What Arne Duncan Wrought
Last Friday, after U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced his resignation as of the end of 2015, I heard ...
Last Friday, after U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced his resignation as of the end of 2015, I heard President Barack Obama's assessment of him: “Arne’s done more to bring our educational system, sometimes kicking and screaming, into the 21st century than anybody else.” It is worth considering carefully what the president’s words mean in the context of the priorities, programs and operation of Duncan’s Department of Education.
In a recent and very moving New Yorker piece about the significance of the closure of New York’s storied Jamaica High School, his alma mater, Jelani Cobb considers education reform in the context of history:
Like "busing" and "integration," the language of today’s reformers often serves as a euphemism for poverty mitigation, the implicit goal that American education has fitfully attempted to achieve sinceBrown v. Board of Education. Both busing and school closure recognize the educational obstacles that concentrated poverty creates. But busing recognized a combination of unjust history and policy as complicit in educational failure. In the ideology of school closure, though, the lines of responsibility — of blame, really — run inward. It’s not society that has failed in this perspective. It’s the schools ... The onus shifted, and public policy followed. The current language of education reform emphasizes racial "achievement gaps" and "underperforming schools" but also tends to approach education as if history had never happened. Integration was a flawed strategy, but it recognized the ties between racial history and educational outcomes.
School policy ripped out of time and history: In many ways that is Arne Duncan’s gift to us. School policy focused on disparities in test scores instead of disparities in opportunity; a Department of Education obsessed with data-driven accountability for teachers but preferring “game-changing” innovation for itself and paying inadequate attention to oversight; the substitution of the consultant-driven, win-lose methodology of philanthropy for formula-driven government policy; school policy that favors social innovation, one charter at a time.
Such policies are definitely a break from the past. Whether they promise better opportunity for the majority of our nation’s children, and especially our poorest children, is a very different question.
School policy focused on disparities in test scores instead of disparities in opportunity.
Here is what a Congressional Equity and Excellence Commission charged in 2013, five years into Duncan’s tenure as Education Secretary:
The common situation in America is that schools in poor communities spend less per pupil — and often many thousands of dollars less per pupil — than schools in nearby affluent communities ... This is arguably the most important equity-related variable in American schooling today. Let’s be honest: We are also an outlier in how many of our children are growing up in poverty. Our poverty rate for school-age children — currently more than 22 percent — is twice the OECD average and nearly four times that of leading countries such as Finland.
Arne Duncan’s signature policies ignore these realities. While many of Duncan’s programs have conditioned receipt of federal dollars on states’ complying with his favored policies, none of Duncan’s conditions involved closing opportunity gaps. To qualify for a Race to the Top grant, a state had to remove any statutory cap on the authorization of new charter schools, and to win a No Child Left Behind waiver, a state had to agree to evaluate teachers based on students’ test scores. But Duncan’s policies never conditioned receipt of federal dollars on states’ remedying school funding inequity. Even programs like School Improvement Grants for the lowest scoring 5 percent of American schools have emphasized school closure and privatization but have not addressed the root problem of poverty in the communities where children’s scores are low.
A Department of Education obsessed with data-driven accountability for teachers but preferring “game-changing” innovation for itself and paying inadequate attention to oversight.
The nation faces an epidemic of teacher shortages and despair among professionals who feel devalued as states rush to implement the teacher-rating policies they adopted to win their No Child Left Behind waivers from the federal government. Even as evidence continues to demonstrate that students’ test scores correlate more closely with family income than any other factor, and as scholars declare that students’ test scores are unreliable for evaluating teachers, Duncan’s policies have unrelentingly driven state governments to create policy that has contributed to widespread blaming of the teachers who serve in our nation’s poorest communities.
However, Duncan’s Department of Education has been far less attentive to accountability for its own programs. In June, the Alliance to Reclaim Our Schools — a coalition of national organizations made up of the American Federation of Teachers, Alliance for Educational Justice, Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, Center for Popular Democracy, Gamaliel, Journey for Justice Alliance, National Education Association, National Opportunity to Learn Campaign and Service Employees International Union — asked Secretary Duncan to establish a moratorium on federal support for new charter schools until the Department improves its own oversight of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, which is responsible for the federal Charter School Program. The Alliance to Reclaim our Schools cites formal audits from 2010 and 2012 in which the Department’s own Office of Inspector General (OIG) “raised concerns about transparency and competency in the administration of the federal Charter Schools Program.” The OIG’s 2012 audit, the members of the Alliance explain, discovered that the Department of Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement and the State Education Agencies, which disburse the majority of the federal funds, are ill-equipped to keep adequate records or put in place even minimal oversight.
