Fed Up Condemns Trump Nomination to Federal Reserve
07.10.17
NEW YORK – In...
07.10.17
NEW YORK – In response to the White House’s nomination of Randal Quarles to the Federal Reserve as Vice Chair for Supervision, Jordan Haedtler, Campaign Manager for the Fed Up coalition, released the following statement:
“Throughout his career, self-described ‘Wall Street lawyer' Randal Quarles has looked out for his banker clients at the expense of America’s hard-working families.
After the financial crisis took a devastating toll on our country, Daniel Tarullo and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors implemented regulations to protect consumers from Wall Street excesses and facilitated job recovery by keeping interest rates low. Quarles stood against crucial decisions like these that helped working families, and he was proven wrong.
Quarles is on record opposing the Volcker Rule, which is meant to prevent banks from gambling with depositors’ money. During the Bush administration, Quarles negotiated trade agreements that blocked countries from regulating derivatives and other instruments that caused the crash. And after returning to the private sector, Quarles held private equity up as a solution to avoid government bailouts. He then took advantage of relaxed restrictions on private equity ownership to purchase a failing bank, and had the FDIC pay 80% of that bank’s losses.
We are also very concerned about Quarles’ monetary policy views. He enthusiastically supports the adoption of a Taylor Rule by the Fed, which would deprioritize full employment and put monetary policy decisions on autopilot. If Quarles had his way and the Fed strictly followed a Taylor Rule over the past five years, economists estimate that 2.5 million fewer jobs would have been created.
Trump claims that his highest priority is jobs, but Quarles’ regulatory and monetary record show that he would destroy jobs, not create them.We urge the Senate to press Quarles on all of these troubling positions, and to oppose his confirmation.”
### www.thepeoplesfed.org
Fed Up is a coalition of community organizations, labor unions, and policy experts across the country calling on the Federal Reserve to reform its governance and adopt policies that build a strong economy for the American public. By keeping interest rates low and prioritizing genuine full employment, the Fed gives the economy a fair chance to recover and allows wages to grow across all communities.
Contact: Shawn Sebastian, Fed Up co-director, ssebastian@populardemocracy.org, 515.451.8773
El premio de la diáspora boricua
El premio de la diáspora boricua
“En el noreste, grupos de poder inmigrante como Make the Road, afiliadas al Center for Popular Democracy, organizan a estas comunidades en Nueva York, Connecticut, Pensilvania y Nueva Jersey para...
“En el noreste, grupos de poder inmigrante como Make the Road, afiliadas al Center for Popular Democracy, organizan a estas comunidades en Nueva York, Connecticut, Pensilvania y Nueva Jersey para crear un poder amplio en las minorías de esa parte de los EE.UU. Por otro lado, se han formado coaliciones nacionales como Power4Puerto Rico, que agrupan a muchos de estos grupos, incluyendo al Hispanic Federation, para cabildear por políticas públicas que tendrán un impacto directo en los puertorriqueños viviendo en la diáspora.
Lea el artículo completo aquí.
Quit Your Job and Go to Work
This spring, Michanne was striding out of a San Francisco apartment lobby in her...
This spring, Michanne was striding out of a San Francisco apartment lobby in her Google Express jacket, fresh off delivering a mirror. Her van beckoned at the curb. It was branded in Google’s playful primary colors and logo, and on the side was the image of a package getting dropped from a parachute, easy-peasy. Michanne’s job was to make same-day, seamless deliveries of bottled water and kitty litter for Google Express, but she doesn’t actually work for Google Express — not directly, anyway. If you looked carefully, just below the van door, a few small, gray letters spelled out something most people didn’t realize: this vehicle wasn’t Google’s after all. It belonged to a company called 1–800Courier.
That day had actually been a good one. Michanne, who is 27, had worked the full eight hour shift that she’d been scheduled by 1–800Courier — one of several companies that delivers for Google Express in the Bay Area, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, and New York City. But full days like that were becoming rare. (She didn’t want to use her last name for privacy reasons.)
When I called her back a month later and asked her to rate her job from 1 to 10, she was more upfront about her level of annoyance: “If 1 is a nightmare, I’m like a 1.5.” In fact, she’d quit.
Her complaint came down to this: she says 1–800Courier had verbally assured her full-time work when she started with the company back in October. It was a paycheck the new mother was counting on, one that didn’t leave her time to work another job. And in the company’s scheduling app she was technically scheduled for 40 hours a week for weeks in advance.
