Why Diversity Matters at the Federal Reserve
There’s no question that race and gender matter in determining people’s economic fortunes. African Americans’ unemployment rate is typically twice as high as that of whites. The racial wealth gap...
There’s no question that race and gender matter in determining people’s economic fortunes. African Americans’ unemployment rate is typically twice as high as that of whites. The racial wealth gap has widened since the financial crisis, when African Americans and Hispanics—who had a disproportionate share of their wealth tied up in their homes—disproportionately suffered from subprime loans and foreclosures. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances finds that the median wealth of a white family in 2013, the last year studied, was $134,008. For Hispanics, it was just $13,900. For African-Americans, $11,184. And as everyone knows, or should, women still make 79 cents for every dollar men make.
These deficiencies are more likely to be ignored when our most important economic policymakers don’t reflect the faces of all Americans. Yesterday, 127 Democratic members of Congress wrote to Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen about the lack of diversity at the central bank. “The leadership across the Federal Reserve System remains overwhelmingly and disproportionately white and male,” the letter notes. Led by Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, this high-level challenge also castigates the Fed for being dominated by former and current executives of financial institutions and large corporations, rather than people with backgrounds in academia, labor, or consumer organizations.
The voices of those left behind most egregiously in the economic recovery are simply not present in Fed deliberations.
Momentum to fix the Fed’s diversity problem grew on Thursday when Hillary Clinton endorsed the viewpoints expressed in the letter. Her spokesperson Jesse Ferguson told The Washington Post, “Secretary Clinton believes that the Fed needs to be more representative of America as a whole and that commonsense reforms—like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks—are long overdue.”
The Fed’s lack of diversity might actually violate the law. Under the Federal Reserve Reform Act of 1977, regional Federal Reserve bank directors are required to “represent the public, without discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, or national origin, and with due but not exclusive consideration to the interests of agriculture, commerce, industry, services, labor, and consumers.” The original Federal Reserve Act only mandated representation from agriculture, commerce, and industry.
It’s unclear what enforcement of that 1977 requirement would look like. But clearly the Fed isn’t living up to it. The members of Congress rely on a February report from the Center for Popular Democracy, organizers of the “Fed Up” coalition, which has pressured the central bank to adopt pro-worker policies. According to their figures, 83 percent of Federal Reserve board members are white, and 72 percent are male. Among the twelve regional Fed bank presidents, only Neel Kashkari of the Minneapolis Fed is non-white, and only Esther George (Kansas City) and Loretta Mester (Cleveland) are female. And among voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which makes monetary policy decisions, it’s even worse: All ten currently serving members are white.
The lack of occupational diversity is also pretty stark. The Center for Popular Democracy studied the regional feds’ boards of directors, finding that 39 percent represent financial institutions. The Fed’s role as a key supervisor of major banks makes this highly suspect—especially considering there is no mandate for financial interests to be represented on the Fed board.
Another 29 percent of the Fed regional directors represent commerce and industry. Only 11 percent come from community, labor, consumer, or academic organizations. Even representation from the service sector, which has an overly non-white workforce and has expanded in recent years, has shrunk as a percentage of Fed bank-board members relative to 2010, the last time the boards’ makeup was studied.
It’s unusual for members of Congress to take such a public stand on the Federal Reserve, given their mindfulness of central bank independence. But they are recognizing that the lack of diversity has an important effect on economic policy. A more diverse Fed might pay more attention to how far communities of color are from full employment when deciding whether or not to raise interest rates, which they are now deliberating. A more diverse Fed might not be as consumed with the concerns of finance and industry, and their desire to keep inflation and wages low. It might consider how banks have traditionally preyed on communities of color, and target its supervision activities to reflect that.
The voices of those left behind most egregiously in the recovery are simply not present in Fed deliberations. The members of Congress cited a recent blog post by former Minneapolis Fed president Narayana Kocherlakota, who said that “there is one key source of economic difference in American life that is likely underemphasized in FOMC deliberations: race.” Kocherlakota searched transcripts of FOMC meetings from 2010 (the most recent ones released). That entire year, African American unemployment stood at 15.5 percent or above. But, writes Kocherlakota, “Based on that search, my conclusion is that there was no reference in the meetings to labor market conditions among African Americans.”