Most recently, just last week, the Department of Education awarded $249 million to seven states and the District of Columbia for expanding charter schools, with the largest of those grants, $71 million, awarded to Ohio, despite the fact that protracted Ohio legislative debate all year has failed to produce regulations for an out-of-control, for-profit group of online charter schools or to improve Ohio’s oversight of what are too often unethical or incompetent charter school sponsors. The U.S. Department of Education made its grant last week even though Ohio’s legislature is known to have been influenced by political contributions from the owners of for-profit charter schools.
The substitution of the consultant-driven, win-lose methodology of philanthropy for formula-driven government policy.
Title I is the federal civil rights program created in 1965 as the centerpiece of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to equalize opportunity by sending federal money to schools serving a large number or high concentration of very poor children. The Title I formula has been a primary tool for equalizing educational opportunity as a civil right for every child. In 2009, however, Arne Duncan’s Department of Education began spending some Title I funds outside the formula program for competitions like Race to the Top. Because one-time grants cannot cover ongoing operations, school districts have used the money for technology or staff development but have hesitated to reduce class size or hire teachers. For example, an evaluation determined that consultants and grant writers collected 35 percent of School Improvement Grant Funds spent in Colorado between 2010 and 2012. Another serious problem with the federal competitive grant programs is that races with winners always have losers. Redirecting funds away from the Title I Formula and into competitive grants under Duncan’s leadership drove federal funds to a few winning states and created a host of losing states — and millions of children who lost out.
School policy that favors social innovation, one charter at a time.
Public education in the United States has historically been driven by a philosophy of expanding systemic inclusion. Over time public policy has been devised to require that schools address the needs of all children as a civil right. The policies that followed the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education,for example, were designed to address past injustices that derived from racial segregation and poverty. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act protected the rights of children with special needs. The policies of Arne Duncan’s Department of Education have instead favored a strategy of social innovation through the establishment of charter schools. The idea is that committed individuals, with grants from the government, design schools that will serve a few children, with the innovation injected back into the public schools. There is considerable evidence that many charters — especially the huge for-profit charter chains — have not innovated, that a philosophy of social innovation through charters (that serve about 6 percent of our nation’s 50 million children today) fails to consider the scale of our education challenges, that whatever innovation there has been has not spread widely, that charters have served primarily the children of parents who know how to play the school choice game, that considerable money from charter schools has flowed into private profits, and that the growth of charters in many city school districts has sucked out money and promising children and left students with serious disabilities, English language learners and the very poorest children including homeless children behind in what are becoming public school districts of last resort.
'One of The Most Basic, Promised Rights of Our Democracy'
At the very end of the 19th century, John Dewey wrote: “What the best and wisest parent wants for his own child, that must the community want for all of its children ... Only by being true to the full growth of all the individuals who make it up can society by any chance be true to itself.”
A hundred years later, Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) told the students at Teachers College, Columbia University: “That all citizens will be given an equal start through a sound education is one of the most basic, promised rights of our democracy. Our chronic refusal as a nation to guarantee that right for all children ... is rooted in a kind of moral blindness, or at least a failure of moral imagination. ... It is a failure which threatens our future as a nation of citizens called to a common purpose … tied to one another by a common bond.”
In December 2010, just two years into Duncan’s tenure as Secretary of Education, I heard the Rev. Jesse Jackson indict Duncan’s education policies for abandoning the very idea of American public education that Dewey and Wellstone had described so eloquently: “There are those who would make the case for ‘a race to the top’ for those who can run. But ‘lift from the bottom’ is the moral imperative because it includes everybody.”
If, as President Obama says, Arne Duncan has “brought our educational system, sometimes kicking and screaming, into the 21st century,” I hope we will stop to reconsider. Has our society decided to strive for innovation and to abandon universal provision of services and equality of opportunity as overarching goals? And have we become satisfied to blame the teachers in our poorest communities instead of ourselves for the vast injustices that appear at school in the guise of the achievement gaps?
