 |
|
|
|||||
With Kendrick Lamars Not Like Us as a soundtrack, nurses at New Orleanss University Medical Center walked off the job for the third time, picketing along the citys Canal Street thoroughfare earlier this month. We will picket, shout, bargain, petition, and strike again, and again, and again until the nurses win the first contract! Terry Mogilles, an orthopedic trauma clinic nurse, told a rapt crowd on May 1. The crowd comprised about 100 nurses and their supporters, with many of the nurses wearing scrubs or red shirts with white lettering reading We Will Strike for Our Patients! Mogilles and roughly 600 University Medical Center nurses voted to unionize with National Nurses United in December 2023. They are in their 16th month of union representation but say their employer is stalling on a contract that would actually improve their jobs. (Disclosure: National Nurses United is a funder of Capital & Main.) Observers say nurses may be waiting even longer. On average, healthcare unions go around 17 months before obtaining first contracts. Today, the nurses not only have to overcome their employers resistance but also the downstream effects of the Trump administrations policy changes. In November, University Medical Center Management Corp. filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, blaming the union for delays in negotiations. Workers say it is UMC that is delaying, and LCMC, the parent corporation for UMC and one of only two hospital administrators in the city, declined Capital & Mains request for comment. * * * Nurses at University Medical Center are running up against a systemic flaw facing most newly organized workersmade worse by the current presidential administration, said Margaret Poydock, senior policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute. While the National Labor Relations Act mandates that employers must bargain in good faith, the law does not enforce a timeline on negotiations; more than half of all newly organized unions take over a year to get a contract, and the average as of 2022 was 465 days. Theres also a built-in incentive for anti-union employers to delay first contracts: One year after workers win union recognition, they can vote to dissolve their union. A long delay can enable employers to restart union-busting efforts. There are not really legal penalties, said Poydock, because the National Labor Relations Board cannot fine employers for prolonging negotiations. Furthermore, said Poydock, in the case of unions who believe that their employer is not bargaining in good faith, The only legal recourse workers have is through the board. However, the Trump administration has thrown the National Labor Relations Board into turmoil. One week after his inauguration, Trump fired the Joe Biden-appointed NLRB chair, Gwynne Wilcox, leaving the five-member board with just two members. The agency cannot issue decisions without a quorum of three members, giving reluctant employers even less incentive to bargain in good faith, knowing cases brought against them can be prolonged. While Wilcox has sued for reinstatement, the case has bounced between judges and is still in litigation. If Wilcox loses her case, the board may remain without a quorum; if Wilcox wins reinstatement, Trump can appoint two more members to the board, creating a conservative majority. That might make workers more hesitant to bring cases to the board, because they potentially will not have a ruling that favors them, said Poydock. President Trump also signed an executive order gutting the Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS), cutting its staff from 220 to about a dozen and eliminating [the FMCS and six other agencies] to the minimum presence and function required by law. The service helped workers and companies reach contract agreements. Though National Nurses United did not comment on whether it planned to seek FMCS involvement, without protections from the National Labor Relations Board or support from FMCS, unions like the one at University Medical Center have fewer optionsoutside of strikesto force their employers to negotiate with them. * * * New Orleans nurses say they walked out because workplace conditions have failed to improve. The union has struck twice before, in October 2024 and February 2025. Both times, management locked them out, costing LCMC a reported $2 million per day, or a total of $16 million. In the months since, nurses say workplace violence has continued, pay is not sufficient, and University Medical Center has moved too slowly on contract negotiations. We had a number of nurses who were hurt on the job by patients; the potential for danger went up instead of going down, said Mogilles. Nurses also say there have been several instances in which guns have been found in the hospital, and that chronic understaffing has continued, endangering patients and nurses alike. Negotiations over pay have also contributed to the strike. Nurses say University Medical Center officials took eight months to respond to a seven-page wage proposal nurses had submitted last July. The hospital response, they say, was one paragraph long. Umer Mukhtar, an ICU nurse and bargaining team member, said the hospitals delaye response was a very strong motivation for us to come out and picket again. Mukhtar said retention at the hospital is poor, noting that eight nurses left his ICU in the past month. They [LCMC Health] want to keep [telling] lies while they buy time to union-bust and hopefullyfor themdecertify the union, he said. Theyre trying to make [the majority of nurses think that] the union is not an effective bargaining tool. On Canal Streets rain-washed stage, Mogilles earned riotous applause as she closed out her speech. Asking politely does not work! she said. LCMC, you not like us! And were so glad we not like you. By Jesse Baum, Capital & Main This piece was originally published by Capital & Main, which reports from California on economic, political, and social issues.
