Campaign News

02.19.2016

NEW YORK CITY — Wal-Mart’s wage hike to a minimum $10 per hour kicks in tomorrow, February 20, but the higher wages fall well short of a living wage. Last year, Wal-Mart earned more than $16 billion in net income and announced plans to spend $10.3 billion on a stock buyback to increase value for wealthy shareholders. Center for Popular Democracy, a national pro-worker coalition, estimates that paying $15 an hour to its 1.2 million full-time employees would cost the company an extra $3.4 billion per year, a third of what it will spend under its share repurchase plan.

The Center for Popular Democracy has fought for a higher minimum wage for Wal-Mart workers along with the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), Our Walmart, and a worker-led movement.

JoEllen Chernow, Director of CPD’s Minimum Wage campaign, released the following statement:

“Wal-Mart has announced pay raises in an attempt to reform its image as an employer that doesn’t pay workers enough to take care of their families. But it’s not raising them enough – and, the truth is, Wal-Mart can afford higher wages.

The company has a $10 billion stock buyback program and earned more than $16 billion in net income last year. That will put an additional $5.6 billion directly into the pockets of the Walton family - a family that already controls more wealth than the bottom 42 percent of Americans combined. As the company’s fortunes continue to rise, they must let their workers share more of their success. Wal-Mart workers simply deserve better.”

www.populardemocracy.org

The Center for Popular Democracy 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.

Contact:

Asya Pikovsky, apikovsky@populardemocracy.org, 207-522-2442

Anita Jain, ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761

Homestretch: The fight to raise Colorado’s minimum wage

Voters at polling centers across Colorado will soon be deciding on Amendment 70, a measure that would alter the state constitution to increase the minimum wage from the current $8.31 per hour by yearly 90-cent increments to $12 in 2020. In 2020, it will be fixed at $12, except for yearly adjustments to account for inflation. Amendment 70 would further mandate that those inflation-tied adjustments only apply when they mean an increase in wages. In the past, when inflation was negative, minimum wage workers saw a pay cut.

Who’s behind it?

Supporters of the increase coalesced in mid-2016 into a group called Colorado Families for a Fair Wage, a coalition of unions, economic justice advocates and progressive policy analysts. Many of them had been part of an informal consortium of anti-poverty groups called The Everyone Economy that came together to strategize about raising the minimum wage back in February 2014. Partnering with Democratic legislators, they advocated for a pair of bills in the 2015 legislative session to help low-wage workers. One would have allowed municipalities to set their own minimums, and the other would have created a ballot measure to reach a $12.50 per hour minimum by 2020. Republicans killed both bills in the Senate.

Democrats floated another bill in 2016 to allow cities to set their own minimum wages, which met the same fate as its predecessors. After that, Everyone Economy members decided they had no recourse but to pursue a ballot measure themselves and formed Colorado Families for a Fair Wage.

Why $12 per hour and not $15?

The amendment’s proponents faced criticism for their decision to pursue $12 instead of $15 per hour in this week’s Westword cover story. According to the story, some former members of the coalition’s steering committee expressed deep dissatisfaction with its decision to pursue a $12 wage, arguing that, in doing so, the coalition shut out those whose voices were most pertinent to the effort — namely, dues-paying union members. They further take issue with the coalition’s failure to conduct focus groups composed of African-American working people, the demographic that would most benefit from a wage increase. CFFW spokesman Mike Kromrey now admits that was a mistake.

In its decision, the campaign relied on polling that showed that $12 per hour was more likely to pass. Campaign spokesman Timothy Markham dismissed any suggestion that the Westword story would affect the election outcome. “It might make for interesting gossip, but it doesn’t change the fundamental facts of the struggles Colorado workers are facing,” he said.

Interestingly, CFFW’s opponents on the right appropriated some of those far-left criticisms in the article and applied them to their own pitch. Keep Colorado Working, a conglomeration of chambers of commerce, industry groups and free-market business advocates that came together to oppose Amendment 70, sent a press release on Wednesday drawing attention to Westword’s report and castigating CFFW for deciding on their ballot language based on “polling, not policy impacts.”

The release does not mention the fact that those reports came from former CFFW members who wanted the minimum wage increase to be greater, not smaller, as Keep Colorado Working does.

How much firepower is against it?

Keep Colorado Working had a slower start raising funds, but has now raised $1.7 million. It has spent just under $1.4 million as of the most recent campaign finance filings, primarily on television advertising and consultants. About half of its funds ($650,000) come from the Alexandria, Virginia-based Workforce Fairness Institute. It has also gotten $525,000 from Colorado Citizens Protecting Our Constitution, a committee that has donated hefty sums to pro-fracking campaigns and to a 2013 effort to recall legislators who had passed gun-control legislation.

