The End of On-Call Scheduling?
Retailers have been under intense pressure from labor groups, regulators, and ...
Retailers have been under intense pressure from labor groups, regulators, and their own employees to end on-call scheduling—the practice in which shift workers are called to work on short notice, and are often uncompensated if it turns out to be a slow day. On Friday, New York attorney-general Eric Schneiderman’s office announced that J.Crew will end on-call scheduling nationwide this month. The retailer joins Urban Outfitters, Abercrombie & Fitch, Bath & Body Works, Gap, and Victoria’s Secret, which all have announced changes since Schneiderman’s office launched an inquiry into the practice at over a dozen companies.
“After discussion with my office, J. Crew has agreed to end on-call shifts nationwide and to provide one week of advance notice about schedules to employees at all New York store locations,” said Schneiderman in a statement. “Workers deserve protections that allow them to have a reliable schedule in order to arrange for transportation to work, to accommodate child-care needs, and to budget their family finances.”
This is the sixth agreement Schneiderman has reached with a major retailer. In April, the New York attorney-general’s office sent letters to 13 retailers asking for information regarding their scheduling policies: “We have been informed that a number of companies in New York State utilize on-call shifts and require employees to report in some manner, whether by phone, text message, or email, before the designated shift in order to learn whether their services are ultimately needed on-site that day,” said the letter.
The letter expresses concern that the practice might be in violation of a state regulation that employees who report for work must be paid for at least four hours (or the number of hours in a regular shift) of work. It cites the financial and personal strains for workers without predictable schedules—from being unable to work another job or attend school, to the strains of finding childcare last minute. Further, a report by the Economic Policy Institute found that the lowest income workers face the most irregular work schedules.
A spokesperson for Gap Inc. confirmed that all five brands—The Gap, Banana Republic, Old Navy, Intermix, and Athleta—has phased out on-call scheduling globally by the end of September.* L Brand—the parent company for Victoria’s Secret and Bath & Body Works—also confirmed that they have ended the practice nationwide.
Gap is also working on a pilot project with Joan Williams, a professor and director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of Law, and Susan Lambert, a professor at the University of Chicago who studies scheduling issues, on new ways to stabilize worker schedules. Lambert’s researchfound that 64 percent of food-service workers and half of retail workers receive less than a week’s notice for shifts.
For now, the shift away from on-call scheduling seems to be only gaining momentum: Earlier this week, Forever 21 was hit with a lawsuit from a former employee over unpaid on-call scheduling. And, for the seven remaining companies that Schneiderman’s office contacted (the identities of which are unknown), such momentum may soon be overpowering.
Source: The Atlantic
Fed chair Jay Powell faces his first political test
“Some campaigners are critical of the Fed’s handling of the mis-selling scandal at Wells Fargo, which is headquartered in Mr Williams’s district, while activists with the Fed Up group want the New...
“Some campaigners are critical of the Fed’s handling of the mis-selling scandal at Wells Fargo, which is headquartered in Mr Williams’s district, while activists with the Fed Up group want the New York Fed to restart its search. “We haven’t seen as big a backlash as this to a regional Fed appointment,” said Sarah Binder, a professor of political science at George Washington University. “The criticism has been coming only from the Democrats, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter. The Fed depends on there being public support, and it can only make tough decisions if it is seen as having legitimacy. The more criticism it faces the harder it is to do its job."
Read the full article here.
Capital Pressroom - April 24, 2014: Scaffold Law
WCNY - April 24, 2014, by Alyssa Plock - AUDIO CLIP. We discuss the Scaffold Law with two people who hold opposing views on the issue: Dr. Michael...
WCNY - April 24, 2014, by Alyssa Plock - AUDIO CLIP. We discuss the Scaffold Law with two people who hold opposing views on the issue: Dr. Michael Hattery, director of local government studies at the Rockefeller Institute, and Connie M. Razza, director of strategic research at the Center for Popular Democracy.
Listen to the discussion here.
Protesters Swarm The Capitol Days After Obamacare Repeal Falls Again
Protesters Swarm The Capitol Days After Obamacare Repeal Falls Again
Although Obamacare repeal appears to be down for the count, Democratic leaders encouraged activists to keep up the pressure at a rally outside the Capitol on Wednesday.
And judging by the...
Although Obamacare repeal appears to be down for the count, Democratic leaders encouraged activists to keep up the pressure at a rally outside the Capitol on Wednesday.
And judging by the protests at individual Senate offices shortly afterward, champions of universal coverage do not need much convincing.
Read the full article here.
Fed Officials Push Back Against Calls to Overhaul Central Bank’s Structure
Fed Officials Push Back Against Calls to Overhaul Central Bank’s Structure
Federal Reserve bank presidents are pushing back against a rising chorus of voices saying the central bank’s century-old structure needs to be overhauled to reduce bankers’ influence over its...