Traditionally, public pressure on the central bank has come from the right, from the likes of Ron Paul’s “End the Fed” movement. Progressives were largely absent from the conversation, despite the Fed’s central economic role. No more: Thursday’s letter to Yellen is the biggest success yet for the Fed Up campaign, launched two years ago to amplify the voices of communities that didn’t benefit from the recovery. The campaign has brought together labor and community groups to demand that the Fed take its mandate to maximize employment seriously—taking into account all communities, not just affluent ones. And now Fed Up’s views have become dominant in the Democratic Party.
In addition to the hefty names of Sanders and Warren, co-signers include 116 House Democrats, more than half of the caucus, as well as the ranking members of the Financial Services Committee (Maxine Waters) and the Monetary Policy Subcommittee (Gwen Moore), the committees with oversight of the Fed. And Clinton’s endorsement of Fed Up’s sentiment puts most of the ideological spectrum of the party on the side of reform.
But what does reform look like? The Center for Popular Democracy’s February report recommends that each regional board contain at least one member from a labor group, a community organization, academia, and a community bank or credit union. A separate reform proposal from former Yellen advisor Andrew Levin includes a number of ideas, including banning anyone affiliated with a financial institution from serving as a Fed director.
These ideas can be congressionally mandated. That will take time, of course, but the movement has begun to get Democrats off the sidelines to pressure the Fed. When Yellen testified before the House and Senate in February, giving her semi-annual Monetary Policy Report, she received questions about the lack of diversity from 15 different members of Congress. Yellen expressed concern that, among other things, no African American has ever led a regional Federal Reserve bank in U.S. history.
The fact that political pressure can make a difference was again signified by the quick response of a Fed spokesman to Thursday’s letter. The Fed statement said the central bank has “focused considerable attention in recent years on recruiting directors with diverse backgrounds and experience.” Those aspirations have not yet translated into results, however, even after the Fed established an internal diversity office in 2011.
It’s hard for the traditionally cloistered Fed to ignore concerns when they come from high-level Democrats. And just having ordinary workers in the public debate already diversifies the Fed, in a sense. No longer can they simply be responsive to Wall Street without further discussion.
BY DAVID DAYEN
Source
Fed Officials Warn Congress Against Rethinking Bank’s Design
Two regional Federal Reserve presidents defended the public-private structure of the U.S. central bank in prepared testimony they’re scheduled to deliver before lawmakers on Wednesday, saying it...
Two regional Federal Reserve presidents defended the public-private structure of the U.S. central bank in prepared testimony they’re scheduled to deliver before lawmakers on Wednesday, saying it helps guard monetary policy from political interference.
“The Fed’s public-private structure supports monetary policy independence by ensuring a measure of apolitical leadership,” Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed, said in the text obtained by Bloomberg. Lacker and Esther George, head of the Kansas City Fed, are set to appear before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee in Washington.
George said the Fed’s structure, created by Congress in 1913, “recognized the public’s distrust of concentrated power and greater confidence in decentralized institutions.”
The hearing, before the House Financial Services sub-committee on monetary policy and trade, will examine the governance of Federal Reserve banks and how it relates to the conduct of monetary policy and economic performance.
Calls for Fed reform have resonated in the U.S. presidential campaign, with Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton joining calls for structural changes within the central bank and more diversity in the ranks of its leadership.
Fed Up
A coalition of pro-labor activists, known as Fed Up, published a paper in August, co-authored by former Fed economist Andrew Levin, arguing that the Fed should be transformed into a fully public institution, in line with central banks in most developed countries. Fed Up has been leading calls for the Fed to make its own ranks more diverse.
A separate study by Brookings Institution fellow Aaron Klein in August found that of 134 people who have served as regional Fed presidents since 1913, none were African American or Latino, and only six have been women.
“Our record in this regard, like that of many other organizations, shows a combination of substantial progress and areas where more can be done,” Lacker said on Fed diversity.
The Fed system’s Washington-based Board of Governors, appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate, is considered a public agency. Its 12 regional reserve banks, however, are structured legally as private corporations owned by commercial banks in their districts. Their chiefs are appointed by non-bankers on their respective boards of directors, subject to a veto by the Board of Governors.
By Christopher Condon
Source
Chris Hemsworth suits up on the Midtown set of Marvel’s “Avengers”
Chris Hemsworth suits up on the Midtown set of Marvel’s “Avengers”
Proceeds benefit the Hurricane Maria Community Relief & Recovery Fund at the Center for Popular Democracy.“I want those audience members to know this is not just doing a star-studded event...
Proceeds benefit the Hurricane Maria Community Relief & Recovery Fund at the Center for Popular Democracy.“I want those audience members to know this is not just doing a star-studded event. This is coming together to do something that matters,” Leon said. “As artists we’re always looking in the mirror. It’s incumbent upon us to make our world the way we want to make it.”
