Campaign News

WELL, THAT was fast!

Yesterday I wrote about an "on-call" scheduling practice at Urban Outfitters that's unbelievably abusive to its lowest-wage workers. Within hours of the column hitting print, Urban announced it was killing the practice for good.

Coincidence? You decide.

Here's yesterday's statement from the Philly-based billion-dollar retailer, which also owns the brands Anthropologie, Free People, Terrain and Bhldn.

"We are always looking for ways to improve, and as such we have decided to end on-call scheduling for all [Urban] brand associates throughout North America. We look forward to continuing to find ways to better fulfill our mission of providing fashion and lifestyle essentials to our dedicated customers."

This is amazing news for employees at Urban's 518 North American stores.

For years, they'd been receiving their work schedules only a few days in advance, with some shifts designated as "on call." But they wouldn't be told, until three hours before the shift was to begin, whether they'd actually be needed to work. If they weren't, they wouldn't be paid, even though they'd been required to hold that time for the company.

The unpredictability had wreaked havoc on workers, who are mostly young and female.

They were unable to schedule classes if they were in school. Or to schedule hours at a second job if they needed a full-time income. Or to reliably arrange day care or pay their bills, since their cost to do both was fixed even though their working hours weren't.

What a crappy way to treat members of the demographic that Urban targets so heavily.

"It's pretty messed up," one worker, a college student, told me. She was paying her way through school, but Urban's scheduling meant she couldn't schedule other work to help pay tuition. "It's hard to plan."

Readers reacted with disgust to the column.

"Retail needs to be called on the carpet!" wrote emailer rgrassia. "We need more people with the ability to do something to pressure these companies to change the ways they conduct themselves."

Reader Madeleine Pierucci excoriated Urban for "co-opting the '60s struggles and playing it to the detriment of its 2015 workers. Not cool." She also planned to picket Urban's Center City store next week.

And a furious churchgoer named Samantha C. vowed to spread the word throughout the National Baptist Convention to have its 100,000 church members boycott Urban's stores in protest.

"It's time for slavery to stop," she declared.

Urban's change of heart is a testament to the power of the press, says Carrie Gleason. She's director of the fair-workweek initiative at the Center for Popular Democracy and has been working for a very long time to get employers to end on-call staffing.

"The media has helped shift the public opinion in terms of what is acceptable around employers' expectations of their employees' time," she told me. "I think Urban's announcement is a direct response to the fact that the public is now holding the whole retail industry to higher standards."

I'd like to take credit for Urban's reversal, but the truth is, another media outlet has been hammering at on-call scheduling by retailers - and not just Urban - for a while now.

The online news site BuzzFeed has chronicled the issue so doggedly that the New York state attorney general in April called companies on the carpet for the practice, following his investigation into the legality of on-call staffing at 13 retailers whose New York stores employ thousands of low-wage workers.

As a result, huge chains like Victoria's Secret, Bath & Body Works, Abercrombie and Gap announced plans to discontinue the practice not just in New York but nationally, improving hundreds of thousands of workers' lives.

Urban, though, had said it would discontinue the practice only in New York. Everywhere else, it would be exploitation as usual.

It turned my stomach that Philly-based Urban - a company that so many of us grew up with and feel affinity for - would treat its workers so shabbily. And I said as much in my column, which we - ahem - pushed on the Daily News front page and on Philly.com.

If that helped nudge Urban into doing the decent thing, then yesterday was a good day.

Not just for Urban's workers. But for Urban's shareholders:

As news hit that Urban would end its on-call scheduling, CNBC reported, the company's stock rallied 4.68 percent.

You're welcome, Urban.

And thank you.

Source: Philly.com

The Boston Globe - April 19, 2015, by Dante Ramos - Because life-threatening crises arise at odd times, people in some fields have days when they’re on call. EMTs get called to accident scenes. Doctors have patients who might fall ill or go into labor at any moment. But do unforeseen variations in sweater sales, or in foot traffic in the housewares department, have the same urgency? Of course not.

