Campaign News

Progressive activists have no shortage of ambitious economic policy goals. They include the $15 minimum wage, Social Security expansion, Medicare for all and debt-free college -- to name just a few.

One item not on the list? Federal Reserve policy to create jobs and boost wages.

But a growing number of liberal-leaning economists and a new, Fed policy-centered coalition of progressive groups are trying to change that. They are on a mission to keep the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates until the economy sees real wage growth. It is a cause that they argue is essential to raising living standards and reducing income inequality, and they are making their case in policy papers, meetings with Federal Reserve officials and yes, even demonstrations. They believe that President Barack Obama has neglected the Fed -- even failing to fill two vacant seatson the Federal Reserve Board of Governors -- to the detriment of paychecks around the country.

The progressive economists and activists merely recognize what Wall Street has long accepted as true: The Fed’s monetary policy is one of if not the most important single factors in the real economy. In that battle to guide Fed policy, Wall Street is joined bythe GOP, which routinely pressures the Fed to rein itself in.

The degree to which the Fed turns the faucet of money on or off has a direct effect on the jobs available to Americans -- and the wages they are able to demand once they are working. In fact, slowing wage growth is a feature of Fed policy, not a bug. A decision to limit the flow of money, even if based on sound concerns about inflation, is designed to lower prices by putting thousands of Americans out of work and driving down wage growth.

Janet Yellen, a liberal-leaning economist who has long focused on wage growth, runs the Fed. Progressives successfully championed her for the post, derailing the bid of Obama’s top pick of Larry Summers, yet there has barely been a peep from them as Yellen and her colleagues consider putting the brakes on the economy.

To understand the case the progressives are making, it's important to know a little bit about the Fed, how it works and why it matters so much to the American economy.

How Does The Fed Work?

In controlling the country’s money supply, the Federal Reserve System, more commonly known as the “Fed,” is charged with what is often called a “dual mandate”: maximizing employment and maintaining stable prices. It does this primarily by adjusting the Federal Funds Rate, which is the interest rate at which banks lend to one another overnight using funds kept at the Federal Reserve. (It also can adjust theDiscount Rate, which is the rate at which the Fed lends to banks directly.) The Fed body responsible for adjusting the rate is the Federal Open Market Committee, which consists of 12 members -- seven presidentially appointed Federal Reserve Board governors, including the chair of the Fed, and a rotating group of five regional Federal Reserve Bank presidents.

How the Fed chooses to adjust the money supply is what is known as monetary policy. In a weak economy, the Fed is inclined to engage in monetary stimulus, which means lowering rates to prompt a virtuous cycle of economic growth. Banks respond to the cheaper credit available to them by providing cheaper credit to consumers and businesses. Consumers benefit from lower interest rates on home mortgages, cars and student loans. Businesses get lower interest rates on the loans they need to pay employees, maintain inventory and pay other bills. The money consumers and business owners save on financing their debt then gets cycled back into the economy in demand for goods and services. This in turn stimulates hiring, lowering unemployment and ultimately raising wages as employers compete for workers.

If economic growth gets higher than the Fed believes is consistent with its inflation target, the Fed contracts the money supply, raising rates to prevent excessive inflation. That is because if debt remains cheap, wages could grow so high that businesses must constantly raise prices to remain afloat. People’s financial assets decline in value, as does the purchasing power of workers’ wages. The Fed adjusts rates with a target of 2 percent inflation, in an effort to avoid levels of inflation that would “reduce the public's ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions.”

While the 2 percent target has become sacred in Fed policy circles, it is based on no more evidence than any other figure -- and those other figures, such as target unemployment, are adjusted routinely. Taking some of the halo off the 2 percent number, some economists argue, would give the Fed much more flexibility to help workers.

What is often lost in the dry, bloodless discussion of raising rates is the consequences for regular people when the Fed moves in that direction. The goal of raising rates -- not an unfortunate, unintended consequence, but the actual policy goal -- is to throw people out of work and drive down wages. As people suffer, as their confidence is weakened, as their sense of dignity is undermined, they become meeker in the job market and as a result they stop pushing for a raise, or they accept a new position at a lower salary. With wages suppressed, companies don’t need to raise prices in order to continue growing profits, and the pressure on inflation is alleviated.