Source: Alternet
Video: Grandes bancos podrían beneficiarse con el muro de la frontera
Video: Grandes bancos podrían beneficiarse con el muro de la frontera
Mira el video aquí.
Economic Inequality: Safe Words, at Last
OZY - December 23, 2013, by Pooja Bhatia - For decades, talk about economic inequality was taboo. Those who tried were met with accusations of sour grapes, inciting...
OZY - December 23, 2013, by Pooja Bhatia - For decades, talk about economic inequality was taboo. Those who tried were met with accusations of sour grapes, inciting class warfare, or — gasp! — advocating socialism.
But such rhetorical bludgeons appear to have lost force in recent years, and words like “inequality” and “economic fairness” have at last found a place at the table of mainstream American political discourse. It’s not quite the head of the table, but it’s not the servants’ quarters either.
Words like “inequality” and “economic fairness” have at last found a place at the table of mainstream American political discourse.
“The core issue of economic justice has been getting more traction now than during most of my time in organizing,” says Andrew Friedman, who’s been a progressive organizer for more than 15 years and now co-directs the Center for Popular Democracy in New York. Derecka Mehrens, executive director of labor-oriented think tank Working Partnerships USA in San Jose, Calif., agrees: “There’s been a sea change in how and even whether we talk about inequality.”
The signs are everywhere. In his November apostolic exhortation, the pope warned of the “tyranny” of unfettered capitalism and called “an economy of exclusion and inequality” sinful. Clear majorities of Americans support hiking the minimum wage and other policies that aim to reduce the wealth gap. Earlier this month, President Obama positioned inequality and lack of social mobility as the “defining issue of our time.” Mayors-elect of major cities all made economic inequality central to their platforms. And this year’s National Book Award for nonfiction went to George Packer’s The Unwinding, which chronicles rising social and economic inequality in the United States.
Inequality talk is no longer off-limits for a simple reason: The lot of many has stagnated or worsened over the past decade, in some cases severely.
Some credit the 2011 Occupy movements for popularizing economic inequality. (Or blame it, depending on their perspective.) But the main reason inequality talk is no longer off-limits is probably simpler: The lot of many has stagnated or worsened over the past decade, in some cases severely. Some 10 million people lost their homes in the Great Recession. Although unemployment is at a five-year low, the decline is partly because many have stopped looking for work.
As OZY noted a few weeks ago, the lag between technical “recovery” and job growth is lengthening, and these days it’s lingering four to five years. No wonder the Great Recession’s rough ride seems endless. Moreover, while worker productivity has increased over the past decade, real wages have stagnated or declined — leaving the average worker to wonder just where the gains from productivity are going.
“They hear the news that the stock market is climbing and say, Oh really?” Mehrens says.
Lovely A. Warren won election as mayor of Rochester last month with a campaign lamenting what she called the “two Rochesters,” challenged by crime and poverty, but also boasting prosperous neighborhoods.
Economic inequality has been growing since at least the early 1980s. But it was harder to complain about during the Clinton years, when broad-based growth lifted all boats, yachts and dinghies alike. Economic inequality grew during the Bush years too, but those were the days of subprime homeownership and plasma TVs for all. Five years after the collapse of that easy-credit economy, most Americans are still hurting. The average household has recovered less than half the wealth it lost during the recession.
As a result, income inequality has become a winning issue in some cities. The mayors-elect of New York, Pittsburgh and Minneapolis made economic justice a central plank of their platforms — and did so despite naysayers and with newfound success. New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio’s “tale of two cities,” for instance, was not much different from Fernando Ferrer’s campaign theme in 2005 or Ruth Messinger’s in 1997 — but only in the New York of 2013 did it resonate.
It was harder to complain about during the Clinton years, when broad-based growth lifted all boats, yachts and dinghies alike.
Not that the discursive war has been won, mind you. Plenty of people and conservative think tanks still argue that inequality has nothing to do with poverty. Winning a war of words wouldn’t be enough anyway, organizers say: “We need to figure out how to use this sea change in how we talk about inequality to how we act against inequality,” says Mehrens.