For its part, CCFW has outraised its rivals almost 3 to 1, raising about $5.3 million in donations, much of which is from out-of-state groups like its largest donor, the Center for Popular Democracy, which has kicked in over $1 million. Its second-largest donor is the Palo Alto-based Fairness Project, which has contributed over $960,000 to CFFW and is also supporting minimum wage ballot measures in Maine, Arizona and Washington, D.C.

Keep Colorado Working wants to make sure you know that some of CFFW’s donors are not from Colorado. Virtually all of its communications use the terms “wealthy out of state special interests” liberally.

According to the most recent campaign finance filings, CFFW has spent $4.6 million  on television and digital advertising, outreach efforts like canvassing and hosting events, mailers, polling and research.

Keep Colorado Working did not respond to requests for comment in time for this story’s deadline.

Will it pass?

Early polls indicate that it will.

An August Magellan Strategies poll of 500 likely Colorado voters showed that 55 percent of respondents supported the measure, 42 percent were opposed and three percent were undecided. A September joint project between Colorado Mesa University, Rocky Mountain PBS and Franklin & Marshall College showed that 58 percent of respondents favored Amendment 70, with 36 percent opposed and seven percent undecided.

CFFW is also conducting its own internal polls and told The Independent that it is consistently getting positive results. Colorado politics expert Eric Sondermann also predicted that it will narrowly pass in a comprehensive ballot prediction for Westword.

CFFW’s case was buoyed in the fall months, starting with the release of a University of Denver study that tied Amendment 70 to a $400 million increase in state GDP. The logic is straightforward: when low-wage workers get a raise, they are very likely to spend it in their local economies, rather than filing it away. Not long after, Governor Hickenlooper endorsed the amendment, tethering worker pay raises to a boost for the overall economy.

Keep Colorado Working countered with another study, commissioned by the Common Sense Policy Roundtable, which concludes that the increase would lead to a decline in income and massive layoffs. But critics say that CSPR’s ties to groups like EIS Solutions, a PR outfit with several oil and gas clients, and Americans for Prosperity, the oil and gas giant Koch brothers’ political arm, undermine the study’s integrity.

Proponents are feeling optimistic as they buckle down for the the pre-election weekend. Andy Jacob, political director for SEIU Local 105, which is CFFW member, said that the group will spend the weekend making phone calls, knocking on doors, communicating with members and “doing everything we can to get this passed.”

If it passes, will it really be a game-changer for workers?

Whether Amendment 70 passes or fails, the work is just beginning for Colorado labor unions and low-wage worker advocates. Most CFFW members acknowledge that $12 per hour is not in fact a living wage for workers with families in some parts of Colorado. Most estimates put a living wage for a single parent of two children in Denver at around $30 per hour. But advocates also believe that the current $8.31 per hour is inexcusable, and any more than $12 is not politically viable. 

There’s a sense of immediacy among CFFW members. One hears the term “right now” a lot. They would rather take a safe bet than a real gamble when so many people’s livelihoods hang in the balance.

“Do we go with something that we know is going to be tough but that we know we can win on, or do we go with 15, which the Denver area might be ready for but the state isn’t, and we lose?” SEIU’s Jacob asked.

He works with low-wage union members every day and he believes he’s doing right by them. “‘12 by 2020’ will impact half a million people in Colorado,” Jacob said. “Don’t tell those people this isn’t going to help them. It is.”

By Eliza Carter

Source

Bearing a large banner reading “Harvard Divest from Baupost,” hundreds of activists marched at Harvard Yard on Wednesday. Members of the Harvard Student Labor Action Movement participated in the protest, along with union groups, community organizers affiliated with the Center for Popular Democracy, and anti-hedge fund activists with the coalition Hedge Clippers.

Read the full article here.

The Federal Reserve may be headed for a shakeup regardless of who wins the 2016 election, though Hillary Clinton is seen as less likely to demand radical change than Donald Trump.

Clinton, a Democrat, has called for greater diversity at the U.S. central bank, while defending the practice of recent U.S. presidents from both parties of not commenting on monetary policy. Trump has been vague on how the Fed should change, but has spurned the tradition of respecting its monetary policy independence. The Republican nominee has slammed it for keeping interest rates low, which he claims is designed to help cement President Barack Obama’s legacy.