The Fed, liberal economists say, is planning to cause all of this pain with precious little evidence that it is even remotely necessary. Despite years of steady economic growth and rising employment, prices remain well below the Fed's inflation target.

There is, in fact, no evidence of much price inflation at all.

So Why Cause Needless Suffering?

The degree to which the Fed has emphasized employment and wages, versus the threat of inflation, has varied greatly over the decades based both on its leadership and economic circumstances. Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, notes in his book The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive, that starting in 1980, the Fed shifted its monetary policy in favor of the anti-inflation prong of its dual mandate at the expense of full employment. Paul Volcker, Fed chair from 1979 to 1987, increased interest rates to wipe out high inflation, allowing the unemployment rate to reach almost 11 percent in 1982. Since then, the Fed has shifted its monetary policies modestly based on circumstances. But with rare exception, it has not allowed unemployment to get low enough to generate significant wage growth for the large majority of American workers.

The severity of the recent recession yielded an unusually broad consensus in favor of keeping rates low. Since 2008, under both the Republican-appointed Fed chair, Ben Bernanke, and the current Democrat-appointed chair, Yellen, the federal funds rate has remained at what is known as the “zero lower bound” – between 0 and 0.25 percent. In fact, the Fed went even further, purchasing trillions in securities between 2008 and 2014, in a program known as quantitative easing. The aim of the program was to keep credit flowing by maintaining high demand for public and private debt.

Now, after positive GDP growth in 19 of the last 21 quarters since 2011 and the official unemployment rate nearing 5 percent, Yellen has indicated that the Fed will soon raise the rate. How much to raise the rate -- and when the Fed will do that -- is unclear. Unemployment remained flat from March to April, which may make the Fed more cautious. The next fed committee meeting is June 16-17, and the results of the meeting will be watched closely.

What Would Progressive Fed Policy Look Like?

Baker and other economists think the Fed should allow wages to grow more substantially before raising rates.

Josh Bivens, research and policy director of the Economic Policy Institute, argues in an August 2014 fact sheet that the Fed should look for 3.5 percent growth. In the first quarter of 2015, wages were up 2.6 percent from the year before -- a growth rate that many economists say doesn't have a real impact on regular people's lives.

Jared Bernstein, senior fellow at the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, shared Bivens’ preference for the Fed to wait for 3.5 percent nominal wage growth before raising the rate.

“The unemployment rate is within distance of [the Fed's full employment target], and yet inflation and wage pressures are nowhere to be seen,” Bernstein said. “My admonitions here are not to slow the economy down too soon, and that would be until GDP growth reaches workers through their paychecks.”

In short, these economists want Yellen to act more like Chair Alan Greenspan did in the late 1990s. At the time, Greenspan repeatedly declined to raise rates, claiming that the “softness in compensation growth” continued to make employment a greater concern than inflation. In doing so, Greenspan faced down criticism both from the financial industry and dissent from Fed committee members like Yellen, then the Fed governor.

The result of Greenspan’s decision, many argue, was one of the few periods of broadly distributed wage growth since before the 1973 recession. From 1995 to 2000, the bottom 20 percent of workers saw double-digit wage increases.

It is an odd turn considering that Greenspan’s handling of the dot-com and housing bubbles, and libertarian ideology, have made him a bête noire of the left.

“A lot of economists do not like to acknowledge it, but Greenspan -- and I have trashed him endlessly -- was not an orthodox economist,” Dean Baker said. “Greenspan did something nobody thought was right, and he was right. High school degree workers were getting pay raises. It was not Clinton, but Greenspan who did it.”

These economists believe that postponing a rate hike is risk-free, because price inflation has remained defiantly low for so long. From April 2014 to April 2015, personal consumption expenditures excluding food and energy -- the metric the Fed uses to measure inflation -- went up just over 1 percent, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That level of price inflation occurred during a period in which the economy created nearly 2.8 million more jobs, bringing the official unemployment rate from 6.2 percent to 5.4 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

In the long term, Bivens and Baker would like to see the Fed be altogether more concerned about wages and employment than inflation. They believe that the Fed’s price inflation target could go higher than 2 percent without tolerating dangerous inflation rates. A higher inflation target would have allowed the Fed to pursue a more aggressive quantitative easing program and push wages upward faster.