Read the full article here.
National Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Reigning in Charter Schools
02.29.2016
Washington, D.C.—As the number of charter schools continues to rise, few states are paying adequate attention to how to hold these schools accountable to...
02.29.2016
Washington, D.C.—As the number of charter schools continues to rise, few states are paying adequate attention to how to hold these schools accountable to parents, communities, and taxpayers. Now, new poll results released today by In the Public Interest and the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) show that Americans embrace proposals to reform the way charter schools are authorized and managed.
The poll shows overwhelming national support for initiatives to strengthen charter school accountability and transparency, improve teacher training and qualifications, prevent fraud, serve high-need students, and ensure that neighborhood public schools are not adversely affected.
“A severe lack of public oversight and real accountability has created what are essentially two separate school districts in many places, each competing for students and funding,” said Donald Cohen, Executive Director of In the Public Interest. “This is increasing inequality in public education, and these results confirm that parents and communities want to fix that.”
The poll’s key findings include:
Overwhelming majorities, as high as 92%, back proposals to strengthen transparency and accountability, improve teacher training and qualifications, implement anti-fraud measures, ensure high-need students are served, and make sure neighborhood public schools are not adversely affected.
92% of voters support requiring companies and organizations that manage charter schools to open board meetings to parents and the public.
90% of voters support requiring companies and organizations that manage charter schools to release to parents and the public how they spend taxpayer money.
“School choice” ranks last in a list of the biggest concerns voters have for K-12 education, with only 8% listing it as a concern.
Far more popular than “school choice” or unaccountable charter schools is the concept of community schools, which serve as community hubs, ensuring that every student and their family gets the opportunity to succeed no matter what zip code they live in.
A statewide poll of Colorado voters showed that 69% rate the quality of education at public schools in their neighborhood excellent or good—an even higher percentage than those that feel that way nationally. Colorado voters also overwhelmingly support proposals to reform the way charter schools are authorized and managed.
The national poll of 1,000 registered voters was conducted by GBA Strategies January 5-11, 2016 on behalf of In the Public Interest and CPD. A memo detailing the poll can be found here. The statewide poll of 500 registered voters in Colorado was conducted January 10-13, 2016. A memo detailing the Colorado poll can be found here.
Kyle Serrette, Director of Education at CPD, said, “State lawmakers have created charter laws without meaningful oversight provisions. The result? Over $100 million in taxpayer dollars have been lost to fraud, waste, or mismanagement by charter officials and over 100 thousand children currently attend charter schools that are failing to meet the needs of children. It’s time for lawmakers to add stronger oversight provisions before more money is lost and more children are enrolled in failing charter schools.”
For more information on the poll results, please contact Jeremy Mohler at jmohler@inthepublicinterest.org or 202-429-5091, or Asya Pikovsky at apikovsky@populardemocracy.org or 207-522-2442.
In the Public Interest is a research and policy center committed to promoting the values, vision, and agenda for the common good and democratic control of public goods and services.
The Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) promotes equity, opportunity, and a dynamic democracy in partnership with innovative base-building organizations, organizing networks and alliances, and progressive unions across the country. CPD builds the strength and capacity of democratic organizations to envision and advance a pro-worker, pro-immigrant, racial justice agenda
###
Contacts:
Jeremy Mohler, jmohler@inthepublicinterest.org, 202-429-5091
Asya Pikovsky, apikovsky@populardemocracy.org, 207-522-2442
A New Law Is Letting Uber Drivers Unionize
After ride-hailing companies descended on Seattle and began slashing drivers’ pay, the City Council stepped in with a novel solution.
As the gig economy grows, companies like Airbnb and...
After ride-hailing companies descended on Seattle and began slashing drivers’ pay, the City Council stepped in with a novel solution.
As the gig economy grows, companies like Airbnb and Uber are challenging cities by reshaping entire industries, often harming workers in the process. The challenge for progressive-minded legislators has been that existing regulations have often proven inadequate. Recently, however, local policymakers have begun proposing innovative ways to cope with the changes.
In Seattle, this battle has played out around ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft. When the companies were first legalized in the city in 2014, they presented themselves as a needed transport service that let drivers make money outside of the rigid regulations imposed on the taxi industry. Those claims lost credibility over the next year, however, as Uber drivers’ pay was slashed from $2 per mile to about $1.20 per mile. As cuts deepened, drivers found it increasingly hard to make an income—and many taxi firms found it almost impossible to compete.
