CPD IN THE NEWS

Washington Post - 05-08-2015  -  If there’s one labor issue that’s come to the forefront of political agendas over the past few years, it’s the minimum wage: Cities and states around the country are taking action to boost worker pay, as federal efforts seem doomed to fail.

But a new wave of reform is already in the works. Instead of how much you earn, it addresses when you work -- pushing back against the longstanding corporate trend toward timing shifts exactly when labor is needed, sometimes in tiny increments, or at the very last minute. That practice, nicknamed “just-in-time” scheduling, can wreak havoc on the lives of workers who can’t plan around work obligations that might pop up at any time.

Right now, community groups and unions in Washington D.C. are formulating a bill that will address the problem of schedules that can be both shifting and inflexible. The legislation hasn’t been hammered out yet, but the labor-backed group Jobs with Justice says it will likely include a requirement that employers provide workers with notice of their schedules a few weeks ahead of time, and that additional hours go to existing employees, rather than spreading them across a large workforce.

“The one thing we’re finding overwhelmingly is that people aren’t getting enough hours to make ends meet,” says Ari Schwartz, a campaign organizer at D.C. Jobs with Justice, which is now tabulating the results of a survey of hundreds of hourly workers in the city on scheduling issues. “People aren’t getting their schedules with enough time to plan childcare and the rest of the things in their lives.”

When a proposal reaches the D.C. Council in the coming months, Washington won’t be the first: Following the passage of landmark legislation in San Francisco, bills have been offered in Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, Connecticut, California, New York, Michigan and Oregon. Along with new proposals to expand paid sick day legislation, they are a bid to give employees more control over how they spend their time.

“These scheduling reforms are getting really popular, because it makes no sense that for example you’re required to be available to work by your employer and you’re not picked for that time,” says Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a senior staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project. “People who don’t suffer these abuses already understand what it’s like to juggle work and family, so people really identify with that as being a problem.” 

Carrots and sticks

Twenty years ago, schedules weren’t as much of a problem. Working in retail, especially, tended to be a solid 9 to 5 job.

But then retail hours grew longer. And then came computerized scheduling, which allowed employers to best fit staffing to demand. Here’s what that looks like in practice: Handing out schedules based on what times of day or the month you expect the most business, splitting up hours across a large workforce that’s available on a moment’s notice and sometimes sending people home if traffic is slow.

That helps companies optimize their labor costs, but it wreaks havoc on the lives of low-wage workers, who don’t know how much they’re going to make from week to week, and often can’t schedule anything else around work.

One worker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because she is still employed there, has worked in the hot food prep section of the Whole Foods at 14th and P streets in Washington for 12 years. She liked it; the pay wasn’t bad, and the people were friendly. She worked consistently from 6 a.m. to 2 p.m., and took a second job as a nanny in the afternoons, which added around $300 a week to her income — more money to send home to her father in El Salvador, and to support her daughter in college in Tennessee.

But then, a new manager cut back hours; some people left and weren’t replaced. The schedule posted on the wall started to shift the worker’s days off, or tell her to come in from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. instead. Usually she got a week’s notice, but once in a while she’d come to work and the schedule had already changed, so she’d have to go back home. After that happened on too many days, she had to drop the afternoon job. So once again, she was just squeaking by.

“She would come and say ‘I really need you to cover this shift,’ and it is what it is,” the worker says in Spanish, through a translator. “Lots of us have lost lots of jobs.”

It’s been better over the past few months, she says. And that’s not by accident: As public complaints surfaced about Whole Foods’ scheduling practices, the company rolled out a new system that allows employees to see their schedules for two weeks in advance and prevents managers from changing them at the last minute or scheduling “clopenings”-- both closing the store and opening it in the morning -- without an employee’s consent. The policy has been in place nationwide since early April, spokesman Michael Silverman says.

Whole Foods isn’t alone. Walmart has also introduced a system of “open shifts,” which allows workers to pick their own hours. Starbucks curbed some of its practices in the wake of a New York Times article last year that described their effect on one barista. The Gap is working with the Center for WorkLife Law at Hastings College of Law in San Francisco to set up pilot projects around the country that would measure the impact of giving employees stable schedules and more hours. Many companies haven’t taken into account how much their scheduling practices are actually costing them in the form of employee turnover, professor Joan Williams says.

