Fed Officials Warn Congress Against Rethinking Bank’s Design
Two regional Federal Reserve presidents defended the public-private structure of the U.S. central bank in prepared testimony they’re scheduled to deliver before lawmakers on Wednesday, saying it...
Two regional Federal Reserve presidents defended the public-private structure of the U.S. central bank in prepared testimony they’re scheduled to deliver before lawmakers on Wednesday, saying it helps guard monetary policy from political interference.
“The Fed’s public-private structure supports monetary policy independence by ensuring a measure of apolitical leadership,” Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed, said in the text obtained by Bloomberg. Lacker and Esther George, head of the Kansas City Fed, are set to appear before a subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee in Washington.
George said the Fed’s structure, created by Congress in 1913, “recognized the public’s distrust of concentrated power and greater confidence in decentralized institutions.”
The hearing, before the House Financial Services sub-committee on monetary policy and trade, will examine the governance of Federal Reserve banks and how it relates to the conduct of monetary policy and economic performance.
Calls for Fed reform have resonated in the U.S. presidential campaign, with Democratic party nominee Hillary Clinton joining calls for structural changes within the central bank and more diversity in the ranks of its leadership.
Fed Up
A coalition of pro-labor activists, known as Fed Up, published a paper in August, co-authored by former Fed economist Andrew Levin, arguing that the Fed should be transformed into a fully public institution, in line with central banks in most developed countries. Fed Up has been leading calls for the Fed to make its own ranks more diverse.
A separate study by Brookings Institution fellow Aaron Klein in August found that of 134 people who have served as regional Fed presidents since 1913, none were African American or Latino, and only six have been women.
“Our record in this regard, like that of many other organizations, shows a combination of substantial progress and areas where more can be done,” Lacker said on Fed diversity.
The Fed system’s Washington-based Board of Governors, appointed by the U.S. president and confirmed by the Senate, is considered a public agency. Its 12 regional reserve banks, however, are structured legally as private corporations owned by commercial banks in their districts. Their chiefs are appointed by non-bankers on their respective boards of directors, subject to a veto by the Board of Governors.
By Christopher Condon
Source
Janet Yellen, the first woman Fed chair, proved the skeptics wrong and got fired anyway
Janet Yellen, the first woman Fed chair, proved the skeptics wrong and got fired anyway
On February 3, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, the first woman to lead the central bank and likely the most qualified nominee ever for the post, will exit the Fed, leaving a legacy described...
On February 3, Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen, the first woman to lead the central bank and likely the most qualified nominee ever for the post, will exit the Fed, leaving a legacy described as “near perfection” and with an “A” grade from a majority of economists.
And yet in 2014, the US Senate confirmed Yellen by a vote of 56-26, the lowest number of “yes” votes a confirmed Fed chair has ever received.
Read the full article here.
Fed Up Applauds Cautious Approach to Rate Hikes This Year
02/05/2016
Statement & Booking Opportunity: Ady Barkan, Director of the Fed Up campaign, released the following statement in...
02/05/2016
Statement & Booking Opportunity: Ady Barkan, Director of the Fed Up campaign, released the following statement in response to today’s Jobs Report:
“While January’s job data shows a moderately good start to the new year, fears that global turmoil will roil the U.S. economy are giving Fed officials pause about raising interest rates. Earlier this week, San Francisco Fed President John Williams and Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan both suggested that recent foreign stock market instability is influencing the trajectory of projected interest rate increases by the Fed this year. Kaplan explained that stock market turmoil coupled with low commodity prices gives the Fed good reasons to be patient and take more time to assess the impact on the U.S. economy. The Federal Reserve intentionally slowed down the economy in December, ignoring the voices of working people around the country. In January, we learned that the economy barely grew at all in late 2015. And as international markets tumbled, the Fed began to walk back its excessive optimism. It’s good that Fed officials are now taking a cautious approach to rate hikes. They need to keep their eyes on the fundamentals, and prioritize higher labor force participation, higher wages, and lower racial disparities in the labor market.”
# # #
www.whatrecovery.com
Fed Up is a coalition of community organizations and labor unions across the country, campaigning for the Federal Reserve to adopt pro-worker policies for the rest of us. The Fed can keep interest rates low, give the economy a fair chance to recover, and prioritize full employment and rising wages.