Recently, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters demanding information from Gap, Abercrombie & Fitch, Urban Outfitters, and 10 other major retail chains about their use of on-call shifts — periods for which an employee must keep an open schedule but might not end up working.

Instead of simply reporting for work, the employee has to check in with a supervisor a few hours in advance. If she gets called in, she may have to scramble for a babysitter. If she doesn’t get called in, she doesn’t get paid, and it’s too late to get a shift on a second job. “People will be scheduled for eight on-call shifts in a pay period and only get called in for one shift,” says attorney Rachel Deutsch of the Center for Popular Democracy, a labor advocacy group.

Some of the retailers Schneiderman targeted have written the practice into their employee handbooks. Others, such as JC Penney, told reporters last week they have policies against it. Still others have responded cryptically to reporters’ inquires; TJX, the Massachusetts-based discount giant, told CNN Money that its schedules “serve the needs” of workers and the chain. I contacted the company to clarify, but it didn’t respond.

On-call shifts are a new frontier: They’ve proliferated at big chains because of just-in-time scheduling software, which uses up-to-the-minute data to maximize sales while minimizing the number of employees on the clock at slower times. Statistics are hard to come by, although a 2011 survey by Retail Action Project, another advocacy group, found that 43 percent of New York City retail workers were assigned to on-call shifts sometimes or often. Until Schneiderman’s office started sending out letters, the practice had attracted little regulatory attention. (In Massachusetts, the attorney general’s office is watching what happens in New York, but hasn’t taken similar action.)

Despite their relative novelty in retail, on-call shifts speak to an age-old tension. Economic life is full of uncertainty. How much should employers bear, and how much should fall on workers? Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, argues that stores face stiff competition from e-commerce and survive at the mercy of the customer who, he says, “moves on a dime.” He adds, “If you choose to work in retailing, you have to live with the consumer.”

In other sectors, though, people who work on call are often paid salaries that presume some unpredictability, or they’re paid for the time they spend waiting around. Deutsch used to work as a union rep for hospitals in the Bay Area. One hospital, she says, had a handful of technicians on staff who performed echocardiograms during the workday. After hours, there was a technician on call, who was paid half-time for those shifts even when there was no work.

A key difference: Echocardiogram techs have a specialized skill. Entry-level retail workers don’t, and those averse to on-call shifts are easily replaced.

Businesses aren’t social-service agencies. To rely on employers as guarantors of health care and retirement security, as the US government did after World War II, is to assume they and their workers want to be bound together intimately, for decades on end. But at the other extreme, companies that treat employee relationships as fleeting and transactional — the workplace equivalent of a one-night stand — will end up with lots of churn in their ranks.

Or they’ll be subject to lots of government mandates. Responding to a variety of complaints about unpredictable schedules, San Francisco last year approved a far-reaching “retail worker bill of rights” that, among other things, requires employers to post schedules weeks in advance. A proposed Massachusetts law has similar provisions. Hurst points out that parts of the bill would have hamstrung local retailers in February, when sales plunged during a four-week Ice Age.

Retail chains can forestall such rules by changing their ways. When stores train workers to do more than scan tags and say “I can help who’s next,” those workers can improvise. They might tend to customers during a sudden rush while prioritizing other jobs, like restocking shelves, at slower moments. If employers still believe they need on-call shifts, they can simply guarantee employees some pay for those periods. Ideally, chains would do so voluntarily. In practice, some will need a regulatory nudge.

When retailers can claim free options on hourly workers’ time, they have no incentive to make firm decisions in advance. But no one likes being strung along, and no one’s life is infinitely flexible.

Soure

JACKSON HOLE, Wyo.—Federal Reserve officials sought to reassure a group of labor activists that the central bank isn’t going to cool down the economy just as a stronger labor market is reaching a broader swath of Americans.