Yet, increasingly, her actual hours were decided the day of work. Michanne had to check her email an hour and a half before her first shift started to see if she would actually get to work the hours she’d been allotted. Many times she did not. She was a supposedly full-time employee who was, effectively, on-call. She’d put aside the day so she could work, but when it turned out they didn’t need her, that meant no work — and no pay.
In April, an email plunked into Michanne’s inbox, describing what she says was business as usual:
Even when she got the go-ahead to turn up for the day, Michanne’s shifts would often be cut once she was already at work. Around 5 p.m., as she ate in her van during an hour-long meal break, she would frequently get a call from the dispatcher, telling her to go home early without working her scheduled second shift. She’d still get paid something— California law mandates payment of between two hour and four hours of “reporting time” depending on the length of a cancelled shift. But it was still a huge issue: Although she was expected to be on-call for 40 hours a week, shift changes meant she was regularly dipping down to 25 hours of paid work, and even once as low as 17 hours, she recalls. At $13 an hour, she was hoping for $520 of work each week — but 17 hours is just $221.
Google pointed questions towards its contractor, which manages all scheduling for its deliveries. 1–800Courier’s California Director of Operations David Finney said that across the industry, the delivery business slows down after the holidays. “I personally empathize with that,” he said about employees whose hours get cut. “But at the same time, look at any industry in the state of California — especially in the service industry — and some days it’s just like ‘Hey, we’re sorry, we don’t need you to come in.’”
Another employee of 1–800Courier, who asked to remain anonymous so as to not irk the company, says the scheduling problems were sometimes bad for the company, too. Back in January and February, when business seemed especially slow, this worker would clock in and sit in the delivery car near the hub for hours, waiting to be dispatched. “I’d have movies picked out to watch, I got a pillow and took naps, and had stuff I wanted to read and write. I’m getting paid to do nothing. But I wouldn’t call
[dispatch] and say, ‘I need a route.’ It didn’t bother me at all.”
What did bother the Netflix-watching worker was this: more than 10 times during seven months on the job, their first shift was cut while it was already happening. But the worker was booked on to a second shift, and was made to wait around until that started. Since driving the vehicle back to the parking lot in Silicon Valley from the San Francisco dispatch hub would eat up most of the time, the worker would often drive to the movies or the mall in the city to kill time until the second shift. (The worker once got written up for taking the vehicle to Safeway during that time — saying they expected employees to just wait in the vehicle for the next shift, or drive it back to the Silicon Valley lot.)
The complaint is echoed by another former 1–800Courier worker who recently quit: “I was really getting irritated. They said ‘it’s not as high demand right now, we don’t have a lot of orders coming through, so we’re cutting the hours.’” A couple times, while the worker was in a carpool on the way to work, the dispatcher would call and say, “Oh, we removed you from the 12–5 window, you can just work for 5:30 to 10. I’d just go home and say ‘Remove me from the last window.’” The current driver says things have picked up lately, especially after a major lay-off of drivers in March that has given those who remain more work to do. 1-800's David Finney wouldn’t confirm a layoff, but said drivers are now regularly working overtime hours.
The whole idea behind the on-demand economy — touch-of-a-button delivery, often guaranteed within minutes — creates the potential for a sudden rush or dearth of customers at any moment. So how does a company make sure that the right amount of workers are around at the moment it needs them to be?
You’d think that this is something that Google, the emperor of analytics, might be able to figure out. But the company it had chosen to organize the deliveries, 1–800Courier, had not. Sometimes workers lucked out and watched movies in their cars, but more often they suffered for their employer’s failure. There may have been an abundance of employees scheduled for shifts, but ultimately the people were just as on-demand as the Costco kitty litter they delivered.
Outside of Silicon Valley, American labor is looking a lot like this already. The old, sanctified status of “employee” is getting egged in the face. The days of blue-collar job, suburban tract home, Disney vacay, and pension awaiting at the end of the 9–5 rainbow looks like a curious blip on the way to a more profit-maximized, capitalist future. It’s the age of the precariat: unions are nearly kaput, many will only know pensions from history books, and most “at will” workers can be fired as easily as Uber can kick its drivers off the app. Now many old titans of industry have latched onto this idea of on-call shift work — which many call “just-in-time scheduling,” — a grayish labor abuse tailored for the age of the text message that has lawmakers hustling to curb it.
Since the recession, millions of workers have taken part-time gigs when they’d prefer to have full-time ones — especially in hospitality and retail. And those part-time jobs increasingly jerk the workers around: In a University of Chicago study of young workers in hourly jobs, 41 percent said they got their shifts a week or less in advance. It gets worse from there: as a recent story in Harper’s Magazine laid out, companies use software to track customer flow down to the minute; resulting in managers who ask workers to be on call for work shifts, or clock out while on the job and hang around without pay during slow times to see if the workflow will pick up. Sarah Leberstein is a senior staff attorney from the National Employment Law Project, which has been monitoring the hellish scheduling practices. “The companies want to unload all the flexibility onto the workers, but workers can’t afford to live in such a state of flux.”