Federal Reserve bank presidents are pushing back against a rising chorus of voices saying the central bank’s century-old structure needs to be overhauled to reduce bankers’ influence over its operations and policies.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton and the party’s draft platform have echoed calls for change by left-leaning activists, a drive that could gain new attention this week during the party’s convention in Philadelphia.
At issue is the role played by private banks in the Fed’s 12 regional reserve banks, which supervise financial institutions, provide financial services and participate in the central bank’s monetary policy-making.
By law, private banks elect six of the nine members of each Fed bank’s board of directors, choosing three to represent the banks and three to represent the public. The other three are appointed by the Washington-based Fed Board of Governors to represent the public.
Critics say the setup creates an inherent conflict of interest, akin to the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse, and has resulted in too little diversity among the leadership of the Fed system.
“Common sense reforms—like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve Banks—are long overdue,” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said in May.
Fed leaders in recent public comments and interviews have defended the status quo as effective, though Chairwoman Janet Yellen said during congressional testimony in February “it is of course up to Congress to consider what the appropriate structure is of the Fed.”
Meanwhile, regional Fed bank officials have played down the potential for conflict of interest, noting that the directors aren't involved in bank supervision, and the directors who represent private banks don’t participate in choosing the Fed bank presidents. The officials also see value in having close ties to the banking community. Patrick Harker, president of the Philadelphia Fed, said most of the bankers in his district are from small firms, not the big financial institutions that can worry regulators.
“The banker from a small town in Pennsylvania provides incredibly important insight” about local conditions, and “I worry about losing that insight,” Mr. Harker said. He agreed bankers could provide input through advisory groups, but he said having them on his board, meeting every 15 days, provides a level of instant insight into the economy and financial system that would be hard to replace.
William Dudley, president of the New York Fed, told reporters in May, “The current arrangements are actually working quite well, both in terms of preserving the Federal Reserve’s independence with respect to the conduct of monetary policy and actually leading to pretty, you know, successful outcomes” in terms of hitting the Fed’s goals of maximum employment and low, steady inflation.
Another issue for some advocates of change is the regional Fed banks’ status as quasi-public, quasi-private institutions. The Fed board in Washington is a wholly government entity that ultimately oversees the regional Fed banks. But when private banks become members of the Federal Reserve system, they are required to buy stock, and in turn receive dividends from the Fed. So the private banks in a sense own the regional Fed banks, though they can’t transfer or sell the stock.
“It’s pretty indefensible for the Fed to be the only regulatory institution” in the U.S. “that’s owned by the industry it regulates,” said Ady Barkan, of the Center for Popular Democracy’s Fed Up Campaign.
Fed officials say the critics misunderstand the Fed’s ownership structure. Cleveland Fed President Loretta Mester said in an interview the quasi-private status of the regional Fed banks helps ensure the independence that is needed for good policy-making in an economically diverse nation. If the regional banks were made fully part of government, she worried, Washington’s power would grow, raising the risk of politics influencing the policy debate.
Ms. Mester said “yes, the banks have stock” in the Fed. “But that’s not owning the Fed in the sense of a corporation, right? It’s making sure that there’s representation from the district as part of the Fed structure,” she said.
Richmond Fed leader Jeffrey Lacker also worried making the regional Fed banks pure governmental entities might promote short-term thinking that would lead to bad policy outcomes.
Fed Up worked with former senior Fed staffer Andrew Levin, now a professor at Dartmouth College, on a proposal to make the Fed banks wholly government institutions, as are the central banks in all the major economies. His proposal also would eliminate the regional Fed board director slots reserved for bankers and have all the directors selected in a public process involving the Washington governors and local elected officials.
Mr. Levin said he’s somewhat mystified Fed officials appear to be rejecting almost all the major reform ideas now being debated. They “might not have much influence on the outcome if they wait too long to engage in the debate,” he warned.
Mr. Harker, the Philadelphia Fed president, worried “there are always unintended consequences anytime you make a change.”
But Mr. Barkan countered “it’s true the system could be made worse than it is now, but we think it could be made better.”
By MICHAEL S. DERBY
Source
As Critics United, Stalled Battle Against Frisking Tactic Took Off
The New York Times - August 13, 2013, by J. David Goodman - As the Police Department performed a mounting number of stops on New York streets, voices of opposition, slow and scattershot,...
The New York Times - August 13, 2013, by J. David Goodman - As the Police Department performed a mounting number of stops on New York streets, voices of opposition, slow and scattershot, struggled to be heard.
Complaints, mostly from minority areas, never quite coalesced into a movement. Police officials and city leaders casually dismissed opponents, denying that the stops were race-based and pointing to the plummeting crime rate as justification for the tactics.
