Campaign News

Millones de neoyorquinos están celebrando el acuerdo de esta semana que aumentó el sueldo mínimo en el estado. Este pacto hace que familias en todo el estado puedan aspirar a un futuro mejor y envía un mensaje importante a otros estados que contemplan incrementar los salarios.

El acuerdo es prueba del poder de la movilización. Hace apenas unos años habría sido imposible imaginarse los titulares actuales. Cuando New York Communities for Change organizó la primera huelga de empleados de restaurantes de comida rápida hace casi cuatro años, la gente pensó que estábamos locos.

Como el gobierno federal postergó varias veces incrementar de manera significativa el sueldo mínimo a nivel nacional, parecía imposible lograr un aumento de paga.

En respuesta, los trabajadores de dichos restaurantes y otros empleados con sueldos bajos decidieron luchar por mejor paga y calidad de vida, lo que dio inicio a un movimiento que se propagó a ciudades y pueblos en todo el país.

No es coincidencia que la Lucha por $15 se iniciara aquí, en la ciudad de Nueva York. El nivel de disparidad en nuestra ciudad es uno de los peores del país desde hace tiempo y, en años recientes, ha batido récords históricos.

Según una encuesta de la Oficina del Censo de 2014, el 5 por ciento de hogares en Manhattan con más altos ingresos ganaron 88 veces más que el 20 por ciento más pobre. Y el año pasado, los trabajadores con el salario mínimo no podían pagar el alquiler medio en ningún vecindario de la ciudad de Nueva York.

Desde hace tiempo no se incrementan los salarios al ritmo del costo de vida. De hecho, el Economic Policy Institute concluyó que el salario de $9.00 por hora a nivel estatal es muy inferior al que sería si simplemente hubiera aumentado desde 1970 conforme a la inflación. El mismo estudio concluyó que si se tomara en cuenta la inflación y el costo de vida más alto, el salario mínimo hoy en día tendría el mismo valor que en 1970 si este año fuera $14.27 por hora, casi el nivel acordado por la Legislatura del Estado de Nueva York.

El año pasado, el gobernador Cuomo tomó la acertada decisión de exigir sueldos más altos para los empleados de restaurantes de comida rápida, quienes estaban al frente de la lucha por reformas. Pero al movilizar un sector por uno se corría el riesgo de desatender las necesidades de muchos trabajadores. Para realmente producir un cambio, las reglas se deben aplicar a todos de manera equitativa. El acuerdo de la semana pasada hizo eso y permitió que los empleados de todos los sectores económicos finalmente puedan aspirar a algo más que el próximo cheque de pago.

El acuerdo es una victoria para los empleados de la ciudad de Nueva York. Sin embargo, pasa por alto a las familias trabajadoras de la parte norte del estado. Si bien más de un millón de trabajadores mal remunerados en la ciudad verán un aumento de sueldo a $15 por hora para fines de 2018, aquellos en Long Island solo lograrán $15 en casi seis años y los de la región norte deben esperar cinco años para llegar apenas a $12.50. Aunque el acuerdo permite que después se aumente el sueldo a $15, el índice dependerá de análisis y la inflación, y eso podría tomar varios años.

Es una espera terriblemente larga, dado el costo de vida cada vez mayor al norte de la ciudad. Por ejemplo, el contraIor del estado de Nueva York ha detectado que el costo de vivienda está subiendo drásticamente y que por lo menos una de cada cinco personas en cada condado – incluidos algunos muy al norte como Warren y Monroe– gasta más de un tercio de su salario en el alquiler. En algunos estados la mitad de los pobladores deben gastar eso. Si agregamos a esto los gastos como servicios públicos y alimentos, es casi imposible ahorrar para los estudios universitarios y la jubilación.

Es imperativo que ahora los legisladores completen la tarea y les den a todos los neoyorquinos la oportunidad de ganar un sueldo decente.

Pocos días antes de que se finalizara el acuerdo en Albany, California nos demostró que es posible tener un sueldo de $15 a nivel estatal. Nuestro estado debe cumplir con la promesa de la Lucha por $15 en todo el estado y permitir que todos los trabajadores puedan mantenerse a sí mismos y a su familia de manera adecuada. De lo contrario los neoyorquinos seguirán haciendo lo que llevan haciendo desde hace casi cuatro años: arriesgarlo todo para ofrecerle una vida mejor a su familia.

By JoEllen Chernow & Jonathan Westin

Source

“We need to fight for all workers who are being treated like the Toys ‘R’ Us employees, who are bearing the personal economic costs of corporate greed run amok,” Senator Gillibrand said on Tuesday in a meeting organized by Rise Up Retail and the Center for Popular Democracy, which represent retail workers. “I will keep doing everything I can in the Senate to make that happen.”

Read the full article here.