This spring, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sent letters to 13 national retailers including Urban Outfitters to Target to Gap to Sears, questioning them about using software tracking systems and whether they made employees get the go-ahead for work less than a day before a shift:
Re: Request for Information Regarding “on call shifts”
Our office has received reports that a growing number of employers, particularly in the retail industry, require their hourly workers to work what are sometimes known as “on call shifts” — that is, requiring their employees to call in to work just a few hours in advance, or the night before, to determine whether the worker needs to appear for work that day or the next. If the employee is told that his or her services are not needed, the employee will receive no pay for that day, despite being required to be available to appear on the job site the next day or even just a few hours later on the same day. For many workers, that is too little time to make arrangements for family needs, let alone to find an alternative source of income to compensate for the lost pay.
If “just-in-time scheduling” sounds a whole lot like on-demand work, that’s because it is.
It’s not just in America that this practice is increasing. In Europe, it’s called the “zero hour” job — you’re promised work, but guaranteed nothing. And these contracts have been causing controversy in Britain ever since the financial crisis, which saw a dramatic rise in the number of just-in-time jobs as employers offloaded their risks onto the workforce. Today, almost 2 million jobs in the U.K. are now on-call. In some cases, workers are denied the benefits of full-time employees, or are prevented from finding other paying gigs without the permission of their employer — even if that employer cancels all of their shifts.
And it’s not just service industry jobs: zero hours have spread into other areas of the British economy, too. Recent figures suggest 13 percent of all healthcare workers and 10 percent of all education jobs are now in the same kind of hole that Michanne found herself in. (Finney from 1–800 said he does not consider the company’s scheduling to fall into the “just-in-time” trend.)
“The writing on the wall is we’re going to see more of an Uber and Lyft approach to workforce management in more industries,” says Carrie Gleason from the Center for Popular Democracy, a Brooklyn-based labor and social justice nonprofit. “You can see that in the just-in-time scheduling — you only want to pay for people when they’re doing the most productive work. The cost of doing business is put on the worker, so any time they’re not producing a car fare or a retail sale, it’s the worker paying for that time, not the company.”
On-demand companies pitch themselves as ultimate disrupters, breaking free of stuffy, old-world straitjackets of work. For many companies in this exploding area, there are no zero hour jobs — because the jobs have no set hours at all. The workers are independent contractors, not employees, and, at many companies, can log into work when they choose. In fact, Silicon Valley’s Chief Optimism Officer, Marc Andreessen — the venture capitalist who is funding Lyft and Instacart to build our app-based freelancer future —recently waved away a reporter’s comment about the precarious app workers in the New Yorker:“Maybe there’s an alternate way of living,” he said. “A free-form life where you press the button and get work when you want to.”
It also saves companies payroll taxes, wages, benefits — and the headache of scheduling workers. (“What other job out there can you just turn it on when you want to start and off when you want to stop — whenever you feel like it?” asked Uber CEO Travis Kalanick in his five-year company anniversaryspeech last week.)
“Uber doesn’t care if 100 or 200 are reporting to work because Uber will get the same percentage of the fare” says Leberstein, the National Employment Law Project attorney. “They’re shifting the burden of deciding whether there’s enough work onto the workers.” Many companies go so far as to give drivers a weekly breakdown on the most high-earning hours — in fact, there are entire apps dedicated to helping workers track that for themselves.
Companies claim these freedom-loving toilers will flee the moment they’re pinned down by shifts or bureaucracy. Their own internal studies suggest this is true: one Uber-commissioned poll of drivers showed more than 70 percent preferred to be their own boss rather than work a 9-to-5. About 50 percent of Lyft’s drivers drive five hours a week or less. A survey by the Freelancer’s Union found 42 percent went freelance to have more flexibility in their schedule.
“If everybody has to work a certain amount of hours, then it would put the model at risk because then it would be a very rigid model,” says Pascal Levy-Garboua, the head of business at Checkr, and organizer of a conference about the on-demand economy held in San Francisco last month. He has driven for Lyft in the past anywhere from 10 to 20 hours a week to see how it works for himself — then goes months without driving at all. “That would be the opposite of on-demand. Demand and supply are elastic, and the model works because there’s an equilibrium. If supply” — the industry’s term for what the rest of the world usually calls “workers” — “is not elastic, the model breaks.”