Baker says that the Fed should be most concerned about the rate at which prices are inflating, rather than a particular percentage range. And he believes that an uptick in inflation is rarely so abrupt as to be beyond adjustment.

“If we had a jump in inflation even from 1.5 percent to 2 percent and then 2.5 the next month, then I’d say we should hit on the brakes,” Baker said.

Other economists from major world financial bodies, like Olivier Blanchard of the International Monetary Fund and Eric Rosengren of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, have also publicly endorsed higher inflation targets.

More conservative economists argue that even if prices remain stable and low, a rate hike would head off asset inflation in, for example, the housing and stock markets. Mark Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, expressed concern that the Fed’s low interest rates have allowed financial asset prices and corporate leveraging to reach “disconcerting” levels.

The liberal economists share Calabria’s concerns about asset bubbles, but believe that the Fed has tools other than raising interest rates at its disposal to address them.They note that the Fed has the power to regulate the banks and other commercial institutions with which it does business.

The Fed, they say, also has a bully pulpit that can be used to dampen the excessive expectations of growth in a particular industry that lead assets to be overvalued. A July 2014 Monetary Policy Report by the Fed Board of Governors warned against high asset prices in the social media and biotechnology industries.

“For whatever reason, [Yellen] has not done it since,” said Baker of the Fed’s July 2014 cautionary remarks. “If you show the evidence that these are overpriced, it will have an impact on prices.”

How’s The Economy Doing?

Yellen has been a consistent advocate of monetary stimulus, keeping rates low and buying financial assets. As chair, Yellen has adopted a consensus-driven approach to her leadership, including listening to some more inflation-wary members of the Fed committee.

Baker estimates that a sustained series of rate hikes would reduce the economic growth rate by half a percentage point, and the economy would create 500,000 fewer jobs per year.

The low official unemployment rate hides the fact that millions of Americans have settled for part-time work or dropped out of the labor force entirely. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that when counting workers employed part-time for economic reasons, and those who have not looked for a job recently due to discouragement, the unemployment rate was 11.6 percent from the middle of 2014 through the beginning of 2015. Tellingly, despite the creation of 2.8 million jobs from April 2014 to April 2015, labor force participation remained flat at 62.8 percent.

Several small business owners who spoke to The Huffington Post also expressed concern about the fragile state of the recovery, and warned against a premature rate hike.

Mike Brey, CEO of Hobby Works, which has several retail locations in Maryland and Virginia, said that business only began to rebound in the latter half of 2014. Hobby Works employs 38 people. Brey recently rehired a worker for Hobby Works’ warehouse location, and plans to hire another employee if sales continue to pick up.

“I feel like we are in a recovery, but it has taken pretty long to get here,” Brey said. “To me, it still feels a little bit uneasy.”

Brey says the lower that Fed rates are, the better terms he gets on bulk purchases from wholesalers. A single quarter-point rate hike would probably not affect what Hobby Works does on a “day-to-day basis,” he says. Rather, he is more worried about the effects of a rate hike on the still-precarious consumer confidence of the lower-middle and middle-class consumers who frequent his stores.

Ron Nelsen, owner of Pioneer Door, a retail garage door company in Las Vegas, says that garage door sales have increased as consumers have begun buying homes in large numbers again.

“I think true consumer demand has been here for a year or two,” Nelsen said. “Maybe the end of 2013 and last year really felt like people were opening up their pockets again.”

Nelsen worried that a Fed rate hike could hurt the consumers who buy his company’s garage doors.

“If it affected my customers’ base disposable income, it would be huge,” he said.

Mobilizing Main Street -- and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard

Having ideas about what the Fed should do is one thing, and actually influencing the Fed’s decisions is another thing entirely. It is unclear exactly how to change a Fed decision, but it undoubtedly takes more than the public comments of a few economists.