Category:
E-Commerce
With around 1 billion searches on ChatGPT each week, Gen Zers are increasingly turning to AI to solve a daily dilemma: what to wear. Last month, OpenAI announced updates to ChatGPTs search function, enhancing the shopping experience with personalized product recommendations and direct purchase links. Users have already begun using these features to plan their outfits. Im going out to dinner tonight, what should I wear? one user asked ChatGPT in a TikTok video. The AI suggested a fitted black cami, black trousers, strappy heels, and silver hoops. Why did ChatGPT kind of slay though? the creator said. @kalitaku Ok but chatGPT lowkey killed it #ai #chatgpt #personalstylist #styling #kalitaku Aesthetic Coffee – Febri Handika Another fashion and lifestyle creator prompted ChatGPT with streetwear, blue denim, and clean aesthetic. The resulting outfit, shared on TikTok, was simple yet stylish. Others are uploading images from Pinterest boards or their wardrobes to generate entire shopping lists. @cassieborgie I love that it gave accessories and shoes tips too. Scandinavian aesthetic here I come! #ootd #clothesinspo #chatgpthack #chatgpt #styleinspo #clothesinspo #outfitinspo #findyourstyle #findmystyle original sound – Cassie While it may be some time before AI-generated outfits appear on runways, OpenAI is embracing its role as personal stylist and shopper. Replacing the group chat, ChatGPT now offers what it calls conversational shopping, OpenAI said. Instead of juggling tabs or scrolling through endless results, you can just have a conversation, Saguna Goel, product lead on the ChatGPT search team, told Vogue Business. Whats really exciting is that this movement is being led by shoppers themselves. Gen Z are definitely out front, but people of all ages are getting involvedand stylists and influencers are now following their lead. Its a fascinating shift, and its only just beginning, she added. For brands, the potential payoff is hugeif they can make themselves discoverable where customers are searching. With no paid placements currently on ChatGPT, AI recommendations level the playing field for small businesses competing with brands that have far larger ad budgets. Still, not everyone is on board. As AI becomes more embedded in daily life, critics say its erasing creative jobs in fashion and other industries, and diluting personal style in favor of fleeting micro-trends. If you ask ChatGPT to plan your next date-night outfit, just know: Someone else might show up wearing the same thing.
Category:
E-Commerce
Reports that prominent American national security officials used a freely available encrypted messaging app, coupled with the rise of authoritarian policies around the world, have led to a surge in interest in encrypted apps like Signal and WhatsApp. These apps prevent anyone, including the government and the app companies themselves, from reading messages they intercept. The spotlight on encrypted apps is also a reminder of the complex debate pitting government interests against individual liberties. Governments desire to monitor everyday communications for law enforcement, national security, and sometimes darker purposes. On the other hand, citizens and businesses claim the right to enjoy private digital discussions in todays online world. The positions governments take often are framed as a war on encryption by technology policy experts and civil liberties advocates. As a cybersecurity researcher, Ive followed the debate for nearly 30 years and remain convinced that this is not a fight that governments can easily win. Understanding the “golden key” Traditionally, strong encryption capabilities were considered military technologies crucial to national security and not available to the public. However, in 1991, computer scientist Phil Zimmermann released a new type of encryption software called Pretty Good Privacy (PGP). It was free, open-source software available on the internet that anyone could download. PGP allowed people to exchange email and files securely, accessible only to those with the shared decryption key, in ways similar to highly secured government systems. Following an investigation into Zimmermann, the U.S. government came to realize that technology develops faster than law and began to explore remedies. It also began to understand that once something is placed on the internet, neither laws nor policy can control its global availability. Fearing that terrorists or criminals might use such technology to plan attacks, arrange financing, or recruit members, the Clinton administration advocated a system called the Clipper Chip, based on a concept of key escrow. The idea was to give a trusted third party access to the encryption system and the government could use that access when it demonstrated a law enforcement or national security need. Clipper was based on the idea of a golden key, namely, a way for those with good intentionsintelligence services, policeto access encrypted data while keeping people with bad intentionscriminals, terroristsout. Clipper Chip devices never gained traction outside the U.S. government, in part because its encryption algorithm was classified and couldnt be publicly peer-reviewed. However, in the years since, governments around the world have continued to embrace the