“If you don’t count that cost, it disappears. The idea is to generate the kind of rigorous data that will be needed to persuade people to change their financial models."

— Professor Joan Williams, Hastings College of Law

“If you don’t count that cost, it disappears. The idea is to generate the kind of rigorous data that will be needed to persuade people to change their financial models," says Williams. "Our hypothesis is that if you provide people with more stable schedules, you’ll see lower turnover [and] absenteeism and higher worker engagement.”

In time, the business case may grow clear enough that more companies move toward stable schedules on their own. But Williams says legislative efforts are needed as well: A recent national survey found that 41 percent of early-career, hourly workers get their schedules less than a week in advance. In a survey of retail and restaurant workers in Washington, Jobs with Justice found that employers like Forever21 and Chipotle are among the worst offenders. (Forever21 did not respond to a request for comment. Chipotle says it publishes schedules four days in advance, with shifts lasting seven hours on average.)

And now, there’s legislation to benchmark against. Last year, San Francisco became the first jurisdiction to pass comprehensive scheduling reform, with a set of companion bills that require “formula retailers” (i.e., large chains) to give workers two weeks notice of their schedules, pay workers for the shifts when they’re on call and give hours to current employees instead of hiring more, among other provisions. The law went into effect in January, but won’t be enforced until July.

Meanwhile, scheduling legislation is in the works around the country. National groups like the Center for Popular Democracy and the National Womens Law Center are helping to build coalitions where scheduling reforms could prove politically palatable, in places like New York — where the union-backed Retail Action Project has been advocating for “just hours” for years — and Minnesota, where the AFL-CIO-affiliated Working America has been building support among non-union members for measures that would benefit all workers.

Scheduling legislation even exists on the federal level. A federal bill introduced in Congress last summer would require employers to make schedule accommodations for health or childcare needs, unless there is a “bona fide business reason” for denying it. Yet another bill, proposed last month, would prevent employers from firing workers for requesting a schedule change.

But it hasn’t been smooth sailing for the scheduling reform movement. A Maryland bill failed this year, in the face of employer opposition. And though there isn’t even a bill yet in Washington, businesses are voicing skepticism.

“Any time you alter how employers hire, schedule or retain their workforce, if that flexibility makes DC less attractive to businesses, than I’m concerned about that."

— Harry Wingo, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce

“Any time you alter how employers hire, schedule or retain their workforce, if that flexibility makes DC less attractive to businesses, than I’m concerned about that,” said Harry Wingo, president of the D.C. Chamber of Commerce. “The D.C. chamber is concerned about any restrictions on free enterprise.”

It’s perhaps more concerning to employers than even raising the minimum wage: That’s just extra cost. Scheduling, by contrast, impacts the very core of how they’ve learned to do business.

Making it real

Laws, of course, are only as good as their enforcers. And scheduling laws, with their far-reaching impact, could be particularly difficult to follow up on.

Just ask unions, which already have many of the proposed scheduling rules in their contracts. Making sure employers stick to them is a big job, even though union dues pay for far more inspectors — in the form of business agents and shop stewards — than city and state governments ever will.

“The union has this exact set of provisions in its contracts, and they are extremely important for making sure that if you have the seniority you can get the fullest work week possible,” says John Boardman, president of UNITE-HERE Local 25, which represents 6,500 mostly hotel workers in the D.C. area. “But it also takes a very, very strong enforcement mechanism in order to make these provisions of the contract viable and living.”

Jobs with Justice already knows this. A few years ago, D.C. passed laws requiring employers to pay for a minimum of 4 hours in a shift, even if a worker was sent home early, and to pay an extra hour’s worth of wages for every “split shift” (with a long break in the middle) that an employee works. In its survey, Jobs with Justice found that workers were sent home early and asked to work split shifts just as much as they were in 2010, when another survey was done, suggesting the laws hadn’t had much effect.

That’s why they’re hoping the city will put more resources into enforcement, in the form of inspectors and people to process claims. But it’s also going to have to involve a massive education campaign to make workers aware they even have these new rights.

"It is easier to enforce these things when you have a union contract and a grievance procedure, and a shop steward and union infrastructure to back that up,” says Schwartz. “But we can’t keep relying on that as our only model. Because there’s so many workers in the growing retail and restaurant sectors that need those protections, too.”