Fed Up, a new coalition of community organizations and labor unions led by theCenter for Popular Democracy, is trying to turn the complex policy arguments of economists like Baker, Bivens and Bernstein into a grassroots political movement. The goal is to get the Fed to recommit itself to genuine, equitable full employment policies. In particular, Fed Up, whose main concern is aptly summed up by its homepage whatrecovery.org, has mobilized urban communities of color to lobby the Fed for pro-employment monetary policies that account for the disproportionately high unemployment and economic hardship levels in their communities.

Ady Barkan, a Center for Popular Democracy staff member who directs the Fed Up campaign, said that while Fed policy is more difficult to explain to community activists than issues like the minimum wage and Medicaid access, the coalition has made headway in educating people about the importance of the Fed to their daily lives.

“We have developed materials explaining why the Fed matters and why higher interest rates could hurt you,” Barkan said. “It is not just that it will mean higher mortgage rates, car rates and student loan rates, but that when the economy slows down, workers have less leverage. We are finding that people are excited by it and recognize why it matters to them.”

Fed Up released a study in March, "Wall Street, Main Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard: Why African Americans Must Not Be Left Out of the Federal Reserve’s Full-Employment Mandate," highlighting the still-high unemployment rate among black Americans, and lopsided impact of the Great Recession on black wealth and wages. In 2014, the study reports, black unemployment remained at 11.4 percent, while it was 5.3 percent for whites.

The study notes that even prior to the recession, African-Americans were losing ground economically. The median black worker suffered a 3.1 percent wage cut from 2000 to 2014, the study says, compared to a 2.5 percent increase for the median white worker. Between 2007 and 2013, median household wealth declined 43 percent among African-Americans, compared with 27 percent for whites.

In addition to calling on the Fed to postpone any planned rate hikes, Fed Up is asking for structural reforms that would broaden its mandate and subject it to greater influence from working people. It wants the Fed to study the effects of inequality and how non-monetary policies like the minimum wage affect the economy. It recommends making the selection of regional Fed presidents more transparent and open to public input. And it is demanding that Fed officials meet regularly with working people and community organizations.

Fed Up organized press conferences in eight cities with regional Federal Reserve banks in March to publicize the study’s findings about racial disparities in wages and employment. In November, Fed Up activists met with Yellen, Vice Chair Stanley Fischer, and Governors Lael Brainerd and Jerome Powell in Washington.

Barkan believes the Fed governors were receptive to Fed Up’s stance.

“They listened very carefully and asked good follow-up questions and seemed to be really moved and grateful for the conversation,” Barkan said.

While Fed Up has convened meetings and published reports, it has not shied away from public protests. In what the Wall Street Journal called “a first for Jackson Hole,”Fed Up sent a group to protest a possible rate hike at the Fed’s annual Jackson Hole, Wyoming, meeting in August 2014. The protests yielded a meeting between the group and Kansas City Fed President Esther George. Fed Up says it has scheduled additional meetings with regional Fed presidents.

Lobbying the Fed is a delicate task because it is seen as novel -- even subversive. The Fed has traditionally been viewed as a nonpartisan, technocratic institution that should be left to its own devices by politicians and political movements.

But progressive advocates argue that the Fed has not always been impartial. Regional Fed presidents and Fed governors routinely survey business and financial leaders to help make interest rate decisions. And the mere fact that regional Fed presidents are largely elected by private bankers, these progressives say, means that the financial community has an outsize say in Fed policy.

“What central bank independence has really meant is independence from all sectors except the financial sector,” Bivens said. “Organized labor? Of course they should not be allowed to have a voice at the central bank, but the financial sector does.”

What's more, progressives note, the political right has wasted no time heaping criticism on the Fed for what it perceives as excessive stimulus. And attacking the Fed has not just been a campaign trope for tea party-friendly presidential candidates like Rick Perry. Congressional Republicans regularly pressure Yellen, too. In an April hearing, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee, complained to Yellen that the Fed was supposed to check Congress’ desire for looser monetary policy, but now Congress found itself trying to check the Fed.