The stops continued to rise by the tens of thousands, as police officials pushed to drive crime levels even lower. And although the dialogue never changed, the slow unmaking of the stop-and-frisk strategy had quietly begun.
In a 16th-floor conference room in TriBeCa, roughly 40 different groups of researchers, lawyers and community activists gathered in June 2011 to plan a unified political attack on the policing practice to go along with the one being mounted in the federal courts.
The groups coalesced under one name, Communities United for Police Reform, fanning out into neighborhoods with heavy police activity and becoming a regular and loud presence at rallies on the steps of City Hall and outside the federal courthouse in Manhattan. The mantra: Change the Police Department.
Their efforts, backed by $2.2 million in grants from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, set the stage for a stunning repudiation of what has become the department’s signature street-level tactic, long defended by successive mayoral administrations.
In the City Council in late June and in a federal court on Monday, the Police Department suffered severe setbacks to its crime policy, and is now facing a court-ordered monitor,two police oversight bills and the possibility that its perceived legacy of a significant decline in crime may come with an asterisk.
“They redefined it successfully,” said Paul J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, crediting advocates from the Communities United for Police Reform, which includes the civil liberties group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, that brought the federal suit, Floyd v. City of New York.
“By using data we’re required to produce,” Mr. Browne said, the advocates managed to reframe the debate over the stop-and-frisk policy as a numbers-oriented calculation of how often the police interactions resulted in arrests or summonses.
In a vast majority of the recorded stops, officers cited a reason other than fitting the description of a suspect as being the basis. And in nearly 90 percent of the cases, the person stopped was neither arrested nor given a summons.
“Stop-and-frisk isn’t stopping criminals,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “It is stopping innocent people.”
The battle over police stops in New York has many origins, but most see its beginnings in the killing of Amadou Diallo by a team of specialized police officers, who shot the man as he stood in the vestibule of his Bronx apartment building in 1999. That violent encounter — in the course of a stop on a darkened street — led to a report by Eliot Spitzer, then the state attorney general, titled “The New York City Police Department’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ Practices.”
“Obviously the killing of Diallo was a flash point,” said Andrew G. Celli Jr., who as the head of the civil rights bureau under Mr. Spitzer worked on the report. “But underneath it was a seething sense that people were living in a police state.”
The report shined a light on an area of policing that remained largely cloaked during the administration of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a time when data about police stops were not public, and advocates sparred more often with the department over individual actions by officers than over broad policy.
Once it became clear that the department collected detailed data on stops — from the UF-250 forms filled out by officers for each interaction — a push began for more access. The Council passed a law in 2001 requiring the department to release data on stops, including by race.
“I don’t think anybody understood at the time how important that legislation was,” said Ms. Lieberman, of the civil liberties union. “But this is a classic example of how a fight over transparency supports a campaign for reform.”
The first release of data, for stops in 2002, showed that a little more than 50 percent of the stops were of blacks and about 31 percent were of Hispanics, roughly the same as during the period studied in the Spitzer report.
To the department, those numbers made sense, because they roughly matched the racial breakdown of suspects identified by witnesses or victims of crimes. It is an argument still made forcefully by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, as it was by Mr. Giuliani when he was mayor.
Yet after taking office, Mr. Bloomberg and his police commissioner, Raymond W. Kelly, seemed willing to move past the issue. The city settled a lawsuit, brought shortly after the Diallo killing by the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the unit responsible for the shooting was dissolved. Under terms of the settlement, it modified the UF-250 form and created a written policy against racial profiling.
At the same time, the number of stops quietly rose each year.
The police shooting of Sean Bell, in 2006, set the stage for a new confrontation with advocates, who began asking again about data on stops. The New York Civil Liberties Union found that the department had not released it to the Council in years.
When the new stop data were finally released in 2007, the numbers were startling: 508,540 stops in 2006, up from 97,296 four years earlier. Civil rights lawyers filed the Floyd suit the next year. (The suit takes its name from David Floyd, a Bronx man who said he had been stopped more than once by the police and who served as lead plaintiff in the class action.)
Advocates from different groups — including, among others, the Legal Aid Society, Make the Road New York, the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and the Center on Race, Crime and Justice at John Jay College of Criminal Justice — began meeting informally.
But it was not until the first large meeting in June 2011 at 75 Varick Street, and the creation of the single coalition, that momentum began to gather, said Joo-Hyun Kang, the coalition’s director. “We’re talking about a year and a half, which is not a long time period to pass what I’d call landmark legislation,” she said, referring to a pair of oversight bills passed by the Council. (The bills were vetoed by Mr. Bloomberg; an override vote is planned for this month.)