Source: The Washington Post

PHILADELPHIA — Democrats are about to have a delegate fight of their own. Following the Republican’ controversy over bound and unbound delegates, the Democratic National Convention is about to go headlong into a conflict over superdelegates in its rules committee this weekend.

The DNC’s rules committee is expected to convene Saturday morning, where groups are planning to gather outside the city’s convention center and urge the party to end the superdelegate system.

According to a media advisory, the pre-vote press conference with rules committee members includes a formal petition delivery of more than 500,000 signatures collected by Democratic-leaning groups working to end the use of superdelegates at the Democratic National Convention.

A superdelegate is a party official or elected official who is free to cast a vote for any candidate for the presidential nomination at the party’s national convention, regardless of whom the voters of their state prefer. This is in contrast to a “pledged delegate” who must cast their ballot in accordance to the winner of their state party’s primary.

DNC rules committee members are expected at the press conference and include Aaron Regunberg, the amendment’s chief sponsor. Groups presenting the signatures will include: MoveOn.org, Demand Progress, Daily Kos, Social Security Works, Democracy for America, New Democrat Network, National Nurses United, The Other 98%, Courage Campaign, Progressive Kick, Credo, PCCC, Progressive Democrats of America, Center for Popular Democracy, Social Security Works, and Reform the DNC.

“This is a historic moment for the Democratic Party,” said Aaron Regunberg, Rhode Island state representative and rules committee member. “Saturday we vote on whether to end the undemocratic superdelegate system. It’s time to restore democracy in the Democratic Party.”

Supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders became frustrated with the superdelegate system, as they saw it as a way that damaged the Vermont senator’s candidacy during the party’s primary against former secretary of state Hillary Clinton.

“The super delegate system undermines the promise of one person one vote that is bedrock of democracy,” added Deborah Burger, RN, co-president of National Nurses United and rules committee member. “It was created to block the nomination of candidates who would challenge a political system that has for far too long been dominated by corporate interests and a wealthy elite. Ending this undemocratic selection process would be a strong step forward to making the Democratic Party more responsive to those thirsting for real change and a healthier America.”

By KERRY PICKET 

Source

US News & World Report - November 13, 2014, by Katherine Peralta - Building on momentum from earlier this year, a group of policy advocates, economists and community organizations is calling for more transparency at the Federal Reserve, imploring that the Fed consider the plight of many who haven’t enjoyed the kind of recovery that recent positive economic data suggest.

The push for more access to the Fed is gaining momentum among the public and in Congress, though revamping a decades-old central banking system that’s helped stabilize the economy through multiple crises is not without controversy.

As two of the Fed’s most vocal critics of its current monetary policy near their retirement at the beginning of next year, a coalition called “Fed Up” is asking that the public have more say in the process of appointing their replacements and future Fed leaders. Members sent letters outlining their concerns to the Fed and will meet Friday with Fed Chair Janet Yellen in the District of Columbia.

As it progresses toward its dual objective of price stability and full employment, the Fed has said it will eventually raise short-term interest rates, which have been kept near zero since 2008 to stimulate growth. The coalition says since the economy isn’t yet strong enough to stand on its own, the Fed should maintain its easy-money policies, which make lending cheap for borrowers and businesses but don’t do much to boost those on fixed incomes like retirees.

“We're going to talk about our request that the Fed create more transparency in a democratic process for appointments and that it adopt more pro-jobs, pro-wages policies, more expansionary policies, so as to get us to full employment,” says Ady Barkan, staff attorney at the left-leaning Center for Popular Democracy, which is part of the coalition. “They need to target higher wage growth instead of stepping on the brakes the moment that wages start to rise, which is what the hawks want to do."

The term "hawk" refers to those who see the labor market as strong enough to merit a faster interest rate hike to keep inflation in check and pertains to outgoing regional Fed bank presidents Richard Fisher of Dallas and Charles Plosser of Philadelphia. Doves, like Yellen, believe that there is still enough slack in the labor market to warrant maintaining as low interest rates as possible.

Each of the 12 regional Federal Reserve banks selects its own president through a process that’s criticized as rather opaque. Those presidents rotate on five of the 12 seats on the Federal Open Market Committee, the group at the Fed that sets interest rates. The remaining seven members of the committee, including Yellen, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.