“We’re going to run [the economy] hot, get the unemployment rate down lower,” San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank President John Williams said at an unprecedented meeting with activists from the Campaign for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up Campaign.

The meeting of activists and high-ranking Fed officials took place shortly before the start of the Kansas City Fed’s high-profile policy conference in Jackson Hole, Wyo. Central bankers in attendance included Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen’s two top lieutenants, New York Fed President William Dudley and Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer. Ms. Yellen, although scheduled to speak at the Jackson Hole symposium early Friday, didn’t attend.

The left-leaning activist group Fed Up publicly met with eight Federal Reserve presidents Thursday to discuss inequality and interest rates during the central bank's annual meeting in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

Nine regional Fed bank presidents and two governors held a public discussion with the left-leaning group, whose goal is to convince Fed officials to keep short-term interest rates low to boost short-term growth and drive unemployment further down. It came as pressure mounts on Fed officials on many fronts to explain a disappointing economy.

Several Fed Up activists argued the only way to lower unemployment in the black community is to heat up the broader labor market.

Rod Adams, a 27-year-old community group organizer from Minneapolis, told the meeting, “I don’t understand how you can think that,” when confronting Fed officials’ statement that the U.S. is near full employment.

“I don’t want to be sacrificed for a war against an inflation enemy that isn’t here,” Mr. Adams said.

Transcript: Fed Officials Meet With Fed Up Activists at Jackson Hole

Fed Up activists also challenged Fed representatives on diversity. The group doubled down on its earlier criticism of the Federal Reserve’s leadership as overly male, almost entirely white and drawn too frequently from the banking community.

The composition of Federal Reserve leadership has also received criticism from Democratic elected officials who say the institution doesn’t adequately reflect the demographics of the nation it is meant to serve.

New York Fed President William Dudley told the meeting Thursday that the Fed’s record on diversity has been “pretty lousy.” His counterpart from the Minneapolis Fed, Neel Kashkari, said that “we have made progress and can make more progress.”

A recent paper by the Brookings Institution noted that of the 134 different presidents of regional Fed banks in history, none has been Hispanic or African-American. Ms. Yellen is the central bank’s first female leader, and she and Federal Reserve governor Lael Brainard are two of only nine women to serve on the Fed’s board in its history. Currently, two of the Fed’s 12 regional banks—Cleveland and Kansas City—have female presidents.

The central bankers at Thursday’s meeting expressed support for the issues that Fed Up questioners raised. However they also argued that the Fed’s main goal should be avoiding another recession and promoting maximum employment and price stability.

Vice Chairman Stanley Fischer praised the group for setting up the discussions, but he called on the activists to research the issues that confront the communities involved.

“When you get the facts, when you get the analysis, you can make a difference. When you speak about how bad the problem is it’s a much less effective tool,” the former Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor said.

Write to Harriet Torry at harriet.torry@wsj.com

Corrections & Amplifications:

U.S. Federal Reserve officials argued that the central bank’s main goal should be avoiding another recession and promoting maximum employment and price stability. An earlier version of this article incorrectly said they argued that the goal should include promoting maximum unemployment. [Aug. 26]

By Harriet Torry

Source

Executive Summary

The story of the economic recovery varies dramatically depending on where it is being told. On Wall Street, big banks look stronger, bigger, and healthier than ever. Large companies are making record profits. But, the labor market remains weak. Although the economy has added more jobs in recent months, job growth on Main Street is not nearly as robust as during previous recoveries.[i] Unemployment rates in nearly every state remain above pre-recession levels. Wages have been stagnant or falling for most workers and the quality of jobs has decreased significantly. Main Street still has no clear route to prosperity.

Dowload the report now.