Yet a survey of more than 1,000 workers released last month by Requests for Startups, a tech-booster newsletter, popped a hole in what had been the great selling point of contract work in the new economy:
Work hours are demand-dependent despite the touted schedule flexibility. Although schedule flexibility is the #1 stated reason for joining a company as a contractor, ‘Peak hours / demand’ ranked highest amongst influencers of their work schedules, with nearly 50% selecting it as a very important influencer (‘My Family’ was the 2nd highest at 35%). This influence is particularly glaring when comparing current vs. ideal hours of ridesharing respondents, whose responses suggest that their ideal working hours aren’t too far off from the traditional 9–5.
Among the top reasons for leaving the job were insufficient pay (43 percent) and — spoiler alert for industry cheerleaders — insufficient flexibility (26 percent). In short, while the apps may be good for people who have another job and merely want to pad their income, if workers want to make a living on these apps, they actually have little flexibility — they need to work full-time or more, and they better be signed into work during the peak times.
The on-demand workplace is not one-size-fits-all: while complete flexibility works well for driving services with a 24-hour demand and a ready stable of drivers, companies dependent on burritos and Thai take-out reaching hungry customers have to be a bit more organized about who is on hand at meal times.
To get around this problem, many companies have started doing to their independent contractors exactly what 1-800Courier does to its employees: schedule them onto shifts.
At Postmates, an on-demand food delivery company, contractors sign up the week before for shifts in down-to-the-hour increments — those who confirm their availability are offered potential jobs first, meaning they can end up making substantially more than those hopping on the app to work spontaneously. As further motivation, Postmates also guarantees couriers who sign up for shifts a minimum of $15 an hour on weekends — if their jobs don’t add up to that, Postmates will pay them directly.
Scheduling contractors is a legally gray thing to do — since shifts are one of the IRS’ criteria in determining that a worker is an employee. (Indeed, Postmates, like many companies, is currently facing a lawsuit over classifying the couriers as contractors.)
Postmates says they aren’t shifts, exactly: workers aren’t bound to the hours they pre-select — they could just not sign into the app during the shift. Yet there are consequences. If they miss five of their allotted hours in a week, they’ll be suspended from work for 48 hours, as this email forwarded by one courier warns:
In order to avoid banishment, Postmates contractors ask for swaps on the app, much like employees have to do when they can’t make a shift.
And, like ridesharing companies, Postmates has another mechanism to get unscheduled contractors out on the road during peak times: its own surge-pricing model called “blitzes.” While the courier’s take of the delivery fee always stays the same —80 percent — blitzes increase that fee two or even three times the usual amount.
Postmates also polices the workers once signed in: one courier in New York City who asked not to be named (he didn’t want to get kicked off the app) showed me texts from the company: sometimes Postmates asks him why he’s not accepting more jobs, sometimes it commands him to stop only accepting jobs that he determines will be worth his time, and sometimes it suspends him temporarily from the app entirely. A Postmates spokeswoman says the real-time texts are aimed at getting feedback on why certain jobs aren’t attractive to couriers.
The take-away: as traditional jobs are looking more on-demand, on-demand contractor ones aren’t looking as flexible as they claim.
So where does that leave us? Employment and contractor labor models already seem to be converging at some sort of semi-flexible purgatory.
In the eyes of those who cry that companies like Uber or Lyft or Postmates are getting rich off exploiting a labor loophole — blithely skipping out of paying wages, benefits, and expenses like gas because they classify workers as freelancers—companies like 1–800Courier are actually playing the good guy. (Or at least the less evil guy.) The company has official employees which it pays $12.50 to $13 an hour, plus worker’s comp, overtime, and expenses, including gas and the occasional parking ticket.
“I do want to go on the record to say we try really hard to do right by our employees,” Finney from 1–800Courier says. “We’re not going to pass that cost onto someone else so we can save a buck… We’re practically one of the only companies in the state of California that uses the employee model. It’s the right thing to do, and, in the long run, it will be the best solution because we’ll be able to provide the best service because we have employees. With independent contractors, there’s a lot of control you give up because you can’t tell independent contractors what to do.”
Still, 1–800Courier's own problems show that employers in the on-demand economy have to be adept at managing their workflow. Otherwise they’ll lose money on wasted labor when there’s low demand, or be caught short when there’s a sudden surge.
This is not impossible. Already some on-demand companies claim to have figured it out.
One vocal proponent of employees in the industry is Managed by Q’s CEO Dan Teran, who has written about the decision to employ its workers to clean and manage offices in New York City. Their workers get to choose their work days and receive a steady schedule, and the company books them at worksites that are on convenient subway routes from their home or other job sites. Still, the company gets off easy since most of the workflow is pre-determined and consistent week to week.