For Mr. Celli, the former state civil rights lawyer, the Police Department missed several opportunities to change itself in ways that might have avoided a public backlash.
“They should have embraced the I.G. and sought to frame exactly what the person’s powers would be,” he said, referring to one of the bills creating an inspector general for the police. The other, a more direct response to the stop-and-frisk policy, would expand the ability of New Yorkers to sue the department over bias-based profiling.
The federal judge in the stop-and-frisk case, Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court in Manhattan, was more critical of the police, finding the department to be “deliberately indifferent to the discriminatory application of stop and frisk.”
Nonetheless, by last year, the department began to change, significantly dropping the number of stops. Commissioner Kelly denied that political pressure or the court case led to the decline, saying it had been the result of redeployment and better training.
Whatever the explanation, after record highs in the first quarter of 2012, the number of stops plummeted to near record lows by early 2013.
Jeffrey A. Fagan, a Columbia University law professor who testified against the city in the Floyd case, said the Police Department did not open itself up for self-criticism on the issue of stops.
“They became defiant about sticking to the story,” he said. “And they dismissed any questioning as being grumpy old civil rights advocates.”
Source
The Tip of the Iceberg: Charter School Vulnerabilities To Waste, Fraud, And Abuse
The Tip of the Iceberg: Charter School Vulnerabilities To Waste, Fraud, And Abuse
Escalating Fraud Warrants Immediate Federal and State Action to Protect Public...
The Tip of the Iceberg: Charter School Vulnerabilities To Waste, Fraud, And AbuseEscalating Fraud Warrants Immediate Federal and State Action to Protect Public Dollars and Prevent Financial MismanagementDownload the report hereApril 2015Executive SummaryA year ago, the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) issued a report demonstrating that charter schools in 15 states—about one-third of the states with charter schools—had experienced over $100 million in reported fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. This report offers further evidence that the money we know has been misused is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the past 12 months, millions of dollars of new alleged and confirmed financial fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in charter schools have come to light, bringing the new total to over $200 million.Despite the tremendous ongoing investment of public dollars to charter schools, government at all levels has failed to implement systems that proactively monitor charter schools for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. While charter schools are subject to significant reporting requirements by various public offices (including federal monitors, chartering entities, county superintendents, and state controllers and auditors), very few public offices regularly monitor for fraud.The number of instances of serious fraud uncovered by whistleblowers, reporters, and investigations suggests that the fraud problem extends well beyond the cases we know about. According to standard forensic auditing methodologies, the deficiencies in charter oversight throughout the country suggest that federal, state, and local governments stand to lose more than $1.4 billion in 2015.b 1 The vast majority of the fraud perpetrated by charter officials will go undetected because the federal government, the states, and local charter authorizers lack the oversight necessary to detect the fraud.Setting up systems that detect and deter charter school fraud is critical. Investments in strong oversight systems will almost certainly offset the necessary costs. We recommend the following reforms:
Mandate audits that are specifically designed to detect and prevent fraud, and increase the transparency and accountability of charter school operators and managers. Clear planning-based public investments to ensure that any expansions of charter school investments ensure equity, transparency, and accountability. Increased transparency and accountability to ensure that charter schools provide the information necessary for state agencies to detect and prevent fraud.State and federal lawmakers should act now to put systems in place to prevent fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement. While the majority of state legislative sessions are coming to an end, there is an opportunity to address the charter school fraud problem on a federal level by including strong oversight requirements in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which is currently being debated in Congress. Unfortunately, some ESEA proposals do very little reduce the vulnerabilities that exist in the current law. If the Act is passed without the inclusion of the reforms outlined in this report, taxpayers stand to lose millions more dollars to charter school fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.Download the report here
Federal Commission Responds to Anything But School Safety
12.18.2018
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact:
Monica Klein, 917-565-0715
...
12.18.2018
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Monica Klein, 917-565-0715 monica@seneca-strategies.com
**Interviews available with student activists and national education justice leaders**
WASHINGTON, DC -- Today, the Federal Commission on School Safety, the Trump Administration’s response to the Parkland tragedy, released its final report. The body, chaired by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos and including Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar and Acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker, released recommendations that are proven to make school less safe for students of color, LGBTQ+ and gender nonconforming youth, and their communities. The recommendations call for rescinding critical federal civil rights guidance on school discipline, a blueprint for how to arm school staff, and encourage the entrenchment of the school-to-prison pipeline through militarizing and “hardening” schools with military personnel, police, metal detectors, and surveillance equipment. Youth-, parent-, educator-, and community-led organizations across the country reject the commission’s recommendations aimed at “hardening” schools. Such policies will lead to a further entrenchment of racial and gender-based discrimination in school discipline and deny students an opportunity to learn and the freedom to thrive.
