United States Appreciating Indonesian Fishery

United States Steel Corporation : Workers and employers face off at Supreme Court

The court can be expected to accept about 70 cases per term. In the last term, which ended in June, the Chamber received a favorable outcome in 14 of the 18 cases in which it filed friend-of-the-court briefs, prompting progressive legal groups to renew complaints that the court has become too pro-business. It’s a statistic that concerns Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, the largest labor federation in the country. “The Supreme Court we have is the best friend that corporate America has ever had,” he told Reuters in an August interview. It’s a categorization that both the Chamber and lawyers who represent businesses dispute. “There are areas of the law in which business interests prevail, but it isn’t because of any systematic pro-business bias,” said Kannon Shanmugam, a lawyer with the Williams & Connolly law firm. Shanmugam warned against concluding the court has a growing interest in labor issues because, he noted, they all deal with quite separate legal questions. UNION CASES Taken together, the two organized labor cases raise significant questions about union power, Harvard University Law School Professor Benjamin Sachs said. “These are not cases about arcane rules of organizing, rules like where on an employer’s property can a union talk to employees,” he said. “These are cases that go to the heart of the legal regimes that are necessary to enable unionization.” In one of the union cases, Harris v. Quinn, Pamela Harris, a home-based healthcare worker, sued Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn over a state statute that requires public-sector employees to pay the portion of union dues that do not go to political activities.

“He has also come to ensure the compatibility of the Indonesian fishing industry, as well as to ensure the Tuna supply certainty to the United States’ market,” explained the Ministry. Sharif continued, the invitation of John Kerry to the port aims to strengthen the strategic partnership in the marine and fishery sectors between both countries. The relationship between both countries increasingly shows a positive indication marked by the increase of the bilateral trade balance in the last two years – The highest trade balance ever dealt by both countries was on 2011 with the total trade balance of US$26,5 billion. “The APEC Meeting becomes a milestone to prove the world that the marine and fishery sectors can be the national prime mover,” he asserted. In addition, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the United States also came to terms with the enhancement of the United States – Indonesia’s National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The partnership aims to the capacity building of the IUU Fishing eradication, the Port State Measure development, a number of marine and fishery-related training and workshops, and the Sea Grant Partnership improvement as well as the deep sea exploration cooperation of Exploration of the Sangihe Talaud Region. “The bilateral cooperation can be the springboard to proceed and strengthen the marine and fishery partnership of both countries,” he confirmed. The government of Indonesia and the United States were also agreed on improving the marine economy sector. The partnership has already implemented through the program of Indonesia Marine and Climate Support (IMACS) – an aid of the USAID. Additionally, the partnership between both countries has now been expanded to other sectors; the mitigation of the environmental damage and disaster and the climate change data exchange. “We also discussed about the United States’ aid on the data management. Particularly, the data of the fishery potency and the climate change, helping our local fishermen to fish effectively and safely,” said the Minister. Sharif added, both countries are also of the same mind on the importance of the sustainable marine and fishery resource utilization optimization.

Factbox: When could the debt ceiling put the United States in default?

But there might not be enough money for the payments due on the 24th or the 31st. – How would default affect the economy? It would sink like a stone. Once default began, the government would have to slash its spending overnight by about a third. The fiscal drag, if it lasted a full year, would be the equivalent of up to 4.2 percent of national economic output, according to calculations by Goldman Sachs. That doesn’t take into account the potential for a financial crisis. If investors lost their cool, stock markets could tumble, hitting pension funds and leading consumers to spend less of their money. Credit markets could freeze up because investors around the world might reassess the value of U.S. debt, which serves as collateral for trillions of dollars in loans and other financial transactions. The Treasury has warned a default could trigger the worst recession since the Great Depression. – Is there an easy way out of this? Washington’s army of policy wonks have floated all sorts of ideas that could in theory resolve a debt ceiling crisis.