The 12 regional presidents report back to the rest of the Fed about economic trends from their respective districts on a regular basis – a compilation of data amalgamated in a “Beige Book” published eight times a year and used to assess the economy’s health.

A spokeswoman for the Philadelphia Fed said it has retained the services of executive search firm Korn Ferry to replace Plosser and “will consider a diverse group of candidates from inside and outside the Federal Reserve system.” A Dallas Fed representative said the bank’s board of directors is meeting today to discuss the presidential search process to replace Fisher.

Stronger economic data this year have prompted many to wonder whether the Fed should start raising interest rates sooner rather than later. The U.S. economy’s reached the lowest jobless rate in six years and has enjoyed the strongest stretch of job gains since 1999.

But the coalition argues that despite what the national numbers may say about the recovery, they don’t necessarily speak to the experience of a lot of people who still feel the recession in their communities.

Even though the Dallas metropolitan area had one of the strongest monthly job gains in the country in September and has a jobless rate of 5 percent, well below the national rate of 5.8 percent, Connie Paredes, a volunteer with the Texas Organizing Project who will meet with Yellen Friday, says the economy in Dallas still feels “not that great.”

“There are a lot of statistics out there about the unemployment rate and how things have gotten better. It doesn't really reflect the fact that there is a lot of underemployment,” Paredes says. “There are a lot of college graduates who aren't able to find jobs. There are a lot of professionals who have to take on extra jobs in order to make ends meet.”

But attempting to change the appointment system might not be the solution to get more “everyday” voices before the Fed. Guy Lebas, chief fixed income strategist at Janney Capital Markets, says it’s a “solution in search of a problem.”

“There’s very little wrong from an economic perspective with how the Fed selection process works now, and a majority of the members who have input into monetary policy are democratically selected,” Lebas says.

Yellen herself has said it’s important to maintain a diverse group of viewpoints within the Fed.

“I believe decisions by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Open Market Committee are better because of the range of views and perspectives brought to the table by my fellow policymakers, and I have encouraged this approach to decision-making at all levels and throughout the Fed System,” she said in an Oct. 30 speech in Washington.

There’s also a push in Congress for changes at the Fed. The new GOP leadership could introduce a new version of former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill, which, as its name implies, calls for a full audit of the Fed – including internal discussions on monetary policy – by the Government Accountability Office. Critics worry if passed, the bill would allow Congress to interfere with the Fed’s decision-making.

And a level of independence from the public may not be such a bad thing, says Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, citing the Fed’s handling of the economic crisis – which included bailing out large financial institutions and beginning unprecedented and controversial economic stimulus programs.

“I realize many things the Fed did, although most economists think were entirely justified, are still immensely unpopular among the public, but so what?” Burtless says. “We do have this layer of insulation that I think we should protect. The events of 2007 through 2009 confirm the absolute importance of having that level of insulation so that members of the Federal Reserve Board don’t worry that their deliberations, their decisions about monetary policy, are going to be immediately undone by populist and perhaps poorly understood objections from the general public.”

Source

New York Observer - June 16, 2014, by Will Bredderman - Four days before the legislative session in Albany ends for the summer, Bronx State Senator Gustavo Rivera and Brooklyn Assemblyman Karim Camara have proposed sweeping legislation granting full citizenship rights to undocumented immigrants living in New York state–legislation which even they admit will not get passed this session.

The bill that Mr. Rivera and Mr. Camara have sponsored will grant the right to vote in state and local elections, college financial aid, access to Medicare, drivers’ licenses, medical and chiropractic licenses and full civil rights protections to the three million-odd foreign nationals currently living in New York State without proper paperwork. The immigrants would be required to show proof of identity, proof they have lived in the state for three years, proof they have paid state taxes for three years, proof they have and will continue to obey state laws and a willingness to do jury duty.

“This is a bold idea. And we do not expect anything to pass quickly. But this sets things in motion,” Mr. Rivera, comparing the legislation to the push to legalize same-sex marriage, said at a press conference in Battery Park.

“The defeat of Cantor has made it clear we have to act quickly to protect the rights and privileges of all people living in this state,” Mr. Rivera said.

The bill would only pertain to the undocumented immigrants’ interactions in New York State, and would do nothing to alter federal recognition of citizenship, federal border security, or federal deportation policies.

Source