“For students like us, this is not what safety means,” said Amina Henderson-Redwan, a youth leader with Voices of Youth in Chicago Education (VOYCE) who testified before the Commission in June. “Safety does not mean more police in schools, more metal detectors and armed teachers. Safety means to get to the root causes of a student's misbehavior. This Federal Commission on School Safety needs to listen to communities that it's supposed to represent, communities like mine.”
The following activists and leaders are available for interviews on the report:
Jaime Koppel, Deputy Director of Strategic Partnerships, Communities for Just Schools Fund: (646) 894-1150 Marlyn Tillman, Parent & Executive Director, Gwinnett SToPP: (404) 402-2076 Jonathan Stith, National Director, Alliance for Educational Justice: 202-460-3875 Nia Arrington, 18-year-old student and Co-Founder of the Youth Power Collective to end the school-to-prison pipeline. Please reply to this email to schedule interview.For years, organizers working with the Communities for Just Schools Fund, the Alliance for Educational Justice, the Center for Popular Democracy and Dignity in Schools Campaign have advocated for an end to discriminatory and exclusionary discipline policies that funnel young people towards prison rather than success. We believe that holistic approaches to student wellbeing are the way to make our schools more safe, supportive, and inclusive instead of the recommendations from the Commission, which would harm and criminalize youth of color. In response, students and organizers released the following quotes detailing the opposition they had with the report findings.
Jaime Koppel, Deputy Director of Strategic Partnerships, Communities for Just Schools Fund “These recommendations do not represent the will of the people or the best interests of the majority of this nation’s public school children. We call on states and local school districts to do the the harder work of fostering deep relationships and connection in school by investing in restorative justice, culturally relevant curricula, diverse teaching and support staff, anti-bias training, mental and emotional health supports and more to actually make our schools more safe. Youth and parents have made their vision for safety clear in CJSF’s new report, “Do the Harder Work: Create Cultures of Connectedness in Schools.”
Jonathan Stith, Executive Director, Alliance for Educational Justice “DeVos and the Commission have completely ignored the voices of the 1.6 million Black and Brown students who attend schools with a police officer but no guidance counselor. Students are calling for police-free schools where their ‘safety’ is not synonymous with their criminalization. Every day they come to school to learn and instead are greeted by metal detectors and by the same police force killing their unarmed peers in the street or separating them from their families. Safety for Black and Brown students doesn’t mean more police abusing them like the #AssaultAtBruslyMiddle in Baton Rouge earlier this year. Neither is arming the very racially biased teacher who has fueled the school-to-prison pipeline an answer to school safety.”
Dmitri Holtzman, Director of Education Justice Campaigns, Center for Popular Democracy “While rescinding the Federal Guidance on School Discipline does not in any way alter federal civil rights laws, it does send a clear message to millions of Black, Brown, Immigrant, LGBTQ and Transgender students that the Federal Government is turning its back on them instead of proactively protecting their fundamental rights. Together with the other recommendations aimed at “hardening schools” (more military personnel, police, metal detectors etc.) rescinding the Guidelines signals an authoritarian, punitive and oppressive approach to ‘school safety’ which we know will have a the most detrimental effect on children and youth of color, in particular.”
Thena Robinson Mock, Program Officer, Communities for Just Schools Fund “It is important to make clear that the proposed rescission of the federal discipline guidance doesn’t change civil rights protections in public education. However, the school safety commission’s reversal of evidenced-based guidance aimed at creating safer and healthier schools dismisses proven solutions to improving school climate that have been vetted by educators, students, and parents.”
Marlyn Tillman, a parent organizer with Gwinnett SToPP “Upon attending the first listening session held by the commission, it was clear that the commission made a disingenuous attempt to engage the public. The timing of the notices were not conducive for parents and youth to be included in a meaningful way on a topic that impacts them directly. I followed up with FOIA requests in an attempt to assure again that the public received proper notice of these sessions. In August, I received a response that there weren't any records responsive to my requests.Yet more pop up meetings and listening sessions were held. It is clear this commission intentionally beguiled the public.”
Brikaia Hines, Youth Leader, Leaders Igniting Transformation “After the Parkland school shooting, youth of color made our demands clear in our #YouthDemand petition - endorsed by more than 5,000 people and 40 national and local organizations, in which we demanded: divestment from school policing, investments in schools and teachers, more guidance counselors, protections for families and children against ICE arrests, among other things. DeVos and her commission have chosen to ignore us, but we will be heard. Our civil rights matter.”
Ricardo Martinez, Co-Director, Padres y Jóvenes Unidos “We often hear that school safety is sidearms and metal detectors. For us, it is a relationship between family and school personnel. We need to open arms to students and families, and hire more mental health professionals.”