golden key concept as they grapple with the constant stream of technology developments reshaping how people access and share information. Following Edward Snowdens disclosures about global surveillance of digital communications in 2013, Google and Apple took steps to make it virtually impossible for anyone but an authorized user to access data on a smartphone. Even a court order was ineffective, much to the chagrin of law enforcement. In Apples case, the companys approach to privacy and security was tested in 2016 when the company refused to build a mechanism to help the FBI break into an encrypted iPhone owned by a suspect in the San Bernardino terrorist attack. At its core, encryption is, fundamentally, very complicated math. And while the golden key concept continues to hold allure for governments, it is mathematically difficult to achieve with an acceptable degree of trust. And even if it was viable, implementing it in practice makes the internet less safe. Security experts agree that any backdoor access, even if hidden or controlled by a trusted entity, is vulnerable to hacking. Competing justifications and tech realities Governments around the world continue to wrestle with the proliferation of strong encryption in messaging tools, social media, and virtual private networks. For example, rather than embrace a technical golden key, a recent proposal in France would have provided the government the ability to add a hidden ghost participant to any encrypted chat for surveillance purposes. However, legislators removed this from the final proposal after civil liberties and cybersecurity experts warned that such an approach would undermine basic cybersecurity practices and trust in secure systems. In 2025, the U.K. government secretly ordered Apple to add a backdoor to its encryption services worldwide. Rather than comply, Apple removed the ability for its iPhone and iCloud customers in the U.K. to use its Advanced Data Protection encryption features. In this case, Apple chose to defend its users security in the face of government mandates, which ironically now means that users in the U.K. may be less secure. In the United States, provisions removed from the 2020 EARN IT bill would have forced companies to scan online messages and photos to guard against child exploitation by creating a golden-key-type hidden backdoor. Opponents viewed this as a stealth way of bypassing end-to-end encryption. The bill did not advance to a full vote when it was last reintroduced in the 2023-2024 legislative session. Opposing scanning for child sexual abuse material is a controversial concern when encryption is involved: Although Apple received significant public backlash over its plans to scan user devices for such material in ways that users claimed violated Apples privacy stance, victims of child abuse have sued the company for not better protecting children. Even privacy-centric Switzerland and the European Union are exploring ways of dealing with digital surveillance and privacy in an encrypted world. The laws of math and physics, not politics Governments usually claim that weakening encryption is necessary to fight crime and protect the nationand there is a valid concern there. However, when that argument fails to win the day, they often turn to claiming to need backdoors to protect children from exploitation. From a cybersecurity perspective, it is nearly impossible to create a backdoor to a communications product that is only accessible for certain purposes or under certain conditions. If a passageway exists, its only a matter of time before it is exploited for nefarious purposes. In other words, creating what is essentially a software vulnerability to help the good guys will inevitably end up helping the bad guys, too. Often overlooked in this debate is that if encryption is weakened to improve surveillance for governmental purposes, it will drive criminals and terrorists further underground. Using different or homegrown technologies, they will still be able to exchange information in ways that governments cant readily access. But everyone elses digital security will be needlessly diminished. This lack of online privacy and security is especially dangerous for journalists, activists, domestic violence survivors, and other at-risk communities around the world. Encryption obeys the laws of math and physics, not politics. Once invented, it cant be un-invented, even if it frustrates governments. Along those lines, if governments are struggling with strong encryption now, how will they contend with a world when everyone is using significantly more complex techniques like quantum cryptography? Governments remain in an unenviable position regarding strong encryption. Ironically, one of the countermeasures the government recommended in response to Chinas hacking of global telephone systems in the Salt Typhoon attacks was to use strong encryption in messaging apps such as Signal or iMessage. Reconciling that with their ongoing quest to weaken or restrict strong encryption for their own surveillance interests will be a difficult challenge to overcome. Richard Forno is a teaching professor of computer science and electrical engineering, and assistant director of the UMBC Cybersecurity Institute at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||