We clearly needed a solution. Although collective bargaining had never been tried in the gig economy, a Seattle labor lawyer named Dmitri Iglitzin who’d been mulling the possibility for years approached me with a groundbreaking idea: Rather than tinkering around the edges with new regulations, why not let for-hire drivers unionize and set their own terms?
The premise was intriguing: If Uber and Lyft are going to claim that drivers are independent contractors, then let’s take them at their word and insist that drivers be allowed to negotiate the terms of their contract with these multibillion-dollar companies. While federal law preempts localities from encouraging unionization for private-sector employees, independent contractors are exempt. We believe this means that cities can allow drivers the right to collectively bargain to negotiate a better quality of life and a more reliable transportation service, in a way that regulations cannot.
The timing couldn’t have been better. In the year after Uber and Lyft first began operation, the narrative in Seattle had shifted: The companies, once seen as upstart innovators, came to be seen as major corporations intent on asserting power to the detriment of workers.
Uber and Lyft drivers had already set up an association of app-based drivers through the Teamsters, which represented taxi drivers in Seattle. United, they were starting to raise their voices. They organized rallies and protests highlighting their struggles and testified at City Hall about their limited pay, long hours, and arbitrary deactivation. Growing popular outrage turned up the heat.
Surprisingly, even as criticism rose, both Uber and Lyft did little to fight back. It wasn’t because the companies didn’t have the will or capacity. Only a year earlier, in 2014, they had put up a major fight after the Seattle City Council proposed placing a cap on for-hire vehicles.
This time though, it was clear that they could not win over public opinion. As driver earnings spiraled downward, it was hard for anybody to deny that there was a problem with the companies’ treatment of their workers—and that something needed to be done about it.
Rather than tinkering around the edges with new regulations, why not let for-hire drivers unionize and set their own terms?
In December 2015, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a law letting Uber and Lyft drivers bargain collectively and establish a process for binding arbitration. In coming months, we will finalize the rules and determine which union or association can represent drivers, who can then vote on whether they want to be represented or not. The US Chamber of Commerce is already suing, hoping that the courts determine that federal law preempts the Seattle law.
Even though contract negotiations are months away, the idea has already caught on in other cities and states. New York and Cincinnati are considering regulations that would expand collective bargaining rights to some gig-economy workers. And in California a similar law was introduced in the State Assembly (although it’s been withdrawn for the moment).
The on-demand economy is delivering important new benefits to consumers. But if we are going to build a more equitable society, we’ll need rules of the road to ensure workers are treated with dignity. Cities have a powerful role in realizing that vision.
By MIKE O'BRIEN
Source
Schedule Rules Prove Difficult to Implement
San Francisco — San Francisco, the country’s premier laboratory for new Internet services, is also used to innovating in municipal regulation.
But in its latest experiment, it’s starting to...
San Francisco — San Francisco, the country’s premier laboratory for new Internet services, is also used to innovating in municipal regulation.
But in its latest experiment, it’s starting to find that legislating good corporate behavior isn’t as easy as pressing a button on your smartphone.
In July, the city started implementing a first-in-the-nation law aimed at curtailing the trend toward “just-in-time” scheduling, where managers call in employees to work on short notice. The new measure requires large-chain retailers — such as Safeway and Walgreens — to publish schedules at least two weeks in advance and to compensate employees with “predictability pay” if they make changes less than a week ahead of time. It also mandates that additional hours be offered to existing employees first before new hires are made, and that part-time workers be paid at the same rate as people who work full-time.
So far, it’s been easier to publish schedules than live up to the spirit of the law.
“The two-week notice seemed to be instituted right away, but the other stuff is lagging,” said Gordon Mar, director of San Francisco Jobs With Justice, a labor-backed group that pushed for the “Retail Workers Bill of Rights” and has been monitoring its implementation.
The sluggish response may be because fines don’t kick in until Oct. 3; the city is still hashing out the rules. But the spotty compliance so far highlights the difficulty of attempts to mandate worker-friendly practices — especially the kind that touch the most fundamental aspects of business operations, rather than those that simply require higher pay and better benefits.
San Francisco employers fought the new ordinance, but couldn’t prevent its passage. Now, they complain it’s affecting service.
“We’re hearing from members in San Francisco that it really is not working well at all,” said Ronald Fong, president of the California Grocers Association. Stores can’t always predict surges in foot traffic, which might be brought on by a sunny day, leaving managers without the option to bring in more staff. That was a problem during the heat wave that swept over San Francisco this summer.