Zakiya Sankara-Jabar, National Field Organizer, Dignity in Schools Campaign “The commission sent a message today that they do not value the lives and well being of all students. Hardening schools will never be the answer. Our coalition of over 100 organizations believes that we can create safe, nurturing schools without pushing students into the school-to-prison pipeline. Regardless, of the decision to rescind the guidance, the law is still the law, and we will fight to protect the civil rights of all young people.”
An Intentionally Flawed & Limiting Public Input Process Leads to Recommendations That Do Not Represent Public Comment On March 24, 2018, hundreds of thousands of young people, families, educators, and community members came to Washington, D.C. to demonstrate their commitment to a new vision of school safety. Yet the Commission sidelined these key constituencies. They only held public input sessions in four cities--Washington, D.C., Lexington, KY, Cheyenne, WY, and Montgomery, AL -- with little to no notice beforehand so that students and professionals often could not make arrangements to attend. The members of the Commission did not even attend these sessions. All were represented by proxy.
In a decision that underscores the Administration’s lack of commitment to protecting students’ civil rights, the school safety commission rescinded the 2014 U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education joint civil rights guidance on school discipline that outlines evidence-based best practices and recommendations for school officials to administer discipline in a manner that does not discriminate against students on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The 2014 school discipline guidance encourages schools to improve overall school climate, find alternatives to exclusionary discipline practices (such as out-of-school suspensions and school-based arrests) that lead to school pushout, and ensure that there are sufficient school-based counselors, social workers, and other mental health providers and support services to address and prevent challenges that may occur in schools.
The Commission has completely ignored the calls of millions of young people who have consistently called for an end to the criminalization of Black and Brown students, as well as their communities. Young people, parents, and communities have instead called for holistic approaches to school climate that include mental health care, restorative practices, and the resources they need to thrive.
###
Communities for Just Schools Fund is a national donor collaborative that provides resources in support of community-led organizations that are working to ensure positive, safe and supportive school climates that protect and affirm the inherent cultural dignity of all students and foster the success of all students.
Alliance for Educational Justice (AEJ) is comprised of membership organizations committed to the engagement of youth of color, LGBTQ youth, and their parents - key constituencies deeply impacted by racialized achievement gaps and bias-based disparities in school disciplinary policies.
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.
The Dignity in Schools Campaign (DSC) is a national coalition of over 100 organizations dedicated to dismantling the School-to Prison Pipeline. DSC fights for the human right of every young person to a quality education and to be treated with dignity. We have challenged the systemic use of exclusionary discipline practices that disproportionately impact students of color, students with disabilities, and students who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ), a problem that the U.S. Department of Education’s most recent civil rights data verifies.
‘Clopening’ time: Seattle on the clock for secure scheduling
‘Clopening’ time: Seattle on the clock for secure scheduling
The subject has been bubbling up in Seattle public discourse for around six months now. Last fall, local progressive labor advocacy organization Working Washington and Starbucks baristas protested...
The subject has been bubbling up in Seattle public discourse for around six months now. Last fall, local progressive labor advocacy organization Working Washington and Starbucks baristas protested their inconsistent and unpredictable work schedules, which labor advocates say act as barriers for low-income workers to scheduling life necessities like college classes or childcare or budgeting living expenses. A few months later, in his 2016 state of the city speech, Mayor Ed Murray highlighted secure scheduling as a key low-wage worker equity issue and said his office would work with the City Council to address it.
“We know that having a secure schedule of hours helps workers plan their budget, plan for childcare, enroll in school or take a second job – and we know schedule predictability will most help low-wage hourly workers,” Murray said in his speech.
SECURE SCHEDULING
Here are a couple chances to get involved or learn more: Thursday night, “join a live tele-town hall over the phone and over the internet about the fight for secure scheduling in Seattle. When: 6:00 pm, Thursday, May 26, 2016. Where: You can listen in live over the phone by calling 855-756-7520 Ext. 32020#, or join live online athttp://workingwa.org/ourtimecounts/townhall.” On Friday, the committee will hear from Lonnie Goldan, a researcher at the Economic Policy Institute who has studied the issue, on her findings and national data. Tune in to Seattle Channel at 9:30AM to watch. On June 16th,Working Washington is holding a “Secure Scheduling Story Slam.”
With a $15 minimum wage already under Seattle’s belt, City Hall along with labor and business interests have turned their attention to the next big issue affecting the city’s proletariat and their bosses: secure scheduling.
“The response has moved pretty quickly from when workers first spoke out about it, and that’s heartening. There’s been a tremendous amount of support expressed by both the council and the mayor’s office on the need to move forward and do something to address secure scheduling,” said Sage Wilson, a spokesperson for Working Washington. “This is a really urgent issue for workers week to week.”