Media Contact: Anita Jain, ajain@populardemocracy.org, 347-636-9761
Sofie Tholl, stholl@populardemocracy.org, 646-509-5558
As the federal government fails the people of Puerto Rico, local governments and states must step up
As the federal government fails the people of Puerto Rico, local governments and states must step up
Given the likelihood that even more Puerto Ricans will resettle on the mainland the Center for Popular Democracy and Local Progress have published a policy guide, the first of its kind, offering a...
Given the likelihood that even more Puerto Ricans will resettle on the mainland the Center for Popular Democracy and Local Progress have published a policy guide, the first of its kind, offering a roadmap for cities and states to address the immediate needs of their new constituents.
Read the full article here.
A New Law Is Letting Uber Drivers Unionize
After ride-hailing companies descended on Seattle and began slashing drivers’ pay, the City Council stepped in with a novel solution.
As the gig economy grows, companies like Airbnb and...
After ride-hailing companies descended on Seattle and began slashing drivers’ pay, the City Council stepped in with a novel solution.
As the gig economy grows, companies like Airbnb and Uber are challenging cities by reshaping entire industries, often harming workers in the process. The challenge for progressive-minded legislators has been that existing regulations have often proven inadequate. Recently, however, local policymakers have begun proposing innovative ways to cope with the changes.
In Seattle, this battle has played out around ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft. When the companies were first legalized in the city in 2014, they presented themselves as a needed transport service that let drivers make money outside of the rigid regulations imposed on the taxi industry. Those claims lost credibility over the next year, however, as Uber drivers’ pay was slashed from $2 per mile to about $1.20 per mile. As cuts deepened, drivers found it increasingly hard to make an income—and many taxi firms found it almost impossible to compete.
We clearly needed a solution. Although collective bargaining had never been tried in the gig economy, a Seattle labor lawyer named Dmitri Iglitzin who’d been mulling the possibility for years approached me with a groundbreaking idea: Rather than tinkering around the edges with new regulations, why not let for-hire drivers unionize and set their own terms?
The premise was intriguing: If Uber and Lyft are going to claim that drivers are independent contractors, then let’s take them at their word and insist that drivers be allowed to negotiate the terms of their contract with these multibillion-dollar companies. While federal law preempts localities from encouraging unionization for private-sector employees, independent contractors are exempt. We believe this means that cities can allow drivers the right to collectively bargain to negotiate a better quality of life and a more reliable transportation service, in a way that regulations cannot.
The timing couldn’t have been better. In the year after Uber and Lyft first began operation, the narrative in Seattle had shifted: The companies, once seen as upstart innovators, came to be seen as major corporations intent on asserting power to the detriment of workers.
Uber and Lyft drivers had already set up an association of app-based drivers through the Teamsters, which represented taxi drivers in Seattle. United, they were starting to raise their voices. They organized rallies and protests highlighting their struggles and testified at City Hall about their limited pay, long hours, and arbitrary deactivation. Growing popular outrage turned up the heat.
Surprisingly, even as criticism rose, both Uber and Lyft did little to fight back. It wasn’t because the companies didn’t have the will or capacity. Only a year earlier, in 2014, they had put up a major fight after the Seattle City Council proposed placing a cap on for-hire vehicles.
This time though, it was clear that they could not win over public opinion. As driver earnings spiraled downward, it was hard for anybody to deny that there was a problem with the companies’ treatment of their workers—and that something needed to be done about it.
Rather than tinkering around the edges with new regulations, why not let for-hire drivers unionize and set their own terms?
In December 2015, the Seattle City Council unanimously passed a law letting Uber and Lyft drivers bargain collectively and establish a process for binding arbitration. In coming months, we will finalize the rules and determine which union or association can represent drivers, who can then vote on whether they want to be represented or not. The US Chamber of Commerce is already suing, hoping that the courts determine that federal law preempts the Seattle law.
Even though contract negotiations are months away, the idea has already caught on in other cities and states. New York and Cincinnati are considering regulations that would expand collective bargaining rights to some gig-economy workers. And in California a similar law was introduced in the State Assembly (although it’s been withdrawn for the moment).
The on-demand economy is delivering important new benefits to consumers. But if we are going to build a more equitable society, we’ll need rules of the road to ensure workers are treated with dignity. Cities have a powerful role in realizing that vision.
By MIKE O'BRIEN
Source
6 days ago
6 days ago