The newfound cache of certain phrases has had some perverse effects. Developers and other big employers have latched onto terms like “living wage” but not always with worker-friendly intentions, says Lee Strieb, a researcher with labor organization Unite Here. Developers have “attempted to wrap themselves in the flag of the living wage, almost as a shield to avoid unionization,” says Strieb. ”There is a heightened sensitivity to the need to address [the wage] issue — but to the extent they can address it in a superficial way, they will.”
Mr. de Blasio’s relentless critique of economic inequality in New York seemed to resonate with voters, who elected him in a landslide.
The shift could signal a readiness to engage meaningfully with issues like the living wage or tax increases on top earners.
It’s unclear whether 2014 will set in motion changes to our income distribution. Mayors alone may have little power to tackle the issue. They usually can’t run big deficits and, in cities like San Francisco and New York, space for affordable housing is hard to find. Most important, mayors can’t singlehandedly restore the middle-class jobs that disappeared during the recession.
Yet the shift in tone and rhetoric is significant and could signal a readiness to engage meaningfully with issues like the living wage or tax increases on top earners. Consider Cam Kruse, 72, a mostly retired civil engineer who is active in ISAIAH, a social justice organization of about 100 churches in metropolitan Minneapolis. Kruse believes in small government. When working full time, he perched in the top one to three percent of earners. And he was a Republican for most of his adult life.
But earlier this year he found himself urging the state legislature to raise tax rates on top earners, which, he said, had fallen through the decades. Growing “gaps” in education, health, housing and transportation worried him. “My success, and that of all the other top earners in Minnesota, has been based on the investments that people before us made,” he testified. “It is our turn to give back and make investments for those who will be our future.”
The tax increase passed.
Source
Fed more upbeat on economy, unclear on timing of rate hike
The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it will raise its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade...
The Federal Reserve offered a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy but provided little insight into when it will raise its benchmark interest rate for the first time in nearly a decade.
Fed officials voted unanimously to keep the target rate at zero for now, after wrapping up their regular two-day policy-setting meeting in Washington on Wednesday afternoon. In a carefully worded statement, the central bank noted that the economy has expanded “moderately.” It pointed to solid job gains and lower unemployment as signs that the labor market has improved, adding that underemployment has also diminished.
Perhaps most important, the Fed characterized the risks to its outlook for the economy as “nearly balanced” — the same description it used after its previous meeting. Some analysts believe that the Fed will move once the risks are weighted more evenly.
U.S. stock markets spiked after the release of the Fed statement but quickly settled back down. Both the blue-chip Dow Jones Industrial Average and the broader Standard & Poor's 500 average were up about half a percentage point in mid-afternoon trading.
Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said several times that she expects the central bank will raise its benchmark federal funds rate before the end of the year, a move that would herald the end of the central bank’s unconventional — and controversial — efforts to resuscitate the American economy.
Many investors and economists believe the moment will come during the Fed’s meeting in September, which would be followed by a news conference allowing Yellen to explain the central bank’s decision more fully. But a vocal minority think the Fed will wait to move in December, the next meeting with a scheduled news conference. A few economists — including two officials within the central bank — believe the Fed should hold off until 2016 to be sure the recovery is solid.
Fed officials have debated how strong of a signal to send as the moment of liftoff nears. But the central bank has repeatedly emphasized that its decision will depend on the evolution of economic data — and so investors should look to the numbers for the green light for action.
A key figure will be the government’s estimate of second quarter economic growth slated for release Thursday. Falling oil prices, a strong dollar and a sharp slowdown in the growth of consumer spending helped drive an unexpected contraction in the economy over the winter. Fed officials are hoping that second quarter GDP growth will prove the dip was merely temporary.
A stronger reading would also align with the pickup in hiring over the past two months. Unemployment is nearing its lowest sustainable level, making some officials antsy for the Fed to start tapping the brakes on the economy.
But others have argued that exceptionally low inflation means the Fed has plenty of time to act. Price growth remains well below the central bank’s 2 percent target, and officials have said they want to be “reasonably confident” it is moving up before tightening policy. In June, the central bank had stated that energy prices “appear to have stabilized.” But on Wednesday, it cited further declines in energy prices, along with the falling price of imports, as reasons inflation has remained low.
