Why Are Americans Boycotting Walmart, McDonald's? Nationwide Demonstration From August 1
Progressive groups, led by The People's Union USA, urge Americans to boycott Walmart and McDonald's in August, protesting against the worker rights issues and tax evasion.
As a part of consumer activism, the People's Union USA has urged people all over the country to stop shopping at Walmart and McDonald's. The boycott beginning from today would last for a month. As per the union, the movement is to take a stand against business that exploit workers, practice tax evasions, and lack social responsibilities.
As a part of the boycott, People's Union USA said they will not buy anything from Walmart and McDonald's for a month. The union is urging people to buy things from small and independent stores.
Why Are People Boycotting McDonald's And Walmart?
As per the People's Union USA, the fast food giant McD is under scanner for cutting back on its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and allegedly lobbying against pay raises. Union also accused McD of evading taxes.
As for Walmart, the Union claims that Walmart does not treat its workers fairly, employees are underpaid, and it also evade taxes. An Economic Times report quoted John Schwarz, the founder of People's Union USA, as saying 'Walmart represents everything wrong with unchecked corporate power."
Schwarz got national attention earlier this year when his group called for an 'economic boycott" on Walmart, Target and Amazon for various reasons, including the roll-back of diversity, equality and inclusion (DEI) programs.
Last month also a grassroots 'economic blackout" campaign was launched against McDonald's. The People's Union USA urged people to boycott McD for at least a week. Schwarz explained in an Instagram post that he's demanding 'fair taxes, an end to price gouging, real equality, and corporate accountability."
'This is a show of strength, solidarity and people powered change," Schwarz wrote. 'Let them feel it. Let them hear us."
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
2 hours ago
- Mint
Elon Musk's Tesla fined over ₹1,996 crore in Florida autopilot crash case; jury flags ‘responsibility' amid tech failure
Elon Musk's Tesla has been ordered to pay more than $240 million in damages to victims of a deadly car crash in Florida that involved its Autopilot driver assist technology after a Miami jury found the EV maker responsible for the incident. Tesla had significant responsibility as its technology failed, the federal jury observed. Not all the blame can be put on the driver of the car, even the one who confessed that he was distracted by his mobile phone when he hit a young strargazing couple. The jury's decision comes at a time when Elon Musk is trying to convince Americans that Tesla's cars are safe to be self-driven, as he seeks to roll out a driverless taxi firm in several cities shortly. The jury's decision ends a four-year-long case, which stands out not just for its outcome but the very fact that it even made it to trial. Several such cases against Tesla have earlier been dismissed or settled by the company to avoid controversial trials. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today's verdict is wrong," Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.'
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Slow food sets foot in Thiruvananthapuram with 1940 India by Azad
The name Azad has held great significance on the culinary map of Thiruvananthapuram for over eight decades. From a makeshift outlet located at Vallakkadavu named Azadinte Kada (Azad's shop) to a diverse gastronomic portfolio consisting of restaurants, fine dining eateries, bakeries and kiosks, Azad has constantly evolved while staying true to its Travancore roots. The latest addition to this list is a slow food restaurant with a Quick Service Restaurant model named 1940 India, located at Vazhuthacaud. What is slow food? The slow food movement, combating international fast-food chains and homogenisation of food, began in the '80s in Italy. The moniker is attributed to its anti-fast-food ideology and has no relation to cooking time. The campaign, founded by Italian activist Carlo Petrini against the opening of a McDonald's outlet in Rome, is characterised by a core philosophy, 'Good, clean and fair' food, covering quality of ingredients, sustainable production methods and a fair price for producers. There is also an emphasis on supporting local businesses and seasonality. 'During the opening of an international fast-food franchise outlet nearby, we discussed how almost everything, apart from a few of their employees, is imported. This income benefits only the foreign company,' says Ozman Azad, a third generation member of the family. 'We have specific local vendors for each of our shops, which expand depending on seasons. Everyone who is part of that local network benefits from this. We need to replicate this framework everywhere with the ethnic foods of that location,' says Ozman. He runs the business with his brothers, Wazim Azad and Mahin Azad. Their father, Abdul Nazar Azad, son of MP Azad, who founded their first restaurant in 1940, is the chairman of Azad Corporate. Since inception, Azad's restaurant at Overbridge known for the iconic Azad Pakka Travancore Biriyani, their fine dining restaurant Star, and their bakery and confectionary store Bread Factory, are household names in the State capital. 'We have been doing the slow food concept for 85 years. And it has always been hyper local-centric in terms of sourcing the ingredients and the staff. But 1940 India is the only place where there is an additional emphasis to serve it fast,' says Ozman. A key difference between fast food and slow food outlets is the presence of a chef. 'They play a significant role in the kitchen. Fast food is about assembling, while slow food involves preparing the components from scratch and staying away from frozen products,' says Ozman. He adds that the smooth operation of the outlet depends on 'the hub', located at Eanchakkal, established six months before the restaurant's opening. This facility, with 25 staff, is responsible for research, development, and operations. The restaurant has a total workforce of 23 people. The menu The menu of 1940 India caters to the youth, who consume fast food the most. 'If slow food aims to combat fast food, then it should target the younger generation. We have sandwiches, rolls, mac 'n' cheese, which might draw in the younger crowd. But at the same time we serve idiyappam, chicken curry, mutton curry and so on,' says Ozman. 'We also discovered that the younger generation prefers smaller individual portions over ordering multiple dishes across the table. They have only short breaks during their work hours, so we have to serve fresh food quickly too,' he adds. The menu is divided into five sub-groups. The I Am Young And Happy menu features sandwiches, rolls, loaded fries and mac 'n' cheese. My Travancore, My Love has kothu porotta, traditional crispy chicken, chicken peralan, mutton curry roast, baby Kerala porotta, noolappam and dum biriyani. Indian curries, tikkas, kebabs, bread, and rice dishes are featured in the I Am India section. I Love Asia menu has Cantonese chicken and nutty cauliflower, along with fried rice and Hakka noodles. Custard brownies, gulab jamun and soft serve comprise the dessert menu. Rajasthani thandai, a fragrant sweet drink with a spicy kick, and Punjabi lassi are also available. My Travancore, My Love menu would differ according to the location, featuring dishes indigenous to that area, says Ozman. 'Our next step here would be to create personalised menu classifications, looking at different generations and dividing their time slots into six, serving what they would like to eat at each of these slots,' Ozman says. The peak hours are after 8pm and during the hours following the usual lunch breaks. The slow food chain is expanding to Bengaluru next year and will establish a hub in the lead-up to that. 'We are targeting areas where you can find fast-food chains; therefore, we are not limited to just metropolitan areas.'
Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Jury orders Tesla to pay more than $240 million in Autopilot crash case
A Miami jury decided that Elon Musk's car company Tesla was partly responsible for a deadly crash in Florida involving its Autopilot driver assist technology and must pay the victims more than $240 million in damages. The federal jury held that Tesla bore significant responsibility because its technology failed and that not all the blame can be put on a reckless driver, even one who admitted he was distracted by his cellphone before hitting a young couple out gazing at the stars. The decision comes as Musk seeks to convince Americans his cars are safe enough to drive on their own as he plans to roll out a driverless taxi service in several cities in the coming months. The decision ends a four-year long case remarkable not just in its outcome but that it even made it to trial. Many similar cases against Tesla have been dismissed and, when that didn't happen, settled by the company to avoid the spotlight of a trial. 'This will open the floodgates,' said Miguel Custodio, a car crash lawyer not involved in the Tesla case. 'It will embolden a lot of people to come to court.' The case also included startling charges by lawyers for the family of the deceased, 22-year-old, Naibel Benavides Leon, and for her injured boyfriend, Dillon Angulo. They claimed Tesla either hid or lost key evidence, including data and video recorded seconds before the accident. Tesla said it made a mistake after being shown the evidence and honestly hadn't thought it was there. 'We finally learned what happened that night, that the car was actually defective,' said Benavides' sister, Neima Benavides. 'Justice was achieved.' Tesla has previously faced criticism that it is slow to cough up crucial data by relatives of other victims in Tesla crashes, accusations that the car company has denied. In this case, the plaintiffs showed Tesla had the evidence all along, despite its repeated denials, by hiring a forensic data expert who dug it up. 'Today's verdict is wrong,' Tesla said in a statement, 'and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardize Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement lifesaving technology,' They said the plaintiffs concocted a story 'blaming the car when the driver – from day one – admitted and accepted responsibility.' In addition to a punitive award of $200 million, the jury said Tesla must also pay $43 million of a total $129 million in compensatory damages for the crash, bringing the total borne by the company to $243 million. 'It's a big number that will send shock waves to others in the industry,' said financial analyst Dan Ives of Wedbush Securities. 'It's not a good day for Tesla.' Tesla said it will appeal. Even if that fails, the company says it will end up paying far less than what the jury decided because of a pre-trial agreement that limits punitive damages to three times Tesla's compensatory damages. Translation: $172 million, not $243 million. But the plaintiff says their deal was based on a multiple of all compensatory damages, not just Tesla's, and the figure the jury awarded is the one the company will have to pay. It's not clear how much of a hit to Tesla's reputation for safety the verdict in the Miami case will make. Tesla has vastly improved its technology since the crash on a dark, rural road in Key Largo, Florida, in 2019. But the issue of trust generally in the company came up several times in the case, including in closing arguments Thursday. The plaintiffs' lead lawyer, Brett Schreiber, said Tesla's decision to even use the term Autopilot showed it was willing to mislead people and take big risks with their lives because the system only helps drivers with lane changes, slowing a car and other tasks, falling far short of driving the car itself. Schreiber said other automakers use terms like 'driver assist' and 'copilot' to make sure drivers don't rely too much on the technology. 'Words matter,' Schreiber said. 'And if someone is playing fast and lose with words, they're playing fast and lose with information and facts.' Schreiber acknowledged that the driver, George McGee, was negligent when he blew through flashing lights, a stop sign and a T-intersection at 62 miles an hour before slamming into a Chevrolet Tahoe that the couple had parked to get a look at the stars. The Tahoe spun around so hard it was able to launch Benavides 75 feet through the air into nearby woods where her body was later found. It also left Angulo, who walked into the courtroom Friday with a limp and cushion to sit on, with broken bones and a traumatic brain injury. But Schreiber said Tesla was at fault nonetheless. He said Tesla allowed drivers to act recklessly by not disengaging the Autopilot as soon as they begin to show signs of distraction and by allowing them to use the system on smaller roads that it was not designed for, like the one McGee was driving on. 'I trusted the technology too much,' said McGee at one point in his testimony. 'I believed that if the car saw something in front of it, it would provide a warning and apply the brakes.' The lead defense lawyer in the Miami case, Joel Smith, countered that Tesla warns drivers that they must keep their eyes on the road and hands on the wheel yet McGee chose not to do that while he looked for a dropped cellphone, adding to the danger by speeding. Noting that McGee had gone through the same intersection 30 or 40 times previously and hadn't crashed during any of those trips, Smith said that isolated the cause to one thing alone: 'The cause is that he dropped his cellphone.' The auto industry has been watching the case closely because a finding of Tesla liability despite a driver's admission of reckless behavior would pose significant legal risks for every company as they develop cars that increasingly drive themselves.