Many communities are disproportionately struggling in this economy. The Latino unemployment rate is more than 2 percent higher than the rate for whites, and Latino wages and wealth are considerably lower than whites. Women continue to earn substantially less than men. This paper focuses on the economic disparities facing the African-American community in particular because the economic crisis is most acute there: African-American unemployment rates continue to exceed the national unemployment rates at the height of the recession, Black workers’ wages have dropped $0.44 over the past 15 years, though Latino and white wages have risen by $0.48 and $0.45, respectively; unemployment rates among African Americans are higher than those of other racial or ethnic groups; and, though Latino and white wealth has stabilized since the Great Recession, Black wealth continues to shrink. So, while Main Street may be stabilizing (albeit at a lower standard), the recovery has yet to reach Martin Luther King Boulevard. Creating a strong American economy must include prioritizing a genuine recovery for the African American community.

This joint report of the Center for Popular Democracy and the Economic Policy Institute examines the current state of the American economy and labor market, with particular attention to racial inequality and its contours before, during, and in aftermath of the Great Recession. It describes the role that federal monetary policy has played in exacerbating economic disparities over recent decades -- the shrinking national income share for working America and the exploding income and wealth gaps between the top 1 percent and the rest of us. The paper further explores the consequences of the major policy decision currently facing the Federal Reserve (or the Fed): whether to prioritize genuine full employment or to avoid inflation at the cost of robust employment and wage gains. Only by pursuing genuine full employment will the Fed ensure that the recovery reaches Main Street and Martin Luther King Boulevard – and communities of working people throughout the country. As the Fed makes crucial monetary policy decisions in the months and years to come, it must ensure that all communities can share in the prosperity of a functional economy.

The report also studies the decision-making processes and bodies of the Federal Reserve. Although the Board members that govern the regional Federal Reserve banks are legally required to represent the broad interests of the public, they are, in fact, predominantly representatives of the financial sector or large corporations. Without governance that represents the full diversity of the public, Fed decisions risk remaining uninformed by the full economic reality they create, as experienced in communities throughout the country. The Federal Reserve’s focus over the past 35 years has been on price stability, or tamping down inflation. While this focus is good for Wall Street, it has resulted in wage stagnation for most workers on Main Street.  The cost of this focus has been slow recoveries in labor markets after each downturn. America needs the Federal Reserve to concentrate on labor market stability and insure that wages are rising with productivity, so that workers reap the benefits from their efficiencies and hard work; that means prioritizing a wage growth target, rather than inflation. A Federal Reserve dominated by banks and major corporations will produce an economy that works for them, at the risk of leaving tens of millions of working families – particularly Black working families – with little hope of a better life.

The report recommends that the Fed:

Create a Strong & Fair Economy

Stimulate Good Jobs for All: The Federal Reserve should commit to building a full employment economy. It should keep interest rates low so that the numbers job openings and job seekers are balanced and everybody who wants to can find a good job.

Invest in the Real Economy: The Fed should use its existing legal authority to provide low- and zero-interest loans so that cities and states can invest in public works projects like renewable energy generation, public transit, and affordable housing that will create good new jobs.

Research for the Public Good: The Fed should study the harmful effects of inequality and examine how policies like raising the minimum wage and guaranteeing a fair workweek can strengthen the economy and expand the middle class.

Create a More Transparent & Democratic Federal Reserve

Ensure That Working Families’ Voices Are Heard: Fed officials should regularly meet with working families and community leaders, not just business executives, in order to get a more accurate picture of how the economy is working.

Represent the Public: In regional banks around the country, Fed leaders come overwhelmingly from financial institutions and major corporations. The Fed should appoint genuine representatives of the public interest to these governance positions.

Create a Legitimate Process for Selecting Fed Presidents: In late 2015 and early 2016, the regional Fed banks will select their next presidents, who will serve five year terms. Currently, the process for selecting those presidents is completely opaque and involves no public input. That needs to change, so that the public has a real role in the selection process.

Dowload the report now.

[i] Dean Baker, “257,000 Jobs Are Great, but Those Wall Street Boys Are Really Smart” (blog post), Center for Economic and Policy Research, February 6, 2015, http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/257000-jobs-are-great....

Last Updated April 21, 2015.