The Fed slashed its target interest rate to zero when the country was in the grips of the financial crisis in 2008, and it has stayed there ever since. In addition, it pumped trillions of dollars into the economy in an effort to lower longer-term rates and spur borrowing among consumers and investment among businesses. Unwinding those policies will likely take years.
Meanwhile, the Fed is facing renewed scrutiny in Congress. The House Financial Services committee on Wednesday passed a bill that would require the central bank to explain when it deviates from certain monetary policy models, disclose more information on salaries and allow for audits of the Fed's decision-making process. Another bill sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady would create a commission to examine the Fed, which recently celebrated its centennial.
“The Fed is trying to do too much,” Brady said in an interview. “It can be the right tool, but not for everything and everybody.”
The central bank is also facing pressure from the other end of the political spectrum. A coalition of community activists and labor groups is urging the Fed to leave its target rate unchanged amid elevated unemployment rates among minorities.
“Until we reach genuine full employment, there is no reason for the Fed to contemplate putting people out of work and slowing down our economy via interest rate hikes,” the Fed Up campaign said in a statement.
Source: The Washington Post
Toys ‘R’ Us Workers Face Harsh Reality in Quest for Severance
Toys ‘R’ Us Workers Face Harsh Reality in Quest for Severance
“Historically, Toys “R” Us has offered generous severance to workers, which is part of why it should be forced to offer payments to workers now," said Carrie Gleason, campaign manager for the...
“Historically, Toys “R” Us has offered generous severance to workers, which is part of why it should be forced to offer payments to workers now," said Carrie Gleason, campaign manager for the worker advocacy group Rise Up Retail. That group helped organize a petition calling for Bain, KKR, and Vornado to give the $470 million they had received in interest and fees from the retailer over the years to employees that were let go after the company foundered. KKR told Congress earlier this month it was seeking a way to help former Toys “R” Us employees outside of bankruptcy.
Read the full article here.
Nueva York pagará abogados a algunos inmigrantes
El Nuevo Herald - July 18, 2013, by Claudia Torrens - Nueva York se prepara para dar otro paso en su tradición de ayuda a inmigrantes: planea pagar los abogados de oficio que necesitan cuando se...
El Nuevo Herald - July 18, 2013, by Claudia Torrens - Nueva York se prepara para dar otro paso en su tradición de ayuda a inmigrantes: planea pagar los abogados de oficio que necesitan cuando se presentan ante un tribunal de inmigración para defenderse de un orden de deportación.
Para finales de este año o principios de 2014, algunos inmigrantes, autorizados o no, que enfrenten la deportación podrán presentarse ante el juez de inmigración con un abogado de oficio pagado con fondos municipales, reduciendo así sus posibilidades de ser deportados. Activistas, un magistrado federal y funcionarios locales planean anunciar el viernes que el gobierno municipal ha destinado 500.000 dólares a financiar un programa piloto que ofrecerá representación legal a inmigrantes.
Brittny Saunders, de la organización Center for Popular Democracy, dijo a The Associated Press que es la primera vez que un programa de este tipo se implementa en una municipalidad de Estados Unidos.
"La intención es reunir información sobre los beneficios que la representación legal supone tanto para un individuo detenido y en proceso de deportación como para su familia, su comunidad y la ciudad entera", dijo Saunders. "Esperamos que este programa sea un modelo para otras comunidades en todo el país".
Los inmigrantes que acaban en los tribunales de inmigración y que enfrenten la deportación no tienen derecho a ser defendidos por un abogado de oficio. Pueden contratar a un abogado privado, pero muchos no tienen el dinero para pagar ese servicio. Es por ese motivo que el gobierno municipal, varios activistas y el juez federal Robert Katzmann han unido esfuerzos para ofrecer ayuda a inmigrantes en esta situación.
Saunders dijo que en el estado de Nueva York una media de 2.800 inmigrantes enfrenta anualmente la deportación sin acceso a asistencia legal. Muchos de ellos, explicó, con frecuencia son detenidos por infracciones a las leyes de inmigración, como quedarse en Estados Unidos una vez vencida su visa.
El Congreso debate en estos momentos una reforma a las leyes de inmigración y el proyecto de ley aprobado por el Senado hace unas semanas propone un camino a la naturalización de 11 millones de inmigrantes sin autorización para vivir en el país. El gobierno del presidente Barack Obama deportó a más de 400.000 inmigrantes en el año fiscal 2012, una cifra récord.