Last Tuesday, Alton Sterling was shot and killed while pinned on the ground by Baton Rouge police. The next day, Philando Castile was shot and killed by a cop in Falcon Heights, Minnesota, as he reached for his ID. On Thursday, protests swept across the country calling for an end to police killings of black and brown men. At one of those peaceful protests, in Dallas, a sniper opened fire from a vantage point above the march, trying to kill white police officers. Five officers died.

It was against this backdrop of deep social turmoil that dozens of community organizing groups from across the country came together in Pittsburgh for the People’s Convention.

Over the weekend, more than 1,500 community organizers and leaders—many of them Black and Latino—convened to discuss ways to create a more cohesive, powerful progressive grassroots network. It was the first step by the Center for Popular Democracy, a progressive organization that is trying to fill the vacuum left in the wake of ACORN’s demise in 2010.

On top of the recent events in Louisiana, Minnesota, and Texas, the convention also came at a critical political moment—on the Republican side, Donald Trump’s campaign is increasingly stoking racial animosity; on the Democratic side, Bernie Sanders has worked to push his party’s platform leftward.

“We wanted to make it both a statement in the electoral moment and really a statement that transcends the electoral moment,” Brian Kettenring, co-director of the Center for Popular Democracy, told the Prospect at the convention. “We’re trying to stand in this particular moment but also not be captive to the narrow partisan politics of our country.”

The convention started off Friday with a march of more than 1,000 activists through the streets of downtown Pittsburgh, including stops outside the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center to demand fair wages for workers; the Pittsburgh Federal Reserve to call for equitable economic policies for working families; and Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey’s office to protest his anti-immigration stances. Some onlookers joined the chanting—“What do we want? Justice. If we don’t get it? Shut it down,”—and raised their fists in solidarity. Others were visibly angry at the marchers’ message of justice for undocumented immigrants and victims of police brutality.

The following day, activists heard speeches from heavyweights of the progressive movement like Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison and the Reverend William Barber III, leader of North Carolina’s Moral Mondays movement, who both spoke powerfully about the recent killings and the need for a unified response.

“The country needs healing, but you can’t heal a dirty wound,” Ellison pronounced. “A dirty wound needs disinfectant.”

He pointed to the “amazingly poised” Diamond Reynolds, the fiancée of Philando Castile, who streamed the immediate aftermath of his shooting on Facebook, as a model for the movement. “We need to push back with the same presence of mind of Diamond Reynolds,” he said.

With the killings of Sterling and Castile fresh on everyone’s mind, the specter of police violence loomed large at the convention. But the People’s Convention also wove together the threads of today’s social justice movements—not just Black Lives Matter, but also those campaigning for immigration reform, the Fight for $15, LGBTQ rights, and environmental justice, in a way that made clear the intersectionality of modern progressive organizing.

“We’re all dealing with the various layers of oppression,” said Jose Lopez, organizing director for Make the Road New York. “Whether it’s workplace inequality, housing inequality, or the recent decision from the Supreme Court, which to a degree sent a message to our families that we’re going to create opportunity for a limited number of children but we’re going to throw away the key to the gate to this country when we begin to talk about their parents.”

“[This convention] created the space and now we have to make sure we continue to stay in contact—using CPD as the vehicle—so that we can build out a network of power that can transform everything from immigration reform to worker rights to housing rights to the attack of black and brown people in this country by police,” Lopez said.

Groups attending the convention included New York Communities for Change, which helped launch the Fight for $15 back in 2012 and is now turning its focus toward addressing affordable housing needs in the city; Minnesota Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, which, in response to the police killing of Jamar Clark helped organize a protest occupation outside a North Minneapolis police precinct that lasted 16 days; the Texas Workers Defense Project, a worker advocacy group that has improved labor standards in the Texas construction industry; and Make the Road state chapters that have led local fights against deportations. Some of these groups have collaborated before, while others have been somewhat isolated from other community organizing groups.

Community organizations lost much of their national clout in the wake of ACORN’s demise, which was brought about in 2009 by a conservative smear campaign. CPD’s goal now—and that of the organizations represented at the conference—is to rebuild such groups’ institutional power and make it a critical part of the broader progressive movement.

In recent years, that movement has had some signal successes, which conference workshops showcased: how SEIU successfully organized for a $15 minimum wage in Seattle; how black community groups in St. Louis helped create lasting momentum for policing reform in the wake of Ferguson; how the New York Working Families Party established a powerful electoral presence; how organizers in Florida worked for climate justice in communities vulnerable to climate change.

“We are beginning to launch a real national organizing framework—that’s something that really hadn’t been seen since ACORN went under,” said Jonathan Westin, executive director of New York Communities for Change. “I think this is the beginning of an intentional path forward to try to create real structural power for community institutions and neighborhoods that already exists in places like the labor movement.”