A couple months before that, Garrett questioned Yellen about a speech she gave on economic inequality. He argued that the timing of the speech -- it was a few weeks before the 2014 midterm elections -- "clearly indicate[s] that the Fed is already acting and making decisions clearly on a partisan political basis."

“In recent years, [the Fed is] just getting criticized up and down from the right that they are priming the pump for hyperinflation,” Bivens said. “If the right is going to pressure them, pressure from the left is more important than ever.”

Source: Huffington Post

New Yorkers need policies that would help them balance work and family responsibilities, according to a report released today by New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer, in partnership with A Better Balance.

  The report, “Families and Flexibility: Building the 21st Century Workplace,” is based on a survey of more than 1,100 New Yorkers working in a broad range of industries and provides a follow up to Comptroller Stringer’s report, “Families and Flexibility,” from June 2014.   The online survey, while not scientific, asked workers in all five boroughs about:   ·         The availability of flexible work arrangements; ·         How comfortable they are requesting flexible schedules; ·         The need for paid family leave; and ·         For “shift workers,” the predictability of their work schedules.   “No New Yorker should ever have to choose between keeping their job and caring for their family,” said Comptroller Stringer. “With policies like FlexTime, paid family leave, and advanced notification of schedules, we can give workers the tools they need to address their personal and professional responsibilities.”   Flexible work arrangements, which allow employees to work outside the traditional 9-to-5 schedule and from locations other than their offices, are one of the most effective ways to help individuals establish a work-life balance. Flexible work arrangements also help businesses boost their bottom line by improving morale and minimizing turnover.   But, nearly half of workers surveyed do not have access to flexible work arrangements.   Just as troubling, respondents who had requested flexible work arrangements in the past reported that they had experienced missed promotions, negative reviews, and belittling comments.   Among respondents without office-wide policies on flexible scheduling:   59% were “uncomfortable” or “very uncomfortable” asking for FlexTime; and   71% said they would be more likely to ask for flexibility if everyone in their workplace had the right to request it.   People who did have flexible work arrangements reported that it allowed them to better manage their lives. For example, one respondent was able to complete a Master’s program thanks to FlexTime, while another was able to care for her father during the last six weeks of his life without worrying about losing her job.   Comptroller Stringer calls on Congress to pass the Flexibility for Working Families Act and on Albany and City Hall to enact local “right-to-request” laws   These laws – which are sponsored by Representative Carolyn Maloney in Congress and Assemblywoman Nily Rozic and State Senator Daniel Squadron in Albany – would create a framework for employees to discuss FlexTime with their bosses without fear of retaliation.   “New Yorkers shouldn’t be intimidated or fearful when asking for flexibility in their schedules,” Comptroller Stringer said. “That’s why it is critical that we pass right-to-request legislation which would enable employees to discuss FlexTime without fear of retaliation. New Yorkers should be able to take their son to the doctor, pick their daughter up from school, or care for their elderly parents without having to worry about their jobs.”   The Comptroller’s survey also found strong support for paid family leave, which allows new parents to bond with their children and provides support for individuals caring for sick family members:   80% of respondents support a paid family leave system funded by a small employee payroll deduction, as state legislation in Albany has proposed; and   86% support equal amounts of paid family leave for both mothers and fathers.   A 2011 study of California’s program by the Center for Economic and Policy Research shows that paid family leave helps employees care for their loved ones, and is also good for business. Over 89% of employers reported it had a “positive effect” or “no noticeable effect” on productivity, profitability, turnover, and employee morale.   This legislation, sponsored by Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan and State Senator Joseph Addabbo, Jr., would create a state-wide paid family leave insurance system, which would be funded by a small employee payroll deduction.   “Two countries in the world don’t have paid family leave: New Guinea and the United States,” the Comptroller said, referring to a study by the International Labor Organization. “That needs to change. Mothers and fathers should have the opportunity to bond with their newborns, and all workers should be able to care for sick family members without fear of losing their job. While this issue should be addressed at the federal level, we can and must take steps now in Albany to support paid family leave for all New Yorkers.”   