Chiquita fires thousands of striking banana workers in Panama, says it suffered $75 million losses
Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino had said earlier Thursday that the strike was illegal and included some 5,000 workers.
'Unfortunately, following the unjustified abandonment of work at our plantations and operations centers since April 28 and continuing today, (the company) has proceeded with the termination of all of our daily workers,' the company said in a statement. It said the company had suffered losses of at least $75 million.
Mulino, speaking at his weekly press briefing Thursday morning, had blamed the leader of the banana workers union.
'We don't know how to talk to (union) leader Francisco Smith about the enormous damage his intransigence is causing the Bocas del Toro job sector,' Mulino said. Bocas del Toro is Panama's westernmost province and borders Costa Rica.
The union did not immediately comment.
Protests marches and occasional roadblocks have stretched from one end of the country to the other as teachers, construction workers and other unions expressed their rejection to changes the government said were necessary to keep the social security system solvent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trade deals don't make Trump's emergency tariffs legal
President Trump has taken an expansive view of his authority to levy tariffs in his second term trade war with nearly every U.S. trading partner. Calling on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Trump administration has imposed tariffs at rates not seen since the 1930s, claiming to address a national emergency caused by fentanyl trafficked across the border and persistent trade deficits. Defending those actions, on Monday, Trump's Justice Department entered an extraordinary letter into the tariff litigation now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which will soon issue a ruling. That letter points to a recurrent theme in Trump's trade approach, a weak legal foundation for his actions papered over with an even more flimsy rationale for preserving it. The letter from Solicitor General D. John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate claims that President Trump's July announcement of 'the largest trade agreement in history' with the European Union, plus other recent deals with Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the United Kingdom, proved the tariffs should stay in place. That argument might make for a good press release. But in a court of law, it's entirely beside the point. The central question before the court isn't whether the president's tariffs have produced diplomatic headlines (even though they don't amount to much). It's whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act gives the president the authority to impose them in the first place. Congress passed the act to give presidents a way to address genuine national emergencies, things like hostile foreign actions, espionage or terrorism — not as a catch-all to impose peacetime tariffs whenever it might create negotiating leverage. In fact, the U.S. Court of International Trade, whose decision to vacate Trump's tariffs is now under appeal, held that the government's argument for using tariffs to 'pressure' countries to address the proclaimed emergencies 'does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of 'dealing with' the cited emergency.' It reached that stance because the argument would allow the president 'to take whatever actions he chooses simply by declaring them 'pressure' or 'leverage' tactics' to extract concessions unconnected to the declared threat. The Justice Department continues to push for an expansive reading of the president's authority to levy tariffs. But the letter takes this a step further. It offers a string of doomsday predictions: Without international emergency powers tariffs, 'trillions of dollars' from other countries won't be paid, the U.S. could see a '1929-style result,' millions might lose their homes and jobs, even Social Security and Medicare could be 'threatened.' That's not legal analysis. It's fearmongering. And it's untethered from any evidence in the record. Most of the so-called deals are not even written down, or available to review. Of the announcements made on the content of those deals, serious questions have been raised about the level of commitments, and their durability. Furthermore, the promised investment may not even be possible, and contradict the president's goal of lowering the trade deficit, which is central to his actions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. It also contradicts the Justice Department's previous arguments for a stay of the lower court's ruling, claiming that the government could refund the tariffs if it lost the appeal. Even if the deals the president cites were, in fact, secured because of these tariffs, it still wouldn't make them legal. You don't get to break the law to make a deal, then point to the deal as proof the law should bend to fit your actions. That's bootstrapping, plain and simple. Nor is it true that the U.S. has no other trade tools at its disposal. There are various other trade authorities that the president could lean on. The president could also negotiate actual trade agreements with the support of Congress. The irony is that the Justice Department's own letter inadvertently proves the critics' point. If the president believes these tariffs are so essential, he should ask Congress for the authority to impose them. That's how the separation of powers works. In the meantime, the courts are there to ensure that even the most popular, politically expedient or 'powerful' policy stays within legal bounds. Tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were never legal. No amount of retroactive dealmaking can change that. Grasping at straws for a new rationale for Trump's self-inflicted tariff wound adds insult to that injury. The Court of Appeals should not be swayed by this desperate appeal. A clear and decisive ruling against the tariffs is necessary to stop further abuses of executive authority on trade, otherwise, this version of 'emergency powers' will become the new normal in U.S. trade law, and Americans will pay the price, not just in their wallets.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Best CD rates today, August 14, 2025 (lock in up to 5.5% APY)