“Supplies weren’t able to get out to the shelves,” Fong said. “It just kind of snowballed, and our customers have a bad experience, or the stores lose sales.”
Some businesses don’t mind the rules in principle, but object to the red tape. “Everybody pretty much operates on a predictive schedule,” said Bill Dombrowski, president of the California Retailers Association. “But the process of implementing this, with offering the employees hours in writing and waiting three days for a response, it’s a lot of government intrusion into very minute detail.”
Also, not all industries schedule their workers in the same way. Milton Moritz is president of the National Association of Theatre Owners’ California and Nevada chapter, and said the theater business is by nature unpredictable, making the new law particularly difficult to comply with.
“We might not know until the Monday before the Friday a film shows, and even then we’re hiring, firing, scheduling people based on the business that film’s going to do,” Moritz said. “This ordinance flies in the face of all that. It really complicates the issue tremendously.”
The San Francisco ordinance hasn’t just been irritating for big companies. Some workers grumble the law discourages employers from offering extra shifts on short notice, because they would have to pay the last-minute schedule change penalty — even if workers would be happy for the chance to pick up more hours.
Rachel Deutsch, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Popular Democracy who has been helping local jurisdictions across the country craft fair-scheduling legislation, said that’s something that might change in future iterations.
“I think that’s the thing with any policy where it’s the first attempt to solve a complicated economic problem,” Deutsch said. “It’s been a learning process.”
So far, fair scheduling laws aren’t spreading as quickly as minimum wage and paid sick leave laws. A statewide bill in California failed a couple weeks ago, and no other local ordinances have passed besides San Francisco’s, though there are active campaigns in several cities including Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.
Meanwhile, several companies have acted on their own to curb some of the practices that workers have found most disruptive, like on-call shifts, where workers have to be available even if they aren’t ultimately asked to work. But in some cases — like that of Starbucks, which committed to eliminating many of those practices — those voluntary changes haven’t been any more effective than government mandates.
Erin Hurley worked at Bath & Body Works and campaigned for an end to on-call shifts. After she left the job, parent company L Brands said it would stop the practice at Bath & Body Works as well as another of its chains, Victoria’s Secret. But Hurley said she’s heard from current workers that managers are still doing effectively the same thing, by asking employees to stay a little longer.
“On-call shifts were replaced with shift extensions,” said Hurley. “Basically what L Brands did was change the name of the practice.” Keeping people on-call is very convenient for employers, and letting it go can be easier said than done. L Brands did not respond to a request for comment.
Still, advocates in San Francisco think the Retail Workers Bill of Rights has already done some good, and will be more effective when the city’s enforcement kicks into high gear — just like overtime rules did, when companies got used to obeying them.
Take Michelle Flores, 21, who has worked part time at Safeway for two years to support herself while in going to college. Unpredictable schedules made that difficult: She would only know her shifts a few days beforehand, which sometimes didn’t leave her enough time to hit the books.
“I would study from midnight until 5, 6 a.m., sleep for two or three hours, and then go to the exam,” said Flores, 21, who attends San Francisco State. This year, she expects that to change. “If I know that I have a shift scheduled, I’ll just study another day,” Flores said.
Also, the law came with some funding for community organizations to make employees aware of what workers are entitled to. That has ancillary effects — like getting people interested in joining a union, which can be better equipped to make sure companies are following the rules.
“It just creates an opportunity to talk to more workers about their rights under the law, and that leads to conversations about other issues in the workplace,” said Gordon Mar, of Jobs with Justice. “And that could lead to getting organized.”
Source: Valley News
Community activists stage Cyber Monday protests in fight against Amazon’s HQ2
Community activists stage Cyber Monday protests in fight against Amazon’s HQ2
“Cyber Monday is a big day for Amazon, and Amazon coming to Queens is a big deal for New Yorkers,” Charles Khan, an organizer with the Strong Economy Coalition and the Center for Popular Democracy...
“Cyber Monday is a big day for Amazon, and Amazon coming to Queens is a big deal for New Yorkers,” Charles Khan, an organizer with the Strong Economy Coalition and the Center for Popular Democracy, told MarketWatch following the Herald Square protest. “It’s a trillion-dollar company run by the richest man in the world, and they don’t need any help from taxpayers to come to New York.”
Read the full article here.
Community Safety Act Passes; NYC Council Overrides Bloomberg Vetoes On NYPD Oversight Bills
The Huffington Post - August 22, 2013 - The New York City Council voted Thursday to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg's vetoes of two bills aimed at reining in the New York City Police Department'...