The survey found that among “shift workers,” whose schedules often change week-to-week, 18% receive their schedule only a day in advance, with some respondents reporting that they often don’t know their schedule until the day of—or even during their shift.   This uncertainty prevents workers from scheduling day care for their kids, providing elder care for their loved ones, and furthering their own education.   Among these workers:   Nearly one-fifth receive their schedules a mere 24-hours before their shift begins; and   Almost one-third reported retaliation after requesting schedule changes.   “Advance notification of schedules isn’t a perk – it’s a basic necessity for millions of Americans who deserve to know when they need to clock in so that they can plan their lives accordingly,” Stringer said. “Enacting this as standard workplace policy is long overdue."   “Now more than ever, so many workers are struggling to juggle the responsibilities of their jobs with the demanding tasks that come with having a family. In a city as high-paced as New York, that battle is only intensified, and no one should be forced to have to ultimately choose between their job and their family.  I commend Comptroller Stringer for not only providing us with hard evidence that proves flexible work arrangements really are needed in our city, but for putting forth recommendations that can help us one day make that a reality,” said Senator Addabbo, Jr.   “Everyone has the right to strike a balance between work and their personal lives, so they can plan to take care of important issues, including healthcare, education and childcare matters,” added Senator Jose Peralta. “Flexible scheduling creates a win-win scenario for both employers and workers. Employees perform at their best when they are free from the worry of finding time to manage all aspects of their personal and professional lives. I want to thank the City Comptroller Scott Stringer for taking an important step towards facilitating the balance between one’s work schedule and one’s private life.”   “With flexible work hours, individuals will no longer have to choose between work and their family,” State Senator Toby Stavisky said. “The Comptroller’s findings show how truly beneficial flexible work arrangements can be, not only for the employee, but employers as well. I applaud Comptroller Stringer for advocating for a better work-life balance for city workers.”   "Flexible work schedules are important to allowing parents and families the ability to coordinate and plan," said State Senator Daniel Squadron. "I'm proud to carry legislation giving workers the right to request flexible work schedules, as well as better understand the feasibility of broader implementation, along with Assemblymember Rozic. I thank City Comptroller Stringer and colleagues for continued focus on this issue for families."   “Right to Request legislation helps hardworking New Yorkers to negotiate non-traditional hours with their employers in order to accommodate their personal needs and ultimately work more effectively and efficiently.  Flexible Work Arrangements benefit employees, businesses, and New York City as a whole, and I am proud to support this legislation,” said Assemblyman Michael DenDekker.   “New York is moving towards the economy of the future, but in many ways, we’re still operating under the rules of the workplace of the past,” said Assemblyman Francisco Moya, Chair of the Subcommittee on Workplace Safety. “Flexible work arrangements give workers, especially single working parents and those who care for elderly relatives, the flexibility they need to prioritize both work and family. New York must create an environment that is as hospitable to working families as possible. I commend Comptroller Scott Stringer for boldly championing the important, but oft-overlooked issue of work-life balance.”   “When a significant portion of the workforce is made up of working parents, caregivers, and students who find themselves unable to achieve work-life balance, we must consider implementing flextime policies that reflect changing workforce dynamics. As the sponsor of 'Right to Request' legislation, I am proud to see us moving in a direction that recognizes the benefits of flexible working arrangements. I thank Comptroller Stringer for his leadership on this issue, and I call on my fellow State Legislators to pass this bill come January,” said Assemblywoman Nily Rozic.   "Flex Time presents a great opportunity for the employers and workers of New York City.  Not only would flexible work hours allow for employees to meet their obligations outside of the workplace, but giving them the opportunity to work outside of normal 9 to 5 business hours could greatly reduce traffic congestion during the rush hour commute.  Giving working New Yorkers the time to take care of aging relatives as well as their children allows them to meet their own needs and also provides new means to foster greater productivity," said Assemblyman David Weprin.   "Hardworking New Yorkers should be given the opportunity of Paid Family Leave. Employees perform their best when they know their employer is on their side and that they and their families are cared for. I thank Comptroller Scott Stringer for conducting this survey and his commitment to creating a fair workplace environment for every working individual,” said City Council Member Elizabeth Crowley.   "A one-size-fits-all approach to the work day is outmoded and unfair to hardworking New Yorkers who serve as caretakers for elderly, disabled and young family members," said City Council Member Daniel Dromm. "I applaud Comptroller Stringer's efforts to revise and reform this outdated model and look forward to working with him to implement his progressive vision for New York City families."   "Comptroller Stringer's report shows the urgent need for action to make sure working New Yorkers have schedules that work for their lives and their families. I was especially struck by the retail worker who said 'There are no words to describe the frustration and anxiety that comes from not knowing my schedule for the next week and the inability to plan my life and finances.' I look forward to supporting legislation that gives hard-working New Yorkers schedules that work," said City Councilmember Brad Lander.   “Flexible work arrangements benefit both employers and employees. They allow employers to maximize the productivity of work hours while providing workers with a reasonable work and home life balance. A 21st Century workplace needs this flexibility so company policies can be made to fit the unique circumstances of individual workers and employer settings,” said City Council Member Mark Levine.    “I believe that we have all at one time or another experienced the unexpected and, as a result, we do whatever is necessary to deal with the situation. Providing New Yorkers with flexibility in their jobs and/or prospect of flexibility would be of great support. Comptroller Stringer is raising awareness around an issue that everyone – employee and employer can relate to.” – City Councilwoman Rosie Mendez.   “In today’s world, many people do not have the same 9-to-5 availability that was common for so long,” said City Council Member Donovan Richards. “With the amount of college students who must work through school, single mothers and parents who must both work to survive in this city, we need to accommodate a variety of different schedules for our residents. Too many New Yorkers are being burdened by school loans and day care fees to not come together to account for the vastly changing dynamic in homes today.”   “New Yorkers across all professions are negatively impacted by inflexible work schedules that make juggling careers and families increasingly difficult. I applaud Comptroller Stringer for advocating flexible work arrangements that allow employees to work outside the confines of the traditional 9-to-5, and for advancing forward-thinking policy recommendations to improve work-life balance,” said City Councilman Ritchie Torres.   "This groundbreaking report sheds light on the urgent need for predictable and flexible work schedules and paid family leave to help New York parents and caregivers stay attached to the workforce,” said Dina Bakst and Sherry Leiwant, co-presidents of A Better Balance. “Policymakers should heed the call from working families and enact legislation to establish a floor so all workers, not just a select few, can better meet the conflicting demands of work and family and have the opportunity to succeed."    “This study shows how important it is for working New Yorkers and their families to have access to paid family leave and the right to request flexible schedules when they need them,” said 32BJ President Hector Figueroa.    “Fast-food and other low-wage workers find it nearly impossible to arrange for childcare, attend classes or work another job due to the practice of on-call scheduling that requires them to be constantly at the disposal of their employers. As we continue to fight for access to $15 an hour and a union for all workers, we need to promote policies that ensure hard-working people can take care of their families instead of allowing employers to maximize their profits at workers’ expense.”   “As more and more New York City residents find themselves in the role of family caregiver, it is no surprise to AARP that concepts like paid family leave, flexible scheduling and predictive scheduling are so popular,” said Christopher Widelo, associate state director of AARP New York.    “We hope all policymakers at both the city and state level join City Comptroller Stringer in appreciating the benefits of these forward-looking policies not only for New York’s families but for business and taxpayers in terms of increased productivity on the job and the ability to provide cost-effective care for our aging loved ones at home.  Already under a great deal of stress, family caregivers need support, and these policies would provide them the peace of mind of knowing they can care for their loved one without paying an unreasonable price.”   “We applaud the New York City Comptroller’s attention to these critical issues facing New York City’s workers. The survey results make clear that action is needed to make working schedules match the needs of our families. We look forward to working with the Comptroller and the City Council to take action on the issue of scheduling in New York City,” said Andrew Friedman, Co-Executive Director, Center for Popular Democracy.   "This powerful new report from Comptroller Scott Stringer underlines the urgency for enactment of public policies like paid family leave and advance notice of work schedules that will make it possible for New Yorkers to support their families without neglecting them," said Nancy Rankin, Vice President for Policy Research and Advocacy at Community Service Society. "We found widespread support for such laws in our annual Unheard Third survey."   “For 45 years, Legal Momentum has fought to make the workplace more family-friendly and welcoming to women, including pregnant women and working mothers,” said Penny M. Venetis, Executive Vice President and Legal Director of Legal Momentum. “Legal Momentum supports any legislation that would allow women and men to reach their full potential as workers, without abandoning their responsibilities to their families.  Today’s technology permits all workers to have more flexible work hours so that they don’t have to choose between their work and their families.”   Deborah Axt, Co-Executive Director of Make the Road New York, said: "We applaud the Comptroller for being one of the earliest and best champions on the critically important issue of workplace scheduling. All too many immigrant and low wage workers know the reality that this report documents: being called into work with little notice, having hours that fluctuate significantly from week to week, and reporting to work only to be sent home without pay. These scheduling practices create economic instability and make it incredibly difficult for people to plan their lives--to arrange for day care, go to the doctor, and fulfill their obligations as parents and family members.”   “A woman’s ability to exercise her full reproductive rights, including determining when and whether to have children, is often dependent on the degree of flexibility provided by her employer,” said Andrea Miller, president of NARAL Pro-Choice New York. “NARAL Pro-Choice New York looks forward to working with Comptroller Stringer and other elected officials to pursue flexible workplace policies that improve women’s lives and enable their financial stability.”   “The Comptroller’s survey confirms how critically important paid family leave is to both New York women and men,” said Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The state legislature has no reason to delay passing a paid family leave program – it’s good for business, it costs the state nothing, and it will finally ensure New Yorkers can take the time they need to care for their families without facing debt or bankruptcy.”   “Comptroller Stringer asked and New Yorkers resoundingly answered: The public wants and needs stronger family-friendly policies and protections to create work-life balance and economic security. New laws ensuring paid family leave, flex-time, and advanced notice of schedules will provide workers with the necessary tools to manage the demands of the 21st Century workforce,” said Beverly Neufeld, President of PowHer New York.   “Due to on-call scheduling, many retail workers not only live paycheck to paycheck, but now hour to hour. Our union has long been fighting the unfair practice of erratic scheduling and the hourly injustice of on-call shifts in retail jobs. When low-wage workers face changing schedules week to week and even within hours of a shift can be told not to come in, it puts a major strain on their lives. This leads to family and financial stress, not knowing when one will work or how much they will make week to week. I would like to thank Comptroller Scott Stringer for this report that will now provide city policymakers with necessary details of how 'flexible' work schedules harm workers at the low end of wage scale,” said Stuart Appelbaum, President RWDSU   Rachel Laforest, Director of the Retail Action Project (RWDSU), says: "In retail, and across the service sector, workers face increasingly erratic hours due to employers’ efforts to match labor costs to consumer demand. These scheduling practices are not sustainable: families don’t know if they can meet weekly expenses, caregivers can’t predict when they will have to arrange for care for children or relatives, and students don’t know if they will be able to attend classes. It’s time to call for worker-driven flexibility where employees’ scheduling needs are respected. The Retail Action Project applauds Comptroller Stringer for bringing work-life balance to the forefront and calling for the right to request a flexible schedule."   Source: Black Star News

KSHB - March 5, 2014 - Following a Department of Justice report showing the Ferguson Police Department unfairly targeted African-Americans, a Kansas City coalition says there are racial inequalities right here.

 

They say a recent economic report shows twice as many African-Americans in Kansas and Missouri are unemployed than white residents and that wages are too low to support a family. 

"Our purpose here today is to call for a moral economy where wages actually provide hope for workers and their families,” Stan Runnels, a priest and CCO member, said.

The group is asking policy makers for a change.

Source

La extrema vigilancia policial y la criminalización masiva de nuestras comunidades de color es la crisis moral de nuestros tiempos.

Estados Unidos tiene la población más grande de personas encarceladas con aproximadamente 2.2 millones personas en prisión (21 por ciento de los prisioneros del mundo). Mientras, varios departamentos de policía a través del país se encuentran bajo investigación por cargos de brutalidad policial, faltas graves y violaciones a los derechos civiles.

Lea el artículo completo aquí.