El juez federal Katzmann y su grupo "Study Group on Immigrant Representation" publicó un informe en el 2011 que indicaba que 18% de los inmigrantes detenidos en Nueva York que cuentan con abogado salen adelante con su caso, mientras que entre los que no tienen asesoría jurídica, la cifra es de sólo 3%.
Entre los inmigrantes no detenidos, 74% sale adelante, mientras que entre los que no tienen asesoría legal la cifra es de 13%, señala el informe.
El programa piloto que se planea presentar el viernes — llamado "New York Immigrant Family Unity Project" (Proyecto por la Unidad Familiar de los Inmigrantes en Nueva York) — necesita escoger a través de un proceso público de varios meses a una organización sin ánimo de lucro que ofrezca sus abogados para la representación legal.
La presidenta del Concejo Municipal de Nueva York, Christine Quinn, ha sido una de las impulsoras del financiamiento del programa. Quinn aspira a ser la próxima alcaldesa de la ciudad durante elecciones municipales en noviembre.
En Nueva York viven más de tres millones de personas nacidas en otros países, según información del Censo.
Source
Fed's Kashkari says low inflation affords 'luxury' of low rates
MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Low inflation allows the Federal Reserve to keep U.S. interest rates lower for longer in order to boost the economy and jobs, a top Federal Reserve official said on...
MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Low inflation allows the Federal Reserve to keep U.S. interest rates lower for longer in order to boost the economy and jobs, a top Federal Reserve official said on Wednesday.
"If we can keep creating jobs while inflation is in check, let's do that," Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari said at a meeting with community activists and members of the black community in Minneapolis who were airing their concerns about low pay and high unemployment. "We can do our best to make the job market as strong as possible."
By KRITOFFER TIGUE, ANN SAPHIR, & DIANE CRAFT
Source
Workers' next big fight: Fairer scheduling
The Fight for $15 is still being waged, but the movement is adding "Fight for a Fair Workweek" to its agenda.
Americans at the lowest rung of the wage ladder are looking forward to hourly...
The Fight for $15 is still being waged, but the movement is adding "Fight for a Fair Workweek" to its agenda.
Americans at the lowest rung of the wage ladder are looking forward to hourly pay hikes in cities and states including New York and California. Yet there's a troubling and escalating trend of underemployment and scheduling hurdles that make it next to impossible for many workers to get ahead, worker advocates say.
A defining feature of the post-recession recovery has been a surge in part-time workers. And despite an improving labor market, with unemployment at 5 percent, more than 6 million people in the U.S. who would rather work full-time remain stuck in part-time jobs.
California represents a large chunk of that underemployment, with more than 1 million working involuntary part-time jobs. In Silicon Valley, more than four out of every 10 hourly workers are now part-time, according to research due to be released Thursday.
The findings, based on data compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and written by the Center for Popular Democracy and Working Partnerships USA, found insufficient and inconsistent hours leave hourly workers struggling in San Jose, where the minimum hourly rate currently stands at $10.30.
Of San Jose's total workforce, 47 percent, or an estimated 162,000, work hourly jobs, with 43 percent of those hourly workers employed part-time or on variable schedules as their main job, up from 26 percent a decade earlier, according to the report.
"Employers have restructured employment so that the work week is shrinking for low-wage workers," Carrie Gleason, director of the Center for Popular Democracy's Fair Workweek Initiative. "The minimum wage is finally catching up, and now we're going to see more and more policymakers pay attention to hours. They recognize $15 isn't enough if you're only working part-time."
What's occurring in San Jose helps relay "an important national story about a very prosperous region with a very low unemployment rate, yet one out of three workers isn't making it every month," said Derecka Mehrens, executive director at Working Partnerships USA. "From what we've seen, the wage fight cannot be separated from the hour fight."
Mehrens' group is gathering signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot that would require employers in San Jose offer more hours to existing qualified part-time workers before hiring new part-time or temporary workers.
Opponents to scheduling mandates include the National Restaurant Association, or NRA, which has lobbied against measures under consideration in state and local legislatures, as well as one proposed in Congress. The trade association says such measures have already caused "confusion" for restaurant owners in San Francisco and could result in fewer workers being hired.