The Huffington Post - August 22, 2013 - The New York City Council voted Thursday to override Mayor Michael Bloomberg's vetoes of two bills aimed at reining in the New York City Police Department's controversial use of stop and frisk.
The council passed the Community Safety Act earlier this summer. It sets up the office of the inspector general-- which will act as a watchdog over the NYPD--and makes it easier for New Yorkers to sue if they've been racially profiled by police.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg vetoed both provisions, and vowed to use his own fortune to convince key council members not to override him.
But on Thursday, after impassioned speeches from many council members--including a tearful speech from bill co-sponsor Jumaane Williams--the council voted to override both vetoes.
The Community Safety Act will be enacted over the next few months:
Earlier this month, a federal judge ruled the NYPD's use of stop and frisk was unconstitutional, and appointed a federal monitor to oversee the department.
In 2012, the NYPD stopped 533,042 people, 87 percent of who were either black or Latino.
Source
Report Says Minnesota's Job Boom Has Skipped Minorities
Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal - March 6, 2015, by Mark Riley - Minnesota's unemployment rate for black job-seekers is four times the rate for whites, according to a new report that calls...
Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal - March 6, 2015, by Mark Riley - Minnesota's unemployment rate for black job-seekers is four times the rate for whites, according to a new report that calls on the Federal Reserve to keep rates low until the job market recovers for minorities.
WCCO has a story on the report, released by the Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Popular Democracy, and talks with Neighborhoods Organizing for Change Executive Director Anthony Newby. "We're told that Minnesota is one of the best places in the country to live if you want a job, and that's true if you're a white person," he said.
Statewide, the unemployment rate for African Americans is 11.7 percent, compared to 3.2 percent for whites.
You can download a PDF of the the full report here.
The numbers highlight some of the same criticisms leveled at a recent Atlantic piece about the " Miracle of Minneapolis". That article focused on the economic might and resiliency of the market, but didn't include racial breakdowns — something that was immediately called out by the Washington Post and others
Source
Gap Says It Will Phase Out On-Call Scheduling of Employees
The move makes Gap the latest retailer to move away from “on-call scheduling,” which regulators, workers’ rights groups and some academics say is detrimental to employees ...
The move makes Gap the latest retailer to move away from “on-call scheduling,” which regulators, workers’ rights groups and some academics say is detrimental to employees and their families.
“At Gap Inc., we also believe that work-life integration enables all employees to reach their full potential and thrive both personally and professionally,” the company said in a statement on its blog announcing the change on Wednesday. “We recognize that flexibility, inclusive of consistent and reliable scheduling, is important to all of our employees.”
On-call scheduling requires employees to call ahead before a specific shift to see if they will be needed, a practice that gives workers little predictability in scheduling. Facing public and regulatory pressure, some retailers, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Starbucks and Victoria’s Secret, have already begun phasing out the practice.
Gap said its five brands — Athleta, Banana Republic, Gap, Intermix and Old Navy — had agreed to stop on-call scheduling by the end of next month and have committed to providing employees with at least 10 to 14 days’ notice, according to Wednesday’s announcement.
In April, the New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, sent a letter to more than a dozen retailers, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Gap, J. C. Penney and Victoria’s Secret, requesting more information about on-call scheduling and questioning whether such practices were legal. In the months since, Abercrombie & Fitch and Victoria’s Secret both announced they would discontinue it.
Mr. Schneiderman praised Gap’s decision in a statement on Wednesday.
“Workers deserve stable and reliable work schedules, and I commend Gap for taking an important step to make their employees’ schedules fairer and more predictable,” he said.
Gap had already begun scaling back the use of on-call shifts after starting a pilot program last year to test alternative scheduling practices. Mr. Schneiderman’s office told Gap last week that it would consider legal action if the retailer did not take steps to end on-call scheduling, according to Eric Soufer, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office.
A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal advocacy group, found that the children of parents who worked unpredictable schedules could have inferior cognitive abilities, in areas like verbal communication, and struggle with anxiety and depression.
“Parents’ variable schedules require irregular family mealtimes and child bedtimes that interfere with children’s healthy development,” the study said.
Correction: August 28, 2015
An article on Thursday about an agreement by five Gap apparel store brands to stop requiring employees to make themselves available for last-minute shifts misstated when the policy change will become effective. It is the end of next month, not the beginning of next year.
Source: New York Times
3 days ago
3 days ago