Trump has already suggested that if he won the White House, he’d probably nominate someone else to lead the Fed once Chair Janet Yellen’s term expires in 2018. That creates “uncertainty as to who would be the nomination,” said Michelle Meyer, head of U.S. economics at Bank of America Corp. in New York. Clinton, on the other hand, would be less inclined to overhaul the 103-year-old institution. “I think she’d keep the Fed status quo.”

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have proposed legislation in recent years to limit the central bank’s authority, including a monetary policy audit for which Trump has voiced approval. Tweaking the Fed legislatively would require either bipartisan support in Congress or one party sweeping the election on Nov. 8 so that it commands both the House and Senate and can bulldoze through its reforms.

Obvious Change

That means the most obvious change facing the policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee will come through the traditional power of presidential appointment. Both Yellen and Fed Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer will see their terms expire in 2018, and there are two existing vacancies on the seven-member Fed Board in Washington.

 “I would think for Trump, you’re looking much more outside the box, at successful corporate raiders, successful hedge fund managers, people he may have had business relationships with,” said Aaron Klein, an economic studies fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a Clinton supporter. While he declined to speculate on who Clinton would choose for Fed chair, he said that should she win “you’ll tend to see more continuity at the Federal Reserve.”

Any appointment will be subject to Senate confirmation, creating a potential check. Meyer and her colleagues at Bank of America wrote in a Sept. 29 note that “the biggest risk for change comes under a Republican sweep,” which would potentially pave a way for Trump appointments in the Senate.

There’s some speculation that changes to Fed leadership could come even earlier than 2018. Paul Ashworth, chief U.S. economist at Capital Economics in Toronto, said Yellen could resign if Trump were elected. Morgan Stanley strategists included a Yellen resignation as a possible post-election outcome in their election briefing earlier this year, though they rated it low-probability.

An abrupt departure would set a "bad precedent" and is unlikely, said Joseph Gagnon, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute in Washington and a former senior Fed economist.

“I don’t think she’d want to encourage that,” he said.

Annual Audit

Though legislative changes to the Fed will be harder to achieve, the 2016 Republican platform includes a plan to implement an annual audit of Fed activities and create a commission to “investigate ways to set a fixed value for the dollar.”

While Trump hasn’t explicitly endorsed the return to a system that backs the U.S. dollar with gold, his economic adviser Judy Shelton wrote in a Financial Times column on Sept. 28 that his running mate, Mike Pence, has urged a rethink of the international currency system and Trump has nodded toward the possibility.

“As Mr. Trump often urges: It is time to start thinking big once again,” Shelton wrote.

Economists agree that the gold standard is a failed and impractical system, and it would “take a Herculean effort of international coordination” to re-institute a metal-base for the currency, said Peter Conti-Brown, an assistant professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. It’s pretty improbable that Trump would try to reinstate it, he said.

‘More Representative’

If Clinton is elected, a different set of changes could be in store for the central bank.

The Democratic platform promises to protect Fed independence to carry out its dual mandate -- for low inflation and full employment -- against threats from new legislation. But it also said it would ensure bank executives don’t serve on regional Fed boards, and to “reform the Federal Reserve to make it more representative of America as a whole.”

The U.S. central bank consists of a Board of Governors in Washington and 12 regional branches.

“If Hillary Clinton is elected, there’s going to be widespread interest among members of the House and Senate in pursuing, at minimum, the aspects of Fed reform that are included in the Democratic Platform,” said Jordan Haedtler, one of the leaders of Fed Up, a progressive, grass-roots campaign aimed at reforming the central bank.

‘Long Overdue’

Clinton has called for greater diversity at the Fed, and a spokesman for her campaign said in May that “commonsense reforms -- like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks -- are long overdue.”

There’s already a push in Congress to deal with these issues. Yellen regularly gets asked about Fed diversity when she testifies on Capitol Hill and Representative Joyce Beatty, a Democrat from Ohio, introduced legislation on Sept. 28 that would require the regional Fed banks to interview at least one diversity candidate when appointing new presidents.

Even absent congressional action, the Fed is actively working on diversity internally and that’s likely to continue under either a Clinton or a Trump administration. In fact, Clinton and her supporters may have a reason to avoid advocating for legislative reform of the Fed and let internal changes run their course.

“When you’re talking about the Federal Reserve and reforming it in any kind of way, it’s really taking the genie out of the bottle,” Conti-Brown said. Pushing structural changes to the Fed through Congress could open up the possibility of other proposals becoming law, including making it subject to a monetary policy rule, as some Republicans have advocated.

“There are lots of risks in doing wholesale governance reform, and I think the Clinton administration would be mindful of those risks,” he said.

By Jeanna Smialek

Source