Advocates for workers have a more sympathetic ear, if not a solution, at Starbucks (SBUX), which has drawn its share of negative attention for creating havoc with the lives of its baristas through its scheduling practices. At the company's annual meeting in Seattle last month, barista Darrion Sjoquist asked CEO Howard Schultz about addressing the scheduling issues that he and his colleagues routinely face.
"It's at the top of our list to create some balance between the pressure that exists on some people who are having a difficult time with the schedule and our ability to schedule thousands of people," said Schultz. "We understand the issues and we think they are critical," he said, adding that Starbucks believes a technological tool is needed to address the issues involved with scheduling 300,000 people around the world.
The scheduling issue last week had attorneys general from California, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Rhode Island expanding a probe into the use of unpaid on-call shifts and other scheduling practices in the retail industry.
"On-call shifts are unfair to workers who must keep the day free, arrange for child care, and give up the chance to get another job or attend a class -- often all for nothing," New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said in a statement. "On-call shifts are not a business necessity, as we see from the many retailers that no longer use this unjust method of scheduling work hours."
American Eagle Outfitters (AEO), Uniqlo, Aéropostale (ARO), Payless ShoeSource (PSS), Coach (COH), and the Disney Store (DIS) are among the 15 retailers sent letters asking about their use of on-call shifts, which can involve mandating workers to be available for work without a guaranteed shift. The practice is a potential violation of state reporting pay laws, which require employers give workers minimum pay when a shift is canceled or shortened.
Maryland, Minnesota and Illinois don't have reporting pay laws, but they've signed onto the letters to express concern about the impact of on-calling scheduling on workers and their families.
The inquiry follows a similar one by Schneiderman last year that resulted in six brands including the Gap (GPS), Victoria's Secret (LB) and Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF) ending on-call scheduling, a move impacting a quarter million workers.
Scheduling protections were adopted last year in San Francisco and Santa Clara County, while conversely, Indiana and Alabama are among the states that have preemptively passed legislation prohibiting cities within their borders from enacting such measures.
In Seattle, which has passed paid sick-time standards and a higher minimum wage, the city council is considering legislation that would require companies offer workers more livable schedules.
By KATE GIBSON
Source
Fast-food Labor Expands Scope of Fight for $15
Chicago Tribune - March 31, 2015, by Alejandra Cancino - The group huddled in front of a...
Chicago Tribune - March 31, 2015, by Alejandra Cancino - The group huddled in front of a McDonald's in downtown Chicago, preparing to tell the 100 people who had gathered there how the Fight for $15 had taken on a broader fight on behalf of low-wage workers ranging from airport workers to adjunct college professors.
Many of the people who listened to the speeches were young, too young to recall the 1960s-era protests. But that clearly was the vibe of Tuesday's rally.
Participants in the Fight for $15 movement, who are planning protests on April 15, say they have taken on a broader fight on behalf of low-wage workers ranging from airport workers to adjunct college professors.
"This fight is a fight about racial justice and economic justice," Charlene Carruthers, national director of the Black Youth Project 100, told the crowd. Her organization is composed of black activists ranging in age from 18 to 35.
"For us, the Fight for 15 is also a fight for our lives," Carruthers said. "When we say 'black lives matter,' that includes black workers."
People in the audience held signs that said "Fight 4/15," a reference to April 15, when organizers of the campaign to increase minimum wages plan to bring together 60,000 protesters in major cities across America and in more than 40 countries and at more than 170 college campuses, including the University of Illinois at Chicago.Ed Shurna, executive director of the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, which is participating in the Fight for $15 campaign, said its strategy seems to borrow elements from eras of the 1930s and the 1960s.
"It has the feel of the civil rights movement, the feel of the labor movement, but it's 2015 so it's done in a different way," Shurna said. He said this campaign is trying to get corporations to take responsibility for the struggles of their workers and get them to increase wages, offer benefits and improve working conditions.
McDonald's and its franchisees have been the main target of the campaign. Workers have filed lawsuits and complaints at various federal agencies alleging labor law violations, wage theft and unsafe working conditions. Moreover, the campaign, backed by the Service Employees International Union, wants the National Labor Relations Board to declare that McDonald's and its franchisees share responsibility for working conditions, benefits and pay.