Find out which banks are offering the best CD rates right now. If you're looking for a secure place to store your savings, a certificate of deposit (CD) may be a great choice. These accounts often provide higher interest rates than traditional checking and savings accounts. However, CD rates can vary widely. Learn more about where CD rates stand today and how to find the best rates available. Banks with the best CD rates today CD rates are relatively high compared to historical averages. That said, CD rates have been on the decline since last year when the Federal Reserve began cutting its target rate. The good news is that several financial institutions offer competitive rates of 4% APY and up, particularly online banks. As of August 14, 2025, the highest CD rate is 5.5% APY, offered by Gainbridge® on its 5-year CD. There is a $1000 minimum opening deposit required. Here is a look at some of the best CD rates available today from our verified partners: This embedded content is not available in your region. CD rate predictions for 2025 The Federal Reserve recently began decreasing the federal funds rate in light of slowing inflation and an overall improved economic outlook. It cut its target rate three times in late 2024 by a total of one percentage point. The Fed has indicated it will continue cutting its target rate in 2025. However, it now projects a total of three cuts, down from its previous projection of four. The federal funds rate doesn't directly impact deposit interest rates, though they are correlated. When the Fed lowers rates, financial institutions typically follow suit (and vice versa). So now that the Fed has lowered its rate, CD rates are beginning to fall again. That's why now may be a good time to put your money in a CD and lock in today's best rates. How to open a CD The process for opening a CD account varies by financial institution. However, there are a few general steps you can expect to follow: Research CD rates: One of the most important factors to consider when opening a CD is whether the account provides a competitive rate. You can easily compare CD rates online to find the best offers. Choose an account that meets your needs: While a CD's interest rate is a key consideration, it shouldn't be the only one. You should also evaluate the CD's term length, minimum opening deposit requirements, and fees to ensure a particular account fits your financial needs and goals. For example, you want to avoid choosing a CD term that's too long, otherwise you'll be subject to an early withdrawal penalty if you need to pull out your funds before the CD matures. Get your documents ready: When opening a bank account, you will need to provide a few pieces of information, including your Social Security number, address, and driver's license or passport number. Having these documents on hand will help streamline the application process. Complete the application: These days, many financial institutions allow you to apply for an account online, though you might have to visit the branch in some cases. Either way, the application for a new CD should only take a few minutes to complete. And in many cases, you'll get your approval decision instantly. Fund the account: Once your CD application is approved, it's time to fund the account. This can usually be done by transferring money from another account or mailing a check. Read more: Step-by-step instructions for opening a CD This embedded content is not available in your region.
New York Times
34 minutes ago
- New York Times
As the Air Canada Strike Looms, Here's What Travelers Need to Know
Air Canada began canceling dozens of flights in advance of a planned strike by its 10,000 flight attendants that could begin at midnight on Saturday morning. A complete shutdown could disrupt 130,000 travelers a day, including international travelers heading to and from Canada. Air Canada Express flights, which are operated by Jazz Aviation and PAL Airlines and serve regional destinations, would not be affected. Here's what you need to know if you're scheduled to fly on Air Canada in the coming days. Why are Air Canada flight attendants threatening a strike? Flight attendants are seeking improved wages and compensation for work they do before flights take off and after they land. (Historically, flight attendants have been paid only for hours that they are in the air, and not for work done during boarding or deplaning, though some major U.S. airlines, including Delta and American, have adjusted some of those policies in recent years.) Will all Air Canada travelers be affected? No. Travelers on regional flights operated by Air Canada Express will not be affected, since those flights are subcontracted to smaller carriers. Those regional flights make up about 300 of Air Canada's 1,000 daily flights. Are any other airlines affected? Flights that include Air Canada or Air Canada Rouge, a low-cost subsidiary, may be impacted by the labor dispute, and passengers should check their flight status for any cancellations or disruptions. Air Canada is part of the Star Alliance, which includes more than 20 partnering airlines like Lufthansa and United. Even travelers on other airlines should check if their flight is code-sharing with or operated by Air Canada, which could cause disruptions. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