“Clopenings” — when a worker works a late-night closing shift and is also directed to work a early-morning opening shift with only a few hours in between
On March 8th, the mayor’s office convened a group of stakeholders of both labor and employers representing—including representatives from the likes of Working Washington, the Washington Restaurant Association, the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and unions like SEIU 775 and UFCW Local 21—who have been meeting separately and then “reporting out” regularly to the the city council’s committee on Civil Rights, Utilities, Economic Development & Arts (of which Herbold is the chair and District 3’s own Kshama Sawant is a committee member) on their discussions to help inform the Council. The mayor’s office says these stakeholders will be submitting formal recommendations to the council at some unidentified date.
The council committee has also been bringing in experts on the issue and model secure scheduling ordinances. Last week, the committee heard from representatives from the Center for Center for Popular Democracy (CPD)—a non-profit left advocacy group—on their model secure scheduling policy and the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement, who enacted their own scheduling ordinance specifically for retail workers several years ago.
The Council and the mayor’s office also commissioned a study from researchers at the University of Washington Evan’s School of Public Policy and Governance on the state of irregular scheduling in Seattle, including focus groups and a employer/manager survey of scheduling practices. The study is slated to come back on July 4th.
The plan, according to staffers in Herbold’s office, is to keep meeting with the stakeholders, receiving input from experts and looking at available data into early June, after which Herbold’s office will start drafting the actual policy.
The claims of Working Washington and picketing Starbucks baristas have merit. Researchers in addition to advocates have documented the impacts of unpredictable scheduling on workers (especially employees receiving hourly compensation), namely the association between irregular schedules and work/family conflicts (like picking up kids from school or childcare), the inability to schedule and maintain routines (e.g college classes or other jobs), and general increased worker stress from having to be on-call all the time. These types of jobs are concentrated in the retail, food service, hospitality, and healthcare industries.
Last year’s report from the Restaurant Opportunity Center on the state of the restaurant industry in Seattle showed that 26% of local restaurant workers receive their schedules less than a week in advance and 30% see schedule changes every two weeks. And women and people of color (who are heavily represented in low-wage food industry jobs) are disproportionately impacted by erratic scheduling.
“The issues that we’ve heard most about from workers are about two weeks advance notice of schedules”
The utilization of new scheduling software by employers and managers has been identified as a major cause of irregular scheduling. Starbucks has come under fire in recent years for its scheduling policies, specifically its utilization of scheduling software designed to maximize company efficiency by predicting store traffic and corresponding required staffing levels when and where. Advocates say the software incentivizes managers to under-staff stores, keeps employee hours at part time levels (which also allows employers to avoid giving full-time employee benefits and overtime), and quickly patch together weekly schedules from a large pool of part-time employees, often with little advance notice for the employee.
One of the often cited extreme results of digitized, maximum-efficiency scheduling is “clopenings,” when a worker works a late-night closing shift and is also directed to work a early-morning opening shift with only a few hours in between.
Advocates want to see these issues addressed in any future policy in Seattle.
“The issues that we’ve heard most about from workers are about two weeks advance notice of schedules,” said Wilson of Working Washington. “There’s access to hours. before companies hire more and more extremely part time workers, they should give more hours to employees they already have. And then there’s the eliminating ‘clopening shifts’ and the right to rest. You should have the ability to rest at least eleven hours between shifts.”
What the final ordinance will look like is still unclear, though based on the arch of the committee and stakeholder discussions, we know what they’re considering. It’s a balancing act between the real need to crack down on scheduling policies that leave employees at the mercy of their employer and employer’s legitimate need for scheduling flexibility, such as when a restaurant gets slammed during a understaffed dinner rush or someone calls in sick.
There is a potential ways to find that middle ground, as was illustrated at last Tuesday’s committee meeting and presentations on CPD’s model ordinance and San Francisco’s own retail worker secure scheduling ordinance. Both the CPD and San Francisco model use a “predictability pay” mandate as an incentive for employers to give workers adequate notice, where employers would compensate a worker for an hour’s worth of wages if they fail to provide a schedule two weeks or more in advance, and then dialing it up for schedule changes or notices that occur within 24 hours by raising the mandated compensation to two to four hours of pay. The San Francisco ordinance does provide exceptions for employee initiated shift swaps, like when an employer needs another worker to cover the shift of an employee who is out sic). Both models also require that employers must make hours available to veteran employees before hiring more part-time employees, a requirement aimed at combating the proliferation of part-time employee labor.
“The policy is designed to both preserve the flexibility that workers and employers need in making work schedules while also promoting stability for hourly workers,” Rachel Deutsch of the CPD told the Council.