"We won't stop until these multibillion-dollar companies pay us a living wage of $15 per hour," said Douglas Hunter, a McDonald's worker.
In a statement, McDonald's said it respects people's right to peacefully protest. "Historically, very few McDonald's employees have participated in these organized events," Heidi Barker Sa Shekhem, a McDonald's spokeswoman, said in the statement.
Matt Hoffmann, an adjunct professor at Loyola University, said faculty members of colleges in Chicago and across the nation have drawn inspiration from fast-food workers and the Fight for $15.
He said adjuncts want to be paid $15,000 per course, a figure that would include wages and benefits. He said he currently is paid $4,500 per course and doesn't receive benefits.
Hoffmann, who spoke at Tuesday's rally, said, "We struggle with our bills; we receive no benefits and we have little job stability."
At an event announcing the actions in front of a McDonald's in New York City's Times Square, organizers said home health care aides, airport workers, adjunct professors, child care workers and Wal-Mart workers will be among those turning out in April.
Terrence Wise, a Burger King worker from Kansas City, Mo., and a national leader of the Fight for $15 push, said more than 2,000 groups including Jobs With Justice and the Center for Popular Democracy will show their support as well.
Source
The very vocal protesters who took on the Fed are now fighting to protect it
The very vocal protesters who took on the Fed are now fighting to protect it
Liberal advocacy group Fed Up launched a campaign nearly three years ago in hopes of persuading the nation's central bank to hold off raising its benchmark interest rate.
The group...
Liberal advocacy group Fed Up launched a campaign nearly three years ago in hopes of persuading the nation's central bank to hold off raising its benchmark interest rate.
The group organized protests at the Fed's annual retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. It demonstrated outside the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. And it recruited prestigious economists and former top central bank officials to the cause.
But now, Fed Up has a new target: Republicans who want to curtail the central bank's power.
House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, is expected to introduce legislation soon that would require the Fed to set rules for conducting monetary policy and explain any deviation from those rules. The Fed has bristled at the proposal, arguing that the proposal limits its power to revive the economy in moments of crisis.
Fed Up agrees, finding common ground between itself and the central bank it was created to criticize. The group mobilized its members at Fed Chair Janet Yellen's appearance Tuesday before the Senate Banking Committee. The group held protests ahead of her semi-annual testimony and intends to pack the hearing room with members wearing bright green shirts bearing slogans such as, "Whose Recovery?" Executive Director Shawn Sebastian said Fed Up met with several senators before the hearing to voice its concerns.
"We see the [bill] as speeding us toward another financial crash and preventing the Fed's ability to respond to another financial crash," Sebastian said.
The so-called Financial Choice Act would also roll back some of the regulatory authority handed to the Fed following the 2008 financial crisis. Sebastian said his group would be closely watching President Donald Trump's nominees to fill the three vacant seats at the central bank's board of governors in Washington. Fed Up has pushed for greater diversity among Fed appointees, both on the board and among the 12 regional central bank presidents.
The alliance could provide the Fed with its own grassroots support as it attempts to steer clear of the populist anger against economic elites that helped propel Trump into the White House. The president has promised to "do a number" on the post-financial crisis reforms known as the Dodd-Frank Act that were designed to, among other things, curtail risky behavior among banks and protect consumers from unscrupulous practices by lenders.
A draft version of Hensarling's bill includes shifting the Fed's annual bank stress tests into two-year cycles and changing the way banks calculate risk, among other things, according to a memo obtained by CNBC.
"Donald Trump and [Treasury Secretary] Steven Mnuchin, the foreclosure king, don't care about stories like mine. They only care about their billionaire friends," Philadelphia resident Tyrone Ferguson said in a prepared speech. "Now Trump and his billionaire friends want to take over the Fed, too."
Fed Up has proven adept at navigating the often esoteric world of central banking. The group has met with Yellen and Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer. It also raised pointed questions about racial diversity and ties to Wall Street during a discussion with top central bank officials at the Jackson Hole conference last year.
Sebastian compared the Fed's 14-year appointments to those of the Supreme Court. He said he will continue to press the central bank on those issues — as well as the lawmakers responsible for confirming the Fed's new governors.
"The entire world has shifted around us," Sebastian said. "But our principles have remained the same on this."
By Ylan Mui
Source
3 days ago
9 days ago