community that is safe for marginalized communities and protects our democracy.”

Morial urged Twitter’s board to consult with the civil rights community before making a decision on Musk’s offer, and he asked to meet with Taylor to further discuss his concerns.

“Without key protections and safeguards, much of the concerning activities that we see on Twitter, including white supremacist propaganda, racial and religious hatred, voter suppression through election disinformation, algorithmic bias and discrimination, and the hardening of our national discourse are likely to proliferate under Musk’s ownership,” Morial wrote. “The potential to negatively impact millions directly and our nation’s culture and democracy indirectly are exponential and should be part of your analysis in reviewing this — or any other — offer of purchase.”

Last week, Musk offered to buy Twitter for $54.20 a share, or about $43 billion. On Friday, Twitter adopted a limited duration shareholder rights plan, often referred to as a “poison pill,” in an effort to fend off a potential hostile takeover.

Musk, who’s CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, has amassed a more than 9% stake in Twitter in recent weeks. Soon after his stock ownership became public, Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal announced plans for Musk to join the board, but on the condition that Musk couldn’t buy more than 14.9% of the company. Musk then reversed course and instead made a bid to take Twitter private.

“I invested in Twitter as I believe in its potential to be the platform for free speech around the globe, and I believe free speech is a societal imperative for a functioning democracy,” Musk wrote in a letter sent to Taylor and disclosed in a securities filing. “However, since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company.”

Musk, who’s been known to attack journalists and others critical of him and his company, has an unclear definition of free speech.

“A good sign as to whether there’s free speech is: Is someone you don’t like allowed to say something you don’t like? And if that is the case, then we have free speech,” Musk said Thursday at the TED2022 conference in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Musk has referred to himself as a “free speech absolutist,” and said he thinks Twitter’s algorithm should be public so that users have greater control over the tweets they see in their news feed. He acknowledged there should be some content moderation, like around explicit calls for violence, and said, “Twitter should match the laws of the country.”

Neither Twitter nor Musk immediately responded to a request for comment.

WATCH: Elon Musk can probably turn Twitter around, says private equity firm

Read original article here