Creating such structural power, organizers admit, will be challenging. There’s a shortage of funding for community organizations, which has kept them closely tethered to more well-funded labor unions and foundations—and, in many ways, also tethered to their funders’ agendas. The central challenge is how to establish a sustainable and independent source of funding, as unions have done with member dues, in order for community power to become a singular force on its own.

Beyond that, a critical question for community organizers is how to capitalize on both the current social and political moment.  

“The genie is out the bottle with progressive politics,” Kettenring said. He believes that a strong force of community organizations can help direct the progressive movement’s current political capital in a way that avoids pitfalls of the past. “One of the historic strategic failures of the progressive movement has been its failure on race. So when you look at this convention and look at how diverse it is and how many of the organizations are rooted communities of color, you see the potentiality of how the community organizing sector can help root a more progressive, but also diverse politics.”

By Justin Miller

Source

Jared Bernstein Blog - March 3, 2015 - As a tireless (some would say tiresome) advocate for full employment and the benefits it yields for working people, you can imagine how I was thrown by this NYT headline over a piece by economics reporter Bin Appelbaum:

Black jobless rates remain high, but Fed can’t do much to help.

“Shots fired!” as the kids say.

I find this hard to believe in the following sense. Black unemployment has averaged almost twice that of overall unemployment since the monthly data begin in 1972 (avg: 1.9, with standard deviation of 0.15, so not a ton of variation around that mean). Crudely, that implies that if overall unemployment fell from 6% to 5%, the black rate might fall more in percentage point terms, from 12% to 10%.

Next, if the Fed can push down the overall unemployment rate, which is certainly within its purview and, at a time like this, its job description, then the headline seems off.

Now, there are important nuances in play here.

First, these relationships are not always so clean. Over the long, strong recovery of the 1990s, black unemployment fell 4.5 points compared to 2.1 points for whites (and 2.5 points overall). Over the 1980s recovery, black unemployment—which was about 20% at the end of the deep early 1980s recession—fell 8.5 points compared to 4.7 for whites.

Those comparatively big declines show the disproportionate benefits that blacks reap from lower unemployment and, conditional on the Fed’s ability to lower unemployment, they belie the NYT headline. I could make similar claims based on wages and incomes, but I’m bound by secrecy for now (more on that in a moment).

However, more recently, that relationship isn’t generating such impressive results. Over this recovery, black and white unemployment have declined by similar amounts (4.5 points for blacks; 3.8 for whites). And, as Appelbaum points out, real median wages have fallen twice as much for blacks as for whites.

But that’s kinda the point: until recently this has been a uniquely weak recovery, and as such, tells us little yet about the extent to which full employment will lift the relative economic fortunes of black workers.

If we get to and stay at full employment, I’m confident it will work as it has in the past, based both on the history briefly cited above and on some truly exciting results from a new paper we’ve commissioned for our full employment project on the benefits of full employment to black workers, written by the economist Valarie Wilson from the Economic Policy Institute.

Valerie will be highlighting the results at an event we’re holding in DC on March 30th so far be it from me to steal her thunder. But she’s got some panel data regressions (which provide lots more observations and variance than the simple time series comparisons noted above) showing the impact of lower unemployment on black compared to white median wages, and man…all’s I can say is I’m employing great restraint not to just print them right here and now!

Here’s another point worth considering. Various economists on team full employment have been trying to get the Fed to hold off on its interest rate liftoff, but Appelbaum writes: “It’s not obvious, however, that holding down borrowing costs for a little longer would be an effective way to address the underlying problem. Indeed, the problem is a good illustration of the limits of monetary policy.”

That may be true in the following sense: if the Fed raises rates a little bit in 2015q4 instead of 2015q3, I doubt it will matter that much to anyone in the real economy (though financial markets would make a huge deal out of it). Similarly, if they hold to a 5.4% full employment rate and a firm 2% inflation ceiling that mustn’t be breached, or if they shift from being data driven to shooting at the phantom menace of inflation that’s allegedly hiding out of sight from the data just around the corner—well then, yeah, they won’t much help those who depend on lasting full employment to catch a break.

He’s also got a point re underlying problems. Even full employment may not be enough to reach the millions of workers with criminal records who face uniquely high barriers to the job market. I’ve written about fair-hiring policies to reach these workers, and so has Appelbaum.

But check this out: I mentioned our March 30 event. Well, another speaker on the panel that morning will be the guy from whom I learned all I know about fair-hiring, Maurice Emsellem from the National Employment Law Project.

I know what you’re thinking: what about macro, what about Fed policy? How can you call yourself a full employment maven and leave that out? Did I forget to mention our keynote speaker? A fella named Bernanke…Ben Bernanke. Here’s the flyer. Be there and be square.

Source