District 3’s Kshama Sawant told CHS that she wants to see a policy that affects all businesses in Seattle, not just big retail and foodservice businesses. San Francisco’s ordinance is structured to only affect big box retailers.
“While it’s true that the issue is experienced more by workers in the service industry and retail industry, like Starbucks, the best way to ensure secure scheduling for all workers is to ensure a citywide policy for all businesses across Seattle,” Sawant said.
Naturally, the issue pits the local labor and employer camps duking it out during Seattle’s $15 minimum wage debate against each other yet again. However the tone and dynamic of the debate in this round, is a little different, along with the format. While the Seattle Chamber of Commerce has indicated that it is certainly uncomfortable with the secure scheduling initiative and initial stakeholder discussions with council committee back in March resulted in the employer representatives claiming that scheduling wasn’t really a problem, loud pushback from the business community has been noticeably lacking in recent weeks.
“It was the early committee meetings that employers were spending time and energy to try and deny that scheduling was a problem,” said Wilson. “One the things that has happened through the stakeholder process is that employers have stopped trying to make that case. They’re largely in agreement [with labor] that people should have predictable schedules.”
Sierra Hansen, head of the Capitol Hill Chamber of Commerce, said that the issue is barely on the radar of the chamber’s board and that she hasn’t heard anything about it from member businesses.
“I would prefer we draft an ordinance and then debate it rather than closed room discussions and that the public got involved”
Wilson with Working Washington attributes the change in the dynamic of the stakeholder group conversations to the political climate of the city, the unity between the executive and the council to push the issue, and previous local labor victories, like $15 and paid sick and safe leave.
“It does seem to me to be both a product of the process as well as a strong consensus on Council and the mayor to do something on this,” said Wilson. “[And] the mood of the city is pretty clear: people want workers to have basic rights.”
Sawant, who was voted into office on her fiery platform of rent control, a $15 dollar an hour minimum wage, and a fundamental change in labor and equity in the city, said that the stakeholder workgroup process is “not an approach that I would choose.”
“I would prefer we draft an ordinance and then debate it rather than closed room discussions and that the public got involved,” said Sawant. “That’s how we won $15 dollar an hour, that’s how we won the SHA rent hikes. A lot of historic things have happened, and that’s because of the approach of my office.”
“What was different around $15 was that we were very clear. If you were for $15 you were with working people and had to go up against big business and be courageous about that,” Sawant said. “I know that there is this narrative from the mayor and big business and Tom Douglas that we won 15 because we all came together and agreed to raise the minimum wage. That’s absolutely untrue. The reason we won 15 is because we had a mass movement in Seattle.”
by Josh Kelety
Source
New Report Says NYC Latino Construction Workers Disproportionately Die On The Job
Fox News Latino – October 24, 2013 -
A disproportional number of Latino construction workers in New York City die while on the job compared to their coworkers of other races,...
Fox News Latino – October 24, 2013 -
A disproportional number of Latino construction workers in New York City die while on the job compared to their coworkers of other races, according to a new report.
From 2003 to 2011, three-fourths of construction workers who died were either U.S.-born Latinos or immigrants, according to a review of all of the fatal falls on the job investigated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, an agency of the federal Labor Department.
“The data we have demonstrates that Latinos and immigrants are more likely to die in these types of accidents,” Connie Razza, from the Center for Popular Democracy, which compiled the report, told the New York Daily News.
Construction safety advocates and a study by the New York State Trial Lawyers Association cited safety violations on job sites run by smaller, non-union contractors and an unwillingness by some undocumented workers to report violations as main reasons for the high number of deaths among Latino workers.
“Contractors aren’t taking simple steps to protect their workers,” said Razza. “They are not providing the training and the safety equipment that are required by law.”
While New York may have a surprisingly high number of deaths of Latino construction workers, numbers nationwide for Hispanic deaths on the jobs are also greater than any other group.
OSHA reported that 749 Latino workers were killed from work-related injuries in 2011— more than 14 deaths a week or two Latino workers killed every single day of the year. While 12 percent of all fatal work injuries in 2011 involved contractor work, Latinos made up 28 percent of fatal work injuries among contractors — well above their 16 percent share of all fatal work injuries in 2011.
Advocacy groups in New York are working to combat any changes to the state’s scaffolding law, which organizations like Razza’s the Center for Popular Democracy say gives incentive to keep workplaces safe.
Contractors argue that the law, which holds owners and contractors who did not follow safety rules fully liable for workplace injuries and deaths, has caused their insurance costs to skyrocket.
New York lawmakers, however, has historically blocked any of the proposed changes to the law.
“All we’re looking for is the ability to have the same right as anybody else would in the American jurisprudence system,” said Louis J. Coletti, president and CEO of the Building Trades Employers’ Association.
Source
2 days ago
9 days ago