The San Francisco food service Munchery has been also held up as one of the good guys in the new push-button delivery business — one of a short list that employs its couriers. One San Francisco bike messenger named Jennifer told me Munchery pays $18-an-hour plus tips from a collective tip pool — much higher than minimum wage. Still, Munchery experienced its own trip-ups. Jennifer told me that after she started working for them at the beginning of the year, there were too many messengers working the four-and-a-half hour dinner delivery window. “They were just sitting around waiting. I was told that it had been really slow for many months,” she says.
Around the end of January, Jennifer says Munchery laid off 11 bike messengers. (CEO Tri Tran would not give details of the company’s staffing, but says the layoffs were not a huge correction considering the size of his payroll: “Ten people we need to shift around — that’s a very small number for the workforce we have.”) Munchery also gets out ahead of its demand by putting parameters on how instantaneously “on-demand” it can be: outside of San Francisco’s city limits, you have to have ordered dinner by 2:00 in the afternoon, and choose an hour-long delivery window.
The workflow problems seem to be resolved for now. Since the layoffs, Jennifer says she’s delivered a steady flow of meals with little loafing.
Still, Munchery has a strong advantage: people generally eat dinner at a predictable time. Consistency is a harder promise in truly in-the-moment businesses, like Uber and Lyft, Postmates, or Google Express. How can employees ever be scheduled with perfect accuracy in those businesses? Does an hourly employee have to work rigid shifts?
Shannon Liss-Riordan is a Boston-based labor attorney suing many on-demand companies over their attempts to classify workers as contractors. She says flexible shifts aren’t incompatible with employee status: “That’s total BS. Employees can have flexible work schedules, employers are doing that all the time. All of these arguments being made are real red herrings that they’re trying to throw out there. It’s part of the whole ‘Oh, the workers love this, because they love the flexibility.’ You can give them flexibility, andpay their worker’s comp. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.” She cites one precedent-setting California case about cucumber growers who were found in California Supreme Court to be employees, even though they could set their own hours.
Of course, salaried, white-collar workers — who can call their own shots and rarely earn overtime — often have a great deal in flexibility at work. That’s harder for employees getting paid by the hour. Could part-time employees log in and out of work willy nilly, paid by the hours they actually work? Highly unlikely. If companies have to pony up for the workers, there’s little benefit to them for allowing workers to come and go as they please. Shelby Clark, executive director of Peers, which helps on-demand workers find and manage their workload, has done some back-of-the-envelope calculations on the base cost of having employees. Companies only start recovering their employee costs if workers are putting in a baseline of hours, but not overtime, “so you’d probably have a floor and a cap [on hours], and then not more than eight hours a day. You’d start to see a lot of constraints that defeat why people work in the sharing economy.”
That’s exactly what the disgruntled New York City Postmates courier told me. Despite getting pestered by texts to accept more jobs and bad tips, he explained why he stayed: “The only thing I like about this job is the freedom and flexibility.” Take away that, and he’d do what companies fear the most, especially as the competition for these workers grows: he’d never sign in for work again.
Which was exactly what Michanne at 1-800Courier did, after being forced to be flexible when she wanted stable work. In late April, she quit. Ironically, even though she was an employee, her reasons for leaving were the same as all those on-demand workers who were surveyed: lack of flexibility and low pay. She now works at a car dealership, 9-to-6.
It appears 1–800, on the other hand, is only ramping up. In the last month, the company has blanketed Craigslist with job ads for Google Express drivers to deliver for a “new upscale concierge service,” “a really cool company” to deliver retail items to homes and businesses around Silicon Valley. “It makes me wonder why they fired all those people, if they’re just going turn around and hire more,” the current employee told me while sitting in her van waiting
for a second shift to begin last week. “Just so you can fire everyone again?”
Among the listed perks in the ad? “Stable schedules” and “multiple shift choices.”
Source: Mic
New York immigration activists criticize Schumer for deal to reopen government
New York immigration activists criticize Schumer for deal to reopen government
Before 81 senators, including 33 Democrats, voted on Monday to reopen the federal government, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer blamed President Donald Trump in a speech on the Senate...
Before 81 senators, including 33 Democrats, voted on Monday to reopen the federal government, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer blamed President Donald Trump in a speech on the Senate floor for his refusal to compromise on an immigration deal.
For many liberals in his home state, however, Schumer is to blame for being too willing to compromise, since he agreed to reopen the government without a permanent solution for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
Read the full article here.
Mayoral Hopefuls Cool to Plan to Lift Up Low-Wage Workers
Labor Press - February 13, 2013, by Marc Bussanich - While the city’s economy has been recuperating from the Great Recession, low-wage workers in the city face enormous difficulties in making ends...
Labor Press - February 13, 2013, by Marc Bussanich - While the city’s economy has been recuperating from the Great Recession, low-wage workers in the city face enormous difficulties in making ends meet in one of the nation’s most expensive cities. A new report, Workers Rising, reveals policy decisions the next mayoral administration can make to improve conditions and pay for low-wage workers.
Presented at a symposium on low-wage worker organizing at the Murphy Institute, the authors of the report, UnitedNY and The Center for Popular Democracy, write that the city should raise standards by guaranteeing at least five days of paid sick leave. The city should also regulate high-violation industries, establish a Mayor’s Office of Labor Standards to investigate complaints by workers and pass a resolution that’ll allow the city to pass a higher minimum wage than the state.
According to the report, the city’s economy is shedding living wage jobs, but is adding low-wage, service sector jobs such as restaurants (42,000) and retail trade (27,000).
Prince Jackson works as a security officer for the Air Serv Corporation at Kennedy airport and is part of a committee of security officers organizing for better pay and the appropriate equipment to do their jobs that ensures the safety of passengers.
He worked all night, but said it was important for him to be at the event.
“I’m very tired, but I will do anything that I can do to raise the standards for my fellow workers at the airport.”
Alterique Hall is a retail worker who said he’s behind his rent because he’s paid very low wages.
“It’s difficult. Some days I just want to lie down and cry because I’m being paid and treated poorly. We need to fight for higher wages to better our futures,” said Hall.
A car wash worker who worked for seven years at a carwash owned by John Lage in SoHo, owner of multiple carwashes throughout the city, will soon be laid off because Lage is selling the property to a developer. The workers at the SoHo facility voted to join the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union in November, but Lage said the property was up for sale before the election.
Council Member Gale Brewer welcomed the proposal to create a local office for labor standards.
“All the other cities and states that have paid sick leave have such an office. Right now, the only way to get a complaint on many of these issues is on a complaint-by-complaint basis. There isn’t currently any organization; the state doesn’t have enough staff. You need a local office that will be a partner with the employee and employer to come up with safe standards,” Brewer said.
Also joining Ms. Brewer were two mayoral hopefuls—Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and former comptroller and 2009 mayoral candidate, William Thompson. They both said they support the movement to help low-wage workers, but they did not say they would enact the authors’ proposals if elected mayor.
Source
Detener los préstamos de día de pago es apenas el inicio
Detener los préstamos de día de pago es apenas el inicio
En los últimos años, se han incrementado las críticas contra los préstamos de día de pago por explotar a los prestatarios de bajos ingresos y atraparlos en un ciclo de endeudamiento. El problema...
En los últimos años, se han incrementado las críticas contra los préstamos de día de pago por explotar a los prestatarios de bajos ingresos y atraparlos en un ciclo de endeudamiento. El problema ha alcanzado tal magnitud, que este verano, la Oficina de Protección Financiera del Consumidor (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau o CFPB) propuso nuevas normas para acabar con las prácticas más abusivas en este sector.
Sin embargo, los prestamistas de día de pago no son los únicos que lucran con las dificultades de las comunidades de bajos ingresos al otorgarles préstamos engañosos que a menudo hacen que la gente termine con deudas abrumadoras. De hecho, esas prácticas orientadas a grupos de bajos ingresos se han vuelto comunes en muchos sectores económicos, desde préstamos hipotecarios hasta financiamiento para estudios universitarios.
Durante décadas, prácticas discriminatorias en ciertos vecindarios les negaron a las personas de color acceso a préstamos hipotecarios, cuentas de banco y otros servicios importantes. Hoy en día, se hace lo mismo con esquemas engañosos de préstamo que les niegan a mujeres negras y latinas la oportunidad de una vida mejor.
Un informe reciente subraya el impacto que dichas prácticas han tenido en las mujeres de color. Entre otros datos alarmantes, el informe indica que 6 de cada 10 clientes de préstamos de día de pago son mujeres, que la probabilidad de que las mujeres de raza negra reciban un préstamo con tasa no preferencial es 256% más alta que la de hombres blancos de las mismas características y que las mujeres de color terminan pagando deudas estudiantiles durante mucho más tiempo que los hombres. El estudio, encargado por la Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment, New Jersey Communities United e Isaiah, un grupo religioso en Minnesota, también prueba que las prácticas agresivas en préstamos, desde aquellos contra el cheque de pago hasta hipotecas con tasas altas, han aumentado considerablemente en años recientes. Muchos estudios han demostrado que se manipula a prestatarios con una buena historia crediticia, particularmente mujeres negras y latinas, para que saquen préstamos con intereses altos incluso cuando reúnen los requisitos para tasas más bajas.
Las mujeres de color son vulnerables a prestamistas de dudosa reputación debido a que el racismo y sexismo del sistema de por sí pone a muchas mujeres en una posición económica precaria. Cada vez más, se ha empujado a las mujeres a aceptar trabajos con poco control y paga. En la fuerza laboral con sueldos bajos predomina la mujer, y la brecha salarial entre los sexos afecta mucho más a las mujeres de color. En el año 2014, las mujeres de raza negra ganaban 63% de los ingresos de hombres blancos, y las latinas, 54%. Muchas mujeres de color, estancadas en empleos con poca paga, horarios imprevisibles y pocas oportunidades de superarse, se ven forzadas a sacar préstamos simplemente para subsistir o tratar de mejorar su desesperada situación.
Durante demasiado tiempo, se ha permitido que proliferen los préstamos usurarios y otras prácticas empresariales que les niegan oportunidades a comunidades y explotan a los más vulnerables en términos económicos. El mes pasado, la Consumer Financial Protection Bureau comenzó a tomar medidas contra los préstamos de día de pago o garantizados con títulos de propiedad de autos, pero es necesario hacer más. Las entidades normativas deben asegurarse de que todos los préstamos tomen en cuenta la capacidad del prestatario de pagar la deuda y de que los prestamistas no vayan en pos de los menos protegidos desproporcionadamente y traten de lucrar con ellos.
Las normas para préstamos de día de pago del mes pasado muestran claramente un ímpetu en combatir los préstamos cada vez más abusivos de los banqueros. Estas normas son un paso en la dirección correcta, pero no van suficientemente lejos. Estamos avanzando, pero queda mucho por hacer para asegurar que no se explote a las mujeres negras y latinas con esta versión de discriminación del siglo XXI.
Por Marbre Stahly-Butts
Source
Jackson Hole Demonstrators Rally Against Rate Hike
Associated Press - August 22, 2014, by Matthew Brown — Shadowing central bankers and economists at the annual Federal Reserve conference here, a group of about 10 demonstrators pressed Fed Chair...
Associated Press - August 22, 2014, by Matthew Brown — Shadowing central bankers and economists at the annual Federal Reserve conference here, a group of about 10 demonstrators pressed Fed Chair Janet Yellen not to yield to pressure to raise interest rates.
Carrying placards and green T-shirts embossed with the slogan "What recovery?" they said they'd come from New York, Missouri, Minnesota and elsewhere to draw attention to people left behind by the recovery and still unable to find work.
One demonstrator approached Yellen to press his point as she prepared to enter the opening reception Thursday night. With security guards hovering nearby, the two shook hands and spoke for about a minute before Yellen entered the closed-door gathering.
Yellen spokesman Doug Tillett said her staff would seek to arrange a meeting between the chair and the demonstrators back in Washington.
Their message was generally in sync with Yellen's stance since she became Fed chair in February to keep rates low to help support a still-subpar economy. In a speech to the conference Friday, Yellen noted that while the unemployment rate has steadily dropped, other gauges of the U.S. job market have been harder to evaluate and may reflect continued weakness.
The timing of a Fed rate increase remains unclear, though many economists foresee an increase by mid-2015.
The demonstrators, including several who said they were unemployed or had settled for low-wage jobs, said they'd traveled here to encourage Yellen not to give in to those who say rates must be increased to avoid causing high inflation or other financial instability.
The demonstrator who approached Yellen before the opening reception was Ady Barkan of a group called the Center for Popular Democracy in New York.
"She said she understood what we were saying and that they were doing everything they can," Barkan said Friday. "We'd like them to do more."
He argued that the Fed should lower its target for unemployment and factor in whether wages are rising consistently before making any move to raise rates.
Tillett, the Yellen spokesman, said, "We're certainly willing to meet with them and hear what they have to say."
Asked whether there were security concerns in having demonstrators approach Yellen and seek to buttonhole other conference attendees, Tillett said, "We appreciate their freedom of expression."
The demonstrators also met before the event with Esther George, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, which sponsors the Jackson Hole event. Later, they managed to corner Fed Vice Chair Stanley Fischer during a break in the proceedings.
"We're not in recovery," Cee Cee Butler, a 34-year-old mother of two from Washington, D.C., told Fischer. "It may be fine on Wall Street, but on my streets, it's not fine at all...There's a lot of homeless people that live in my city, a lot of children that panhandle quarters."
Butler said she works a minimum wage job at McDonald's and receives food stamps but still can't make ends meet. She said the trip to Wyoming — her first time aboard an airplane, she said — was paid for by donations from advocacy groups.
Another demonstrator, 42-year-old Kendra Brooks, told Fischer that she holds a master's degree in business administration but has seen her income drop by more than half since losing her job as a program director at a nonprofit about a year and a half ago.
Two weeks ago, Brooks said, she began working for Action United in Philadelphia, a community advocacy group. But it's not comparable to her former job, she said, and "is like starting from scratch."
"They heard what we said, but the outcome of that, in terms of interest rates, is still pending," Brooks said of the group's interactions with Yellen, George and Fischer. "This has been what my recovery looks like, and it's a nightmare."
Source
Puerto Ricans call for protest in Washington
Puerto Ricans call for protest in Washington
“Convened by the Power4Puerto Rico coalition, refugees and civic and union groups have organized a day of protests - which could include acts of civil disobedience - and visits to offices of...
“Convened by the Power4Puerto Rico coalition, refugees and civic and union groups have organized a day of protests - which could include acts of civil disobedience - and visits to offices of members of Congress, to mark the six-month anniversary of the worst catastrophe the Island has faced in a century. The events, which begin on Monday evening, will be headed on Tuesday by a protest in front of the headquarters of FEMA in Washington DC, said Samy Nemir Olivares, spokesman for the Center for Popular Democracy.”
Read the full article here.
When It Comes to Jobs, Fed Up With the Fed
The News & Observer - March 5, 2015, by Kevin Rogers - When the monthly jobs numbers come out Friday, many economists will say that the economy is healthy. Some will even say that wages are...
The News & Observer - March 5, 2015, by Kevin Rogers - When the monthly jobs numbers come out Friday, many economists will say that the economy is healthy. Some will even say that wages are rising too fast and that steps need to be taken to slow economic growth. But out in the real world, working families and particularly communities of color are being left drastically behind in the recovery.
The disconnect between the rich and the rest of us is only widening, and that is a real problem when the rich are making the decisions for everyone. For higher wages and more robust employment growth, we don’t need to limit ourselves to the usual discussions and the typical solutions. Rather, we should look in a new direction, to the Federal Reserve, for the necessary policy changes that will usher in real growth on Main Street, not just on Wall Street.
Most people don’t pay much attention to what the Fed does and how it does it, but the reality is that the decisions the Fed makes affect us all, every day.
There are two important ways the Federal Reserve can help:
▪ Ensure a monetary policy that delivers genuine full employment and rising wages for all working families. Raising interest rates in 2015 would be a catastrophic mistake. The American economy needs to see significantly more wage growth, not less.
▪ Provide a more transparent and inclusive approach to policymaking and governance. The Fed needs to listen to the voices of working families, not just banks and mega corporations.
Rampant and uneven unemployment can be measured in numbers, but it means that real-life opportunities fall further out of reach for working parents and that doors close on our children. It means that families are feeling the strain, and disenfranchisement is getting worse.
Permitting the economy to speed up significantly offers only upsides. A new report by the Center for Popular Democracy and the Economic Policy Institute finds that until nominal wages are rising by 3.5 to 4 percent, there is no threat that price inflation will meaningfully exceed the Fed’s low 2 percent inflation target. And such wage growth is necessary for workers to begin to reap the benefits of economic growth and to achieve a genuine recovery from the Great Recession.
Indeed, during the past three decades, it was only in the late 1990s, when the Federal Reserve permitted economic growth to speed up and the labor market to tighten, that workers across the economic spectrum, and in communities of color, saw genuine wage improvements.
As was true then, the Fed is not an innocent bystander in our economy, but an active participant. And yet, despite the clear economic disparities among our communities, voices inside the Fed are now saying that the economy is healthy and that the Fed should tamp down growth so that wages stop rising so quickly.
Although the board members that govern the regional Federal Reserve banks are legally required to represent the broad interests of the public, they mostly represent the financial sector or large corporations – they live very different lives from us, and they don’t take our experiences to the boardroom.
The Fed’s decisions are distant from communities that struggle the most in this economy and simply do not reflect the full diversity of the public it is supposed to represent. This explains why board members have produced an economy that works for them. Millions of working families are left with little hope of a better life.
It is no wonder that supporters of higher wages and fuller employment from across the country are turning up the heat on out-of-touch policies and practices coming from the Fed. Regular families should not be shut out the Fed policymaking process. Instead, they should be at the very core of it.
Source
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article12716264.html#storylink...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.